/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240417.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 78
Headlines
23ANDME INC: Lefevere Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
3 SQUARES DINER: Fails to Pay Overtime, Stevens Suit Claims
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Cubby Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits
AIR LINE PILOTS: Reynolds Sues Over Exclusion From CBA Benefits
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Garza Sues Over Deceptive Cereal Bars' Labels
ALCHEMEE LLC: Faces Teron Suit Over Acne Product's False Ads
ALLIANCE GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dozier Alleges
ALLIED MARINE: Snell Sues Over Illegal Broker's Commission
AMAZON.COM INC: Intervenors' Bid to Intervene in Mbadiwe Denied
AMPHENOL CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 1
APPLE INC: Faces Miller Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
APPLE INC: Kyndberg Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
APPLE INC: Schermer Sues Over Monopoly in Smartphone Markets
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 28
AT&T INC: Faces Knight Suit Over Massive Private Data Breach
AT&T INC: Faces Petroski Suit Over Private Data Breach
AT&T INC: Jaramillo Sues Over Private Data Breach
AT&T INC: March Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
AT&T INC: Montoya Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
AT&T INC: Nelli Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
BETTER HOME: Wright Sues Over Invalid Advance Notice Bylaw
BOATS GROUP: Magna Charter Sues Over Yacht Sales Conspiracy
C&S LOGISTICS: Tercero Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Raymundo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE: Mackey Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING: Faces Stricker Consumer Privacy Suit in Va.
DIOCESE OF PATERSON: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in S.Y. Suit
DYSON DIRECT: Ibrahim and Castillo Allege Labor Law Breaches
ELECTRIC LAST: Hacker Suit Settlement Likely to Be OK'd, Court Says
ELGA GENERAL: Neves Seeks Proper Minimum and Overtime Wages
EXECUTIVE CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grafenberg Says
FIELDHOUSE BREWING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galloway Alleges
FIG & OLIVE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Anderson Says
FLORIDA: Vigil Sues for Wrongful Retention of License Fees
FLYING HORSE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, McCollough and Seal Say
FRONTLINE ASSET: New Jersey Court Tosses Consolidated Chang Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Reed & McCoy Sue Over Unlawful Data Sharing
GITLAB INC: Schantz Suit Seeks Invalidation of Advance Notice Bylaw
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses All Claims Against Apple in CCS Suit
H & M HENNES: McDonald and Baez Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
HIGH HEELS: Nevarez Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
HISAMITSU AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 21
HUMMUS & PITA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Claims
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: McMurray Sues Over Returned Deposit Item Fees
IDAHO: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 2
INDEPENDENT BANK: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Grice Partly OK'd
INWOOD RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galindo Alleges
JOB PRO STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges
KARIBANDI FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nunez Suit Alleges
LEVEL 3: Plaintiffs Seek to Reinstate Conditional Cert Bid
LLOYD AUSTIN: Parties in Arzamendi Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing
LOANCARE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Tederick Suit
LONG BEACH, CA: Class Certification Bid Due May 28
LUCERO AG: Class Certification Bid in Ortiz Due June 2, 2025
MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Loses Class Certification Bid
MATTEL INC: Faces Prattico Suit Over ERISA Violations
META PLATFORMS: 9th Cir. Affirms Damages Class Cert. in DZ Suit
MICHAEL ISABELLA: Delcid Wins Class Status Bid
MYLAN NV: Direct Purchaser Settlement Class Certified in KPH Suit
NCAA: Seeks to Provisionally File Docs Under Seal in Hubbard
NORDSTROM INC: Pochulsky Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
NORTH MEMORIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Mekhail Suit
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Summary Judgment Bid vs Clemons Partly OK'd
NOVA HOME: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Tossed
NOVA HOME: SHCSI Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
OLIN CORP: Faces Securities Over Caustic Soda Price-Rigging
OPTA GROUP: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss in MCGM Suit
PATHWAYS IN EDUCATION: Moore Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
PG&E CORP: Securities Suit Over CA Wildfires Stayed
PHARMACARE US: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Granted In Part
PHARMACARE US: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 31
PHARMACARE US: Corbett Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 18
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Seeks Redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4
PRYMOR INC: Potiyevskiy Sues Over Worker Misclassification
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retirement Plans
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Faces Schmitt Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
SHANER OPERATING: Paton Seeks Proper Minimum Wages
SHIPWRIGHT SPAC: Richards Brings Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
STONEMOR GP: Simpson Loses Bid to Certify Class
STORER TRANSPORTATION: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages & PAGA Penalties
STURM & RUGER: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Cilluffo Suit
TEAM VOLKSWAGEN: Merritt Sues Over Labor Code Violations
THEMIS BAR: Gunter Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE: Lefevere Alleges Unfair Debt Collection
TWIN RIVERS: Facility Causes Noxious Odor, McDonald Alleges
UNDER PRESSURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mouchas Alleges
UNITED STATES: Bids to Dismiss Sequeira v. DHS Granted in Part
UNITEDHEALTHCARE GROUP: Be Well Balks at Inadequate Data Security
VI-JON, LLC: Loughlin' Loses Bid for Class Certification
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hernandez Loses Class Status Bid
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Proposed Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod
WALMART ASSOCIATES: Fact Discovery in Hernandez Due April 26
WARNER BROS: CPPB Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
WARNER BROS: Todorovski Shareholder Suit Dismissed
WAVES AMERICAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diarra Alleges
WAYFAIR LLC: Stricker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
WEIRTON MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Foltz Alleges
WESTON EDUCATIONAL: Waunsch Loses Class Cert Bid
WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Esquivel Says
YIELDSTREET INC: Tecku Class Certification Bid Denied in Part
ZAGG INC: Faces Nasim Suit Over Worker Misclassification
ZERO BELOW: Failed to Pay Proper Wages, Edwards Alleges
[^] 2024 Class Action Conference Agenda
*********
23ANDME INC: Lefevere Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LEFEVERE, individually and behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-004460 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 1,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
On July 28, 2023 and August 26, 2023, the Defendant sent electronic
mail communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection
of consumer debt. However, they were sent to Plaintiff at 2:34 AM
and 2:33 AM at Plaintiff's time zone, in violation of the FCCPA,
says the suit.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, 23andMe, Inc. is a
biotechnology company that offers genetic testing and development
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
3 SQUARES DINER: Fails to Pay Overtime, Stevens Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Stevens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3 Squares Diner, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-00027-WLS (M.D. Ga., March 22, 2024) seeks damages for the
harm caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct and wage theft,
including but not limited to lost wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, costs, and all other remedies available under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees (such as Line Cooks and
Servers) an overtime rate for the hours which they worked over
forty in each workweek in these non-exempt positions. The Defendant
violated the FLSA by making unlawful deductions of 30 minutes from
the time records of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees for supposed meal periods, despite that, with very rare
exceptions, no break was taken and the time was entirely spent
doing the employees' same normal duties, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in the position of Line Cook
from July 1, 2023 through October 23, 2023.
3 Squares Diner, LLC owns and operates at least nine diner
restaurants in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250 ext. 5500
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Cubby Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAQUIESHA CUBBY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE AGENCY OF TENNESSEE,
INC. D/B/A ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 24-001342-CI
(Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., March 22, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a
consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent to
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone
of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff
to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by
and through each of the electronic communications, Defendant
violated the law, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt.
Acceptance Insurance Agency of Tennessee, Inc. provides insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acutus Medical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from consolidated securities class suits
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
The Company and certain of its current officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed
by putative stockholders in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on February 15, 2022 and March
23, 2022 (case numbers 22CV206 and 22CV0388).
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about its business, prospects and operations.
The putative claims are based upon statements made in filings made
by the Company with the SEC, press releases and on earnings calls
between May 13, 2021 and November 11, 2021.
The lawsuits seek, among other relief, a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses and costs.
On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two actions, appointed
a lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel for the proposed class.
On September 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.
The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss.
On September 27, 2023, the court granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss in its entirety, but gave plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.
On October 27, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting similar claims.
The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss. The Company is
defending the action.
While it is defending the actions, due to the complex nature of the
legal and factual issues involved in these matters, the outcome is
not presently determinable.
If these matters were to proceed beyond the pleading stage, the
Company could be required to incur substantial costs and expenses
to defend these matters and/or be required to pay substantial
damages or settlement costs, which could materially adversely
affect its business, financial condition and results of
operations.
Acutus Medical, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets a range of
tools for catheter-based ablation procedures to treat various
arrhythmias including access sheaths, diagnostic and mapping
catheters, ablation catheters, mapping and imaging consoles and
accessories, as well as supporting algorithms and software
programs.
AIR LINE PILOTS: Reynolds Sues Over Exclusion From CBA Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA REYNOLDS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Case No.
2:24-cv-01422-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 28, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of failing to represent Plaintiff and similarly situated
disabled pilots in negotiating for increased benefits under the
2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Plaintiff is a pilot employed by United Airlines, Inc. (United)
who has been on Long Term Disability (LTD) since September 2017.
She was a dues-paying member in good standing, represented
exclusively by her labor union, Defendant Air Line Pilots
Association, International (ALPA). She and similarly situated
disabled pilots are unable to obtain increases in benefits provided
under the new CBA reached between United and ALPA that took effect
on September 29, 2023. The increases in benefits under the 2023 CBA
only cover pilots who went on LTD on or after September 29, 2023,
as well as a number of pilots previously on LTD for long COVID,
making Plaintiffs and Class members ineligible for the improved
benefits.
The Plaintiff accuses ALPA of repeatedly ignoring, rebuffing, and
misleading Plaintiff and dozens of other disabled pilots and local
union representatives who requested or proposed increases in
benefits for pilots already on LTD. ALPA's alleged utter disregard
of Plaintiff and Class members resulted in these disabled pilots
being left out of the increased benefits negotiated in the new 2023
CBA. The Plaintiff further alleges that ALPA's failure to negotiate
for such pilots was done arbitrarily, in bad faith, and
discriminatorily. The Plaintiff now brings a claim for breach of
the duty of fair representation as provided for by the provisions
of the Railway Labor Act.
Based in Virginia, ALPA is the largest airline pilot union in the
world, representing more than 77,000 pilots from 43 US and Canadian
airlines. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Garza Sues Over Deceptive Cereal Bars' Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GARZA and ARAYIK SHAHBAZIAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02622 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2024)
arises from Defendant's deceptive marketing and sale of Fruit &
Grain Cereal Bars.
Albertsons Companies Inc. sells Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars packaged
in various shades of blue packaging with images of blueberries,
next to two bars with dark blue filling, described as "Blueberry
Naturally Flavored" under the Signature Select brand. However,
"Blueberry Naturally Flavored" is false, deceptive, and/or
misleading, because the said product uses artificial flavoring
ingredients to create, simulate, resemble and reinforce its
filling's blueberry taste. Even though the product includes
artificial flavoring in the form of DL-malic acid, it does not bear
labeling stating that fact, the suit alleges.
Headquartered in Idaho, Albertsons Companies Inc. is a Delaware
corporation that operates hundreds of grocery stores across the
United States, including in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle Gurwell, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KYLE GURWELL
7755 Center Ave Ste 1100
Huntington Beach CA 92647
Telephone: (562) 600-9989
E-mail: kng@lawofficekg.com
ALCHEMEE LLC: Faces Teron Suit Over Acne Product's False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE TERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALCHEMEE, LLC and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01918-NC (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of consumer fraud, arising from the false advertising of
its acne treatment products that contain benzene.
This action arises from Defendants' manufacturing, distribution,
advertising, marketing, and sale of Proactiv branded benzoyl
peroxide acne treatment products (BPO Products) that contain
dangerously high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen that has
been linked to leukemia and other cancers. The Defendants allegedly
misrepresented, omitted, and concealed material facts about its BPO
Products by not including benzene on the products' labels or
otherwise warning about its presence. The Defendants' conduct
caused substantial injury to Plaintiff and Class members because
they would not have paid for Defendants’ BPO Products had they
known that they contained benzene, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendants' alleged violation of
state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract,
violation of Business & Professions Code, and violation of
California Civil Code.
Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Alchemee, LLC is a manufacturer
of personal care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Bradley, Esq.
Kiley Grombacher, Esq.
Lisa Johnston Nicholes, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
ljnicholes@bradleygrombacher.com
ALLIANCE GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dozier Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
TYLER JORDAN DOZIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC;
and AMR RESOURCES, LLC, d/b/a MULTIBAND GLOBAL, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00348 (M.D. Tenn., March 27, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Dozier was employed by the Defendants as a technician.
ALLIANCE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC is a government relations and
business development firm providing strategic analysis, advisory,
and project development management to domestic and international
clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
ALLIED MARINE: Snell Sues Over Illegal Broker's Commission
----------------------------------------------------------
KIP LAMAR SNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED MARINE, INC., DENISON YACHTS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, GALATI YACHT SALES, LLC, HMY YACHT SALES, INC.,
INTERNATIONAL YACHT CORPORATION, MARINEMAX, INC., MARINEMAX EAST,
INC., SHARON & JACK MALATICH LLC, D/B/A S&J YACHTS, NORTHROP &
JOHNSON YACHTS-SHIPS, LLC, RICK OBEY YACHT SALES LLC, OCEAN
INDEPENDENCE YACHTS, LLC, ONEWATER MARINE INC., R.J.C. YACHT SALES,
INC., UNITED YACHT SALES, LLC, WORTH AVENUE YACHTS, LLC, BOATS
GROUP, LLC, PERMIRA ADVISERS LIMITED, PERMIRA ADVISERS LLC,
INTERNATIONAL YACHT BROKERS ASSOCIATION, INC., F/K/A FLORIDA YACHT
BROKERS ASSOCIATION, YACHT BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.,
and YATCO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60461 (S.D. Fla.,
March 22, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff against Defendants for
agreeing, combining, and conspiring to adopt, impose, and enforce
an anticompetitive restraint that requires yacht sellers to pay a
brokerage fee to the buyer's broker and a total aggregate
commission fee that is inflated as a condition for selling their
yachts in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Plaintiff Snell brings this action on behalf of himself and on
behalf of the Class consisting of all persons who listed vessels on
certain Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) using a listing agent or
broker affiliated with one of the Broker Defendants named herein
and paid a buyer's broker's commission from March 22, 2020, until
the present. Together and along with other unnamed co-conspirators,
Defendants have conspired to require boat sellers to pay a
commission to the broker representing the buyer of their boats in
violation of federal antitrust law, says the suit.
The Defendants are boating brokerages, MLSs, and yacht broker
associations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Marc A. Wites, Esq.
Thomas B. Rogers, Esq.
WITES & ROGERS, P.A.
4400 North Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
Telephone: (954) 933-4400
Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com
trogers@witeslaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Intervenors' Bid to Intervene in Mbadiwe Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAFARI MBADIWE and RACHEL
MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order denying the proposed
intervenors' motion to intervene.
Judge Broderick said, "Because I find that the Proposed Intervenors
do not have a sufficiently substantial interest in the instant
action, and because intervention will clearly prejudice the rights
of the parties, the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene is
denied."
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8C67UR at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPHENOL CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 1
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bookhout v. Amphenol
Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00777 (N.D.N.Y., Filed June 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Thomas J. Mcavoy entered an order on motion
for extension of time to complete discovery as follows:
(1) Class Certification Discovery shall May 14, 2024
be completed by:
(2) Class Certification Motion shall July 1, 2024
be filed by:
(3) Mandatory Mediation shall be June 14, 2024
completed by:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving denial of overtime compensation.[CC]
APPLE INC: Faces Miller Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MILLER and ANGELA BOYKIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01988 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2024) arises from
Defendant's restrictive contracts and anticompetitive practices in
the smartphone market and asserts claims for violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Cartwright Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs Miller and Boykin allege that Apple's anticompetitive
and exclusionary course of conduct is exemplified by its
contractual rules and restrictions targeting key products and
services: super apps, cloud streaming apps, messaging apps, video
messaging/conferencing apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets.
Among other things, Plaintiffs claim that Apple delays, degrades,
or outright blocks technologies that would increase competition in
the relevant markets by decreasing barriers to switching to another
smartphone.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple is a global technology
company with a market capitalization of over $2.5 trillion.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew George, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephoe: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
breed@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Donald R. Hall, Esq.
Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
Chang Hahn, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7715
E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
dhall@kaplanfox.com
hnam@kaplanfox.com
chahn@kaplanfox.com
APPLE INC: Kyndberg Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA KYNDBERG, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-01107 (D. Minn., March 29, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
accusing the Defendant of engaging in anticompetitive and
monopolistic practices in smartphone market in the United States in
violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff claims that Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary
course of conduct is exemplified by its contractual rules and
restrictions targeting several products and services: super apps,
cloud streaming apps, messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital
wallets. By stifling these technologies, and many others, Apple
reinforces its smartphone monopoly not by making its products more
attractive to users, but by discouraging innovation that threatens
Apple's smartphone monopoly or the disintermediation of the iPhone,
the Plaintiff says.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple is a global technology
company with a market capitalization of over $2.5 trillion. One of
the company's signature products is iPhone, a performance
smartphone. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
Joseph N. Roda, Esq.
Michael S. Tarringer, Esq.
Michele S. Burkholder, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
E-mail: jnroda@nastlaw.com
dnast@nastlaw.com
mtarringer@nastlaw.com
mburkholder@nastlaw.com
APPLE INC: Schermer Sues Over Monopoly in Smartphone Markets
------------------------------------------------------------
JARED SCHERMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01815 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2024) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated purchasers of iPhones indirectly from Apple, under Section
2 of the Sherman Act to challenge Apple's maintenance of its
monopoly over smartphone markets which affect at least many tens of
millions of Americans every day.
This complaint highlights five out of many examples of Apple using
mechanisms to suppress technologies that would have increased
competition among smartphones. Suppressing these technologies does
not reflect competition on the merits. Rather, to protect its
smartphone monopoly -- and the extraordinary profits this monopoly
generates -- Apple repeatedly chooses to make its products worse
for consumers to prevent competition from emerging.
By maintaining its monopoly over smartphones, Apple harms consumers
in a wide variety of additional ways, notes the complaint. For
example, by denying iPhone users the ability to choose their
trusted banking apps as their digital wallet, Apple retains full
control both over the consumer and also over the stream of income
generated by forcing users to use only Apple-authorized products in
the digital wallet. Apple has demonstrated its ability to use its
smartphone monopoly to impose fee structures and manipulate app
reviews to inhibit aggrieved parties from taking advantage of
regulatory and judicial solutions imposed on Apple that attempt to
narrowly remedy harm from Apple's conduct, the complaint asserts.
Apple Inc. designs, markets, and sells Apple iOS devices, including
the iPhone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel David, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 739-0622
E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com
blake.yagman@davidllc.com
- and -
Mario A. Moya, Esq.
Rebecca M. Hoberg, Esq.
MOYA LAW FIRM
1300 Clay St., Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
E-mail: mmoya@moyalawfirm.com
rhoberg@moyalawfirm.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA CAMPBELL,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ARIZONA
BEVERAGES USA LLC and HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-02752-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered
an order providing the following schedule:
Event Deadline
Class certification motion and May 28, 2024
Plaintiff's class certification expert
disclosures due:
Deadline to complete depositions of July 15, 2024
Plaintiff's class certification experts:
Defendants' class certification opposition; July 30, 2024
class certification expert disclosures; and
Daubert motions concerning Plaintiff's class
certification experts due:
Deadline to complete depositions of Aug. 15, 2024
Defendants' class certification experts:
Plaintiff's class certification reply; Aug. 30, 2024
opposition to Defendants' class
certification Daubert motions; and
affirmative class certification Daubert
motions due:
Plaintiff's Daubert reply due: Oct. 14, 2024
No further extensions of the class certification and Daubert
deadlines will be granted without a case management conference to
discuss the source of the delays, the suit says.
Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails,
and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=09m8Ll at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
12429 Cedar RoadSuite 2
Cleveland, OH 44106
Telephone: (215) 508-3254
Facsimile: (877) 862-2407
AT&T INC: Faces Knight Suit Over Massive Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
SAM KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00324-J (W.D. Okla., April 1, 2024) stems from a massive
and preventable data breach involving the personally identifiable
information of more than 70 million current and former AT&T
customers and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract,
and for violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act.
The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach Email, dated March
31, 2024, notifying him that his PII had been identified by AT&T as
being compromised in the data breach, which approximately occurred
or on or around March 16, 2024. Moreover, Defendant deprived
Plaintiff of the earliest opportunity to guard himself against the
data breach's effects by failing to notify him about it for weeks,
says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. is a telecommunication
company with annual revenue of $163.71 billion. The company's
services and products include wireless communications,
data/broadband and internet services, local and long-distance
telephone services, telecommunications equipment, managed
networking, and feature film, and television. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
AT&T INC: Faces Petroski Suit Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
ALEX PETROSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00757-L (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
its customers, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and for
violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
In or about March 2024, the details of 73 million former and
current AT&T customer accounts, including full names, email
addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social
security numbers, AT&T account number and passcode were leaked
online. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit
on behalf all those similarly situated to address AT&T's inadequate
safeguarding of Class members' sensitive information that it
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. is one of the largest
wireless carriers and Internet providers in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
AT&T INC: Jaramillo Sues Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
C. MARIO JARAMILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00761-L (N.D. Tex., March 31, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to adequately safeguard data breach victims' personal
information. Plaintiff Jaramillo asserts claims for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's Consumer Privacy Act.
In or about March 2024, Defendant AT&T admitted that it lost
control over its current and former customers' highly sensitive
personal information in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered imminent and
impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of
fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from AT&T’s failures
to safeguard his personally identifiable information, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. provides telecommunications,
media, and technology services, offering wireless communications,
data/broadband and internet services, among other things. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Drive, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: dgeorge@4-Justice.com
bbrown@ 4-Justice.com
eservice@4-Justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: lfeldman@ 4-Justice.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (917) 983-2707
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: jpollack@4-Justice.com
and -
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
Facsimile: (713) 513-5202
E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
AT&T INC: March Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MARCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00758-L (N.D. Tex., March 31, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information.
On or about March 30, 2024, AT&T informed many Class members by
email notice and mail notice that their sensitive PII had been
compromised. It confirmed that Plaintiff's and Class members' PII
were released on the Dark Web. The data breach occurred in 2019 but
Defendant did not begin informing victims of the data breach until
the said date. Moreover, the Defendant failed to explain how the
data breach occurred, what steps it took following the data breach,
whether Defendant made any changes to its data security, or most
importantly, whether Plaintiff's and Class members' PII remains in
the possession of criminals, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. is an international
telecommunications corporation that offers mobile communication
services and broadband connectivity to millions of residential and
business customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
AT&T INC: Montoya Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00760-N (N.D. Tex., March 31, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to reasonably secure, monitor, and maintain its
former and current customers' personally identifiable information.
On or around March 31, 2024, the Defendant began notifying
Plaintiff and other victims about the data breach. As a result of
the data breach, Plaintiff and approximately 73 million Class
members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not
limited to invasion of privacy and theft of their PII. Moreover,
Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the data breach
made its customers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII. In failing to adequately
protect customers' information, adequately notify them about the
breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant
violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its former and
current customers, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. is an international
telecommunications corporation that offers mobile communication
services and broadband connectivity to millions of residential and
business customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
AT&T INC: Nelli Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS NELLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00759-E (N.D. Tex., March 31, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated current and former customers' sensitive
information and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
and breach of implied contract.
In or about March 2024, the personally identifiable information of
73 million former and current AT&T customer accounts, including
those of 7.6 million current customers and 65.4 million former
customers, were published online on a known cybercrime forum.
Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breach and
data security compromises, Defendant failed to take appropriate
steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class members from being
compromised, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T is a multinational
telecommunications corporation and, with its subsidiaries and
affiliates, is one of the United States’ most popular wireless
carriers and Internet providers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
BETTER HOME: Wright Sues Over Invalid Advance Notice Bylaw
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated stockholders of BETTER HOME & FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY,
Plaintiff v. MICHAEL FARELLO; VISHAL GARG; ARNAUD MASSENET; PRABHU
NARASIMHAN; STEVEN SARRACINO; HARIT TALWAR; RIAZ VALANI; and BETTER
HOME & FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0306
(Del., Ch., March 26, 2024) seeks declaratory relief invalidating
the Advance Notice Bylaw of Better Home & Finance Holding Company.
According to the complaint, like many corporations, Better Home has
an advance notice bylaw that requires any stockholder seeking to
nominate a candidate to the board of directors (the "Board") to
provide advance notice of such nomination to the Company (the
"Advance Notice Bylaw"). 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. Better
Home's Advance Notice Bylaw, however, incorporates a definition of
"Acting in Concert" that renders the Advance Notice Bylaw
preclusive and coercive.
These provisions serve as an unlawful deterrent to those seeking to
meaningfully participate in the nomination process—a fundamental
right of stockholders of a Delaware corporation. Because
stockholders may be Acting in Concert with other stockholders
without any knowledge of doing so, it is impossible, as a practical
matter, for a stockholder to (i) submit a notice of nomination that
complies with the Advance Notice Bylaw or (ii) reasonably believe
that their notice of nomination complies with the Advance Notice
Bylaw.
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, says the suit.
BETTER HOME & FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY operates as a digital native
homeownership company. The Company offers residential mortgage,
insurance, and real estate solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Daniel M. Baker, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blocklevtion.com
daniel@blocklevtion.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
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
BOATS GROUP: Magna Charter Sues Over Yacht Sales Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAGNA CHARTER, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOATS GROUP, LLC; PERMIRA
ADVISERS, LLC; YATCO, LLC; INTERNATIONAL YACHT BROKER'S
ASSOCIATION, INC.; YACHT BROKER'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; UNITED
YACHT SALES, LLC,; DENISON YACHT SALES, INC.; DENISON NEW YACHTS,
LLC; NORTHROP & JOHNSON YACHT SALES, LLC; HMY YACHT SALES, INC;
GALATI YACHT SALES, LLC; HMY YACHT SALES, INC.; MARINEMAX, INC.;
SHARON & JACK MALATICH, LLC; TOURNAMENT YACHT SALES, LLC; RJC YACHT
SALES, INC.;THE MULTIHULL COMPANY, LLC; SUNSHINE CRUISING YACHTS
LLC; and CATAMARAN SALES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-21146-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2024) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
controlled the market for Yacht brokerage services and enforced
rules dominating the Yacht brokerage industry. Significantly,
brokers require (1) sellers to pay a supracompetitve commission set
as a percentage of the closing price on the sale of a Yacht, and
(2) payment of part of that commission to the broker representing
the buyer in the deal.
There are no pro-competitive effects of the Defendants' conspiracy,
and to the extent any pro-competitive effects exist, they are
substantially outweighed by the conspiracy's anticompetitive
effects on the Yacht brokerage market. Any brokers who wish to
compete outside of Defendants' anticompetitive restraints would
face insurmountable entry barriers. The Defendants' control of the
Covered Multiple Listing Services (the "Yacht MLSs")means that
non-conspiring brokers would need to establish an alternative
listing service to compete with the Broker Defendants, or,
alternatively, attempt to compete without access to a listing
service, says the suit.
BOATS GROUP, LLC provides technology based marketing solutions. The
Company offers internet advertising, lead generation, customer
relationship management, data management, and website design and
hosting. Boats Group serves the recreational marine industry around
the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Bruce Love, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 357-9010
Email: klove@cridenlove.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Email: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
beichel@bonizack.com
- and -
William J. Leonard, Esq.
OBERMAYER REBMAN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
1500 Market Street, Suite 3400
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215)665-3000
Email: william.leonard@obermayer.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Paul Costa, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
pcosta@finekaplan.com
- and -
Jeffrey Gittleman, Esq.
Megan Jane Talbot, Esq.
POGUST GOODHEAD
Eight Tower Bridge
161 Washington Street, Suite 250
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 941-4204
Email: jgittleman@pogustgoodhead.com
mtalbot@pogustgoodhead.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Email: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
C&S LOGISTICS: Tercero Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TENIAH TERCERO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C&S LOGISTICS OF SACRAMENTO/TRACY LLC,
et al., Case No. 24CV003371, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on March 28, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-at-00387 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged multiple violations of the
California Labor Code.
Based in Sacramento,CA, C&S Logistics provides logistics services.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Telephone: (415) 659-2600
Facsimile: (415) 659-2601
CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Raymundo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO RAYMUNDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, and KF
SUNRAY, LLC d/b/a "Sunray Healthcare Center," Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02400 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2024) is a collective and
representative Private Attorneys General Act action to recover from
the Defendant unpaid overtime and other damages owed to Plaintiff
and other similarly situated workers, under California Labor Code
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime,
failure to keep accurate records, failure to furnish employee file
and payroll records upon request, and failure to provide accurate
and complete wage statements.
Plaintiff Raymundo is an hourly employee of Defendants in
California and has worked for Defendants at Sunray Healthcare
Center. He has been employed by Defendants from approximately
January 2011 to present, in the position of Respiratory Therapist.
Cambridge Healthcare Services, LLC is a large nursing home operator
that manages approximately 38 skilled nursing facilities in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison M. Rattet, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0264
Facsimile: (954) 807-7797
E-mail: arattet@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE: Mackey Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANTECAILLE BEAUTE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-004463 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April
1, 2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages
for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
The Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted
Chantecaille and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted
to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone
number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each
violation.
Chantecaille Beaute, Inc. sells skincare products and cosmetics
throughout the United States through its online store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING: Faces Stricker Consumer Privacy Suit in Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Stricker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00501 (E.D. Va., March 28, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.
This action arises from Defendant's alleged unauthorized disclosure
of its subscribers' personally identifiable information to a third
party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook). The Plaintiff
claims that Defendant has engaged in a practice of knowingly
disclosing to Meta its consumers' PII which identifies the videos
Plaintiff and similarly situated subscribers request or obtain from
certain websites owned by Defendant, in violation of the VPPA.
Headquartered in Virginia Beach, VA, Christian Broadcasting Network
is the world's largest producer of Christian programming. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Johnson, Esq.
Greg Porter, Esq.
Jonathan Deem, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: njohnson@baileyglasser.com
gporter@baileyglasser.com
jdeem@baileyglasser.com
- and -
James Allen Carney, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
1 Allied Drive
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com
DIOCESE OF PATERSON: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in S.Y. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Evelyn Padin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in
the lawsuit styled S.Y., Plaintiff v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF
PATERSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02605-EP-CLW
(D.N.J.).
Defendant Salesians of Don Bosco moves to exclude the testimony of
Plaintiff S.Y.'s standard of care expert, as well as for summary
judgment on the sole negligence claim brought against it. The Court
decides the motions on the papers. For the reasons set forth in
this Opinion, the Court rules that the Defendant's motion to
exclude the expert testimony of the Plaintiff's standard of care
expert will be denied in part and granted in part; and the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be denied.
Between approximately 1973 and 1975, the Plaintiff was enrolled as
a student at Don Bosco Technical High School ("Don Bosco") in
Paterson, New Jersey, managed by the Defendant. During this
timeframe, Father Rooney was a teacher at Don Bosco. Over the
course of these two years, on over 100 occasions, Rooney sexually
abused the Plaintiff in the Don Bosco's locker room showers and
clergy living quarters.
The Plaintiff did not report the sexual abuse to anyone. However,
the Plaintiff testified that, on one occasion, a priest or brother
walked into the locked locker room showers where Rooney was
sexually abusing the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also testified that,
on several occasions, other clergy observed the Plaintiff going to
and leaving from the clergy living quarters with Rooney, despite
the prohibition against students accessing the clergy living
quarters. No clergy reported the sexual abuse that the Plaintiff
underwent at Don Bosco.
In approximately 2005, the Defendant issued a "Wellness Plan" to
Rooney, which acknowledged that there were seven known victims that
Rooney had sexually abused when the victims were minors. In
approximately 2008, Rooney was laicized and stripped of his
clerical status.
The Plaintiff first filed the case as a putative class action in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County, against the
Salesian Society, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson (the
"Diocese"), and Don Bosco. A negligence claim was asserted against
the Salesian Society, the Diocese, and Don Bosco, respectively. The
Salesian Society subsequently removed the case to this Court,
invoking diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a)(1).
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Diocese from the case. The
Salesian Society moved to dismiss the Complaint, or, in the
alternative, to strike certain allegations from the Complaint. The
Court denied the Salesian Society's motion.
The Salesian Society now brings two motions. First, the Salesian
Society moves to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Sherryll
Kraizer, the Plaintiff's standard of care expert. The Plaintiff
opposes. The Salesian Society replies. Second, the Salesian Society
moves for summary judgment on the negligence claim the Plaintiff
brings against it. The Plaintiff opposes. The Salesian Society
replies.
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility
of expert witness testimony. The Defendant attacks all three
prerequisites necessary for the admissibility of Dr. Sherryll
Kraizer's testimony. The Plaintiff refutes each attack.
The Court will exclude the portions of Kraizer's Report that
consist of legal conclusions and which merely narrate the
Plaintiff's deposition testimony because they do not "fit" the
case.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiff: Kraizer is qualified to
testify on matters concerning child abuse prevention. Judge Padin
opines that the Defendant's argument that Kraizer is unqualified is
a strawman. Kraizer need not be qualified as a historian, as the
Defendant suggests, to be qualified as "an expert in the field of
prevention, recognition, and reporting of child abuse, sexual
harassment, and sexual misconduct," or as an expert "in the
standard of care for hiring, retention, policies, and procedures,
and supervision of youth-serving organizations about the risks of
sexual abuse."
Accordingly, the Court concludes Kraizer is qualified.
The Defendant also argues that Kraizer's testimony is not based on
reliable methodology because she did not clearly articulate the
methodology used in forming her opinions on the applicable standard
of care, as well as that she inappropriately relied upon the
opinions of another expert without independently assessing their
validity. The Plaintiff argues the opposite. The Court agrees with
the Plaintiff.
The Defendant moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's
negligence claim, arguing that the Plaintiff cannot establish that
a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Defendant
knew or should have known of Rooney's propensity for sexual abuse
during the time period that the Plaintiff was being abused.
The Plaintiff responds that the Defendant had actual notice of
Rooney's propensity for sexual abuse following an incident in which
a priest or brother walked into the locker room showers where the
Plaintiff and Rooney were alone and undressed; and constructive
notice of Rooney's propensity for sexual abuse as well, given that
other clergy observed the Plaintiff going to and leaving from the
off-limits clergy living quarters with Rooney.
The Court concludes that a dispute of material fact exists as to
whether the Defendant knew or should have known of Rooney's
propensity for sexual abuse, such that summary judgment cannot be
granted in the Defendant's favor.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
Judge Padin finds there is sufficient record evidence that when
taken together would support a finding by the trier of fact that
the Defendant knew or should have known that Rooney had a
propensity for sexual abuse.
Unlike in Kwitko v. Camp Shane, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 32910(U),
*4-5 (Sup Ct, Westchester County 2020), Judge Padin opines that the
Plaintiff's abuse did not occur in an office where the Plaintiff
was allowed to be; instead, a substantial part of the sexual abuse
occurred in clergy living quarters, where the Plaintiff was not
allowed to be and where the Plaintiff was observed going to and
leaving from by other clergy. Thus, the likelihood that the
Defendant was on notice of Rooney's propensity for sexual abuse was
higher than the defendants in In H.H. v. Salesians of Don Bosco,
2023 NY Slip Op 32909(U), *4-5 (Sup Ct, Westchester County 2020),
and Kwitko.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendant's motion to
exclude the expert testimony of the Plaintiff's standard of care
expert will be denied in part and granted in part. Specifically,
the portions of Kraizer's Report that consist of legal conclusions
and which merely narrate the Plaintiff's deposition testimony will
be excluded for lack of "fit" to the case.
Additionally, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yznaurd4 from PacerMonitor.com.
DYSON DIRECT: Ibrahim and Castillo Allege Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR IBRAHIM and KRISTILLIN CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. DYSON DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02400
(S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating
Plaintiffs' rights under the New York Labor Law.
Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendant violated the NYLL
by failing to pay Plaintiffs and other manual workers, on at least
as frequently as a weekly basis, paying them on a bi-weekly basis
instead. The Defendant further violated the NYLL by failing to
furnish Plaintiffs with an accurate wage statement on each payday,
says the suit.
Based in Chicago, IL, Dyson sells, services, and repairs
technology, such as vacuum cleaners, hair styling tools, air
purifiers, headphones, and lighting, from various storefront
facilities located throughout the world. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile. (516) 248-6027
ELECTRIC LAST: Hacker Suit Settlement Likely to Be OK'd, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SCOTT T. HACKER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. ELECTRIC
LAST MILE SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00545—MEF-LDW (D.N.J.), Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an
Opinion explaining that the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of settlement is likely to be granted.
A public acquiring company (Forum Merger III Corporation) and a
private operating company (Electric Last Mile, Inc.) agreed to
merge. The proposed merger was approved during 2021 by a vote of
the acquiring company's shareholders. The shareholders voted, in
part, based on the private company's year-end 2020 financial
statements ("2020 Financial Statements") that were included in the
proxy statement the shareholders received. The newly-combined
company then submitted a registration statement to regulators,
which included the 2020 Financial Statements signed by various
people.
The 2020 Financial Statements were audited by an outside accounting
firm, BDO USA, LLP. The firm issued a "clean" opinion, which is the
highest level of assurance that an auditor can give on an
organization's financial statements.
In 2022, the merged company announced that the 2020 Financial
Statements would need to be restated because of accounting errors.
In the months before the merger, the private company had issued
shares for the benefit of certain senior employees. These shares,
it was announced in 2022, had not been properly accounted for. As a
result, the 2020 Financial Statements were themselves not proper
from an accounting perspective.
The day after the announcement, the merged company's share price
fell by about half.
The Plaintiffs, who are investors, sued (a) the outside accounting
firm that audited the 2020 Financial Statements, and (b) five
Individual Defendants: James Taylor, Jason Lao, Albert Li, Marshall
Kiev, and David Boris.
The Plaintiffs and the accounting firm are not proposing to settle.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims against the firm are generally
not relevant here. The Plaintiffs and the five Individual
Defendants are proposing to settle. That proposed settlement is the
subject of this Opinion. The five Individual Defendants are
referred to from here as "the Defendants."
Three of the Defendants (James Taylor and Jason Luo, plus Albert
Li) were senior employees of the private company before the merger.
It was for the benefit of two of these Defendants (James Taylor and
Jason Luo) that the private company issued shares in 2020. And it
was improper accounting for this share issuance that eventually
triggered the need to restate the 2020 Financial Statements.
Four of the Defendants, James Taylor and Jason Luo, plus Albert Li
and David Boris, signed the registration statement that attached
the 2020 Financial Statements. There are virtually no allegations
as to one of the five Defendants, Marshall Kiev.
The Plaintiffs' lawsuit cites Section 10 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act. The
Complaint also asserts "control person" liability against the
Defendants under Section 20(a). The Complaint claims the Defendants
violated the law by making a material misrepresentation in the 2021
registration statement.
As noted, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have reached a proposed
settlement of the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs have moved for
preliminary approval of the settlement, as required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.
The Court has analyzed each of the relevant Rule 23(a) and (b)
factors, and determined that it is "likely" to be able to certify
the class.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that: (i) the
proposed settlement is one that is "likely" to approve, though
subject to a caveat (approach to class notice) discussed in the
Opinion, and (ii) it is "likely" to determines that the overall
notice-and-claims process meets the relevant standards.
The Court is "likely" to certify the proposed class and to approve
the proposed settlement. This, though, is subject to the two
matters discussed in Part V.B.1. The parties will have an
opportunity to address them, on a schedule to be established in an
order that will issue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p983cy6 from PacerMonitor.com.
ELGA GENERAL: Neves Seeks Proper Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLEITON NEVES, Plaintiff v. ELGA GENERAL SERVICES LLC d/b/a ELGA
PRO, d/b/a ELGA CORP., Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-00606 (M.D.
Fla., April 1, 2024) is a class action lawsuit seeking to recover
money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as maintenance worker
from August 6, 2023 until his termination on October 10, 2023.
Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked approximately an
average of 70 hours per week without being compensated at proper
minimum and overtime wage rates, says the suit.
Elga General Services is a corporation duly authorized and existing
under the laws of the State of Florida and conducting business in
Orange County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
EXECUTIVE CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grafenberg Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE GRAFENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXECUTIVE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
d/b/a ECG MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS; SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA,
INC.; GREGG GLASER; and CHRISTOPHER COLLINS, Defendant, Case No.
24-0841 (Comm. Mass., March 29, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Plaintiff Grafenberg was employed by the Defendants as a senior
manager.
EXECUTIVE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC d/b/a ECG MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS is
a consulting service provider primarily servicing the healthcare
industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C.
24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
Cambridge, MA 02141
Telephone: (617) 577-8800
Email: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com
- and -
Ilir Kavaja, Esq.
KAVAJA LAW, P.C.
92 State Street, 8th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 515-5545
Email: ilir@kavajalaw.com
FIELDHOUSE BREWING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galloway Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL GALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all other others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. FIELDHOUSE BREWING COMPANY, LLC
d/b/a "FH Beerworks", Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00851 (D. Colo.,
March 27, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Galloway was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
FIELDHOUSE BREWING COMPANY, LLC is in the food and beverage
manufacturing industry, located at Colorado Springs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
FIG & OLIVE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Anderson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIG & OLIVE USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02352-VMS (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, Figandolive.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
FIG & OLIVE USA, INC. operates Figandolive.com in New York State
and throughout the United States. Figandolive.com is a commercial
website and online platform that provides Mediterranean cuisine.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Tel: (929) 324-0717
Fax: (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FLORIDA: Vigil Sues for Wrongful Retention of License Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL VIGIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Case No.
CACE-24-004305 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 28,
2024) accuses the Defendant of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment over its failure to refund a pro-rated portion of the
vacation rental licensing fees paid by Plaintiff for the 2020
fiscal year.
The Plaintiff brings this Class action over Defendant's refusal to
issue a pro-rated refund for the vacation rental license fee paid
by Plaintiff for the 2020 fiscal year during which Plaintiff was
unable to receive the full benefit of the license due to
state-mandated measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendant allegedly breached its contracts with Plaintiff and
other Class members when Governor Ronald DeSantis ordered those
engaged in the vacation rental industry to cease their operations
for an unknown duration during 2020, without returning to Plaintiff
and Class members the pro-rata share of the licensing fees during
the shutdown period. Further, the Defendant has allegedly been
unjustly enriched by retaining the fees paid by Plaintiff and Class
members during the period vacation rentals were shut down due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, says the suit.
Florida is a state in the Southeastern region of the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald D. Rodman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN, RODMAN FRANK & ESTRADA, P.A.
3636 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33135
Telephone: (305) 448-8585
Facsimile: (305) 448-9818
E-mail: ronrod@frflawgroup.com
FLYING HORSE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, McCollough and Seal Say
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLE MCCOLLOUGH and CAMERON SEAL Individually, and on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs v. FLYING HORSE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00153 (E.D. Tenn., April 1, 2024), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant has and continues to employ Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated who are classified as "tipped employees"
but who routinely perform non-tip-producing tasks and, thereby, are
deprived of the opportunity to earn tips during a significant
portion of their respective shifts. The Plaintiffs are only
compensated at a sub-minimum wage rate of pay within weekly pay
periods rather than being compensated at the applicable federal
minimum wage rate of pay of $7.25 per hour, and any applicable FLSA
overtime compensation rates of pay, for such work, says the suit.
Based in Knoxville, TN, Flying Horse, LLC, is a Tennessee limited
liability company that owns and operates restaurants in Tennessee
and several other states. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
FRONTLINE ASSET: New Jersey Court Tosses Consolidated Chang Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Hammer of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit
titled CHUN IK CHANG, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02388-MAH (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss
these consolidated actions. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The
Defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion. The
Court has considered this motion without oral argument. For the
reasons set forth in this Opinion, Judge Hammer concludes that the
Court lacks jurisdiction over this action and grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On Feb. 20, 2018, the Plaintiff, Chun Ik Chang, initiated a civil
class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated parties by
filing a complaint against the Defendants, claiming violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff Chang
names Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, and Razor Capital II, LLC,
as Defendants. He alleges the Defendants violated the FDCPA by
attempting to collect consumer debts on behalf of debt buyers
without a license to do so under the New Jersey Consumer Finance
Licensing Act N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 17:11C-3; thereby, attempting
to collect amounts not permitted by law.
On June 21, 2018, Plaintiff Georgina C. Sandoval initiated a civil
class action on behalf of herself and similar situated parties by
filing a complaint against the Defendants, claiming violations of
the FDCPA. Plaintiff Sandoval names Defendants Absolute Resolutions
Investments, LLC; Absolute Resolutions Corporation; Frontline;
Andrew Dunn; Bryon Kozak; Mark Naiman; and Daniel Winkler.
Plaintiff Sandoval asserts the same violation of the FDCPA as
Plaintiff Chang.
On Aug. 8, 2019, Plaintiff Chang filed a form Notice, Consent, and
Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge for Judge Hammer
to conduct all further proceedings, including entry of a final
judgment, which the District Judge at the time, Judge McNulty,
entered on Aug. 9, 2019.
Having reached a tentative agreement to settle both the Chang and
Sandoval matters, on April 28, 2020, Judge Hammer entered a consent
order consolidating the Chang and Sandoval matters and applying the
previously entered consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction to both
matters. The order for consolidation provided that in the event
that the consolidated class action settlement cannot be finalized,
the case will be deconsolidated.
For the next few years, the parties engaged in discovery to confirm
the Defendants' net worth to facilitate the parties' entering into
a binding settlement agreement. During this time, Judge Hammer
engaged with the parties on many occasions in an attempt to resolve
a myriad of discovery disputes that arose concerning the
Defendants' net worth, albeit unsuccessfully.
The Court finally referred the disputes to a Special Discovery
Master on Feb. 22, 2023, but that too ultimately proved
unsuccessful. In that July 13, 2023 joint status report, the
Defendants indicated that any issue regarding the disputed
financial discovery and settlement agreement was not moot because
neither Plaintiff could demonstrate Article III standing and sought
leave to file a motion to dismiss.
On Sept. 1, 2023, the Court held a status conference in which the
parties agreed that a binding settlement had not been reached, and
therefore, briefing on the Defendant's challenge to the Plaintiffs'
standing should proceed. Despite the April 28, 2020 Order, neither
party moved for deconsolidation of these matters, nor has contacted
the Court regarding the deconsolidation of the matters.
On Oct. 2, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant joint motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On Oct. 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs
submitted an opposition on behalf of both Plaintiffs Chang and
Sandoval. On Nov. 9, 2023, the Defendants submitted a reply brief
in further support of their motion.
The Court must determine whether Plaintiffs have suffered a
concrete injury in fact so as to provide them with standing to
pursue their FDCPA claims in federal court. The Plaintiffs concede
they have not suffered a tangible harm. As such, the Court conducts
the two-part inquiry pronounced by the Supreme Court in TransUnion
LLC v. Ramierz, 594 U.S. 413, 425 (2021): (1) does the alleged
injury bear a close relationship to a traditionally recognized
harm; and (2) have the Plaintiffs plead more than mere injury in
law.
The Plaintiffs argue that their injuries implicate two common law
analogues: the intentional tort of unreasonable debt collection and
fraudulent misrepresentation.
The Defendants call the Court's attention to a recent decision in
this District, Church v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley,
Inc., -- F.Supp 3d. --, No. 20-3172, 2023 WL 8185669, at *5 (D.N.J.
Nov. 27, 2023), and argue that unreasonable debt collection is not
a traditional tort and, therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot establish
standing.
The Court agrees with the Defendants and finds that the Plaintiffs
do not have standing based on the tort of unreasonable debt
collection.
Even if the Court were to determine that unreasonable debt
collection amounts to a traditional cause of action, the
circumstances of the instant matter surely do not satisfy the
requisite elements of unreasonable debt collection, Judge Hammer
points out. Here, the Defendants' actions can hardly be
characterized as unreasonable or reckless.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments and finds
that the tort of unreasonable debt collection does not confer
standing for the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Plaintiffs also argue that they have standing based on the tort
of fraudulent misrepresentation. Although not pled in Plaintiff
Chang's Complaint, he now argues he suffered an emotional and
financial consequence as a result of the Defendants' letter.
Relying on Huber v. Simon's Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132 (3d Cir.
2023), Plaintiff Chang now seeks to amend his Complaint to allege
the expenses he incurred "to consult with a lawyer after
experiencing emotional distress" because the letter falsely
represented Plaintiff Chang owed the listed debt.
The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments and declines Plaintiff
Chang's request to amend his Complaint.
As a preliminary matter, Judge Hammer notes, neither Plaintiff
Sandoval nor Plaintiff Chang have pled any allegations which
demonstrate an injury in fact like that in Huber. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs do not possess standing based on the Complaints as they
currently stand.
However, the Court's analysis does not end here, as Plaintiff Chang
now argues, for the first time, he should be granted to leave to
amend his Complaint.
On Jan. 30, 2019, the Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order
("PTSO") for this matter. Within that PTSO, the Plaintiffs were
given until June 30, 2019, to amend the pleadings or add new
parties. The Plaintiffs never sought to amend that deadline in the
PTSO. However, the Plaintiffs now argue that Plaintiff Chang should
be permitted to amend his Complaint, to "assert allegations which
fall under Huber."
As this request comes beyond the June 30, 2019 deadline, the Court
conducts its analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, and finds that the
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause to amend Plaintiff
Chang's Complaint.
Even if the Court were to find good cause to permit amendment of
Plaintiff Chang's Complaint, the Court finds that the proposed
amendment would not be appropriate under Rule 15 because of its
futility. The Court finds any amendment to Plaintiff Chang's
Complaint would be futile, and therefore, denies leave to amend
under Rule 15.
At bottom, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege any concrete harm stemming from their receipt of the debt
collection letters. The Plaintiffs have pleaded a mere injury in
law but no concrete injury in fact. Such a finding is fatal to
their claims for purposes of standing in federal court. Finally, no
amendments to either Complaints would cure this deficiency.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2xy9t4 from PacerMonitor.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Reed & McCoy Sue Over Unlawful Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
LARRY REED and DARNELL MCCOY, SR., on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC and ONSTAR,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10804-JJCG-CI (E.D. Mich., March 28, 2024)
seeks damages for Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Constitutional Invasion of Privacy, the California Unfair
Competition Act, and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
Defendant General Motors and its subsidiary software company OnStar
allegedly collected customers' private information, including
Plaintiffs' driving telematics data without their knowledge or
consent. Such private data was shared and/or sold to third parties
to compile reports used by auto insurance companies to set rates
and premiums. The Defendants failed to adequately disclose to
customers that they collect, share, and/or sell customers' driving
date with third parties. The Plaintiffs claim that such practices
are unfair and/or deceptive, and constitute an invasion of
privacy.
Headquartered in Detroit, MI, General Motors is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
Cort Carlson, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: Hzavareei@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
ccarlson@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Frank Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
GITLAB INC: Schantz Suit Seeks Invalidation of Advance Notice Bylaw
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. JEFFREY SCHANTZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated stockholders of GITLAB INC., Plaintiff v. SUNDEEP BEDI,
KAREN BLASING, SUSAN BOSTROM, MATTHEW JACOBSON, MARK PORTER,
MERLINE SAINTIL, SYTSE SIJBRANDIJ, GODFREY SULLIVAN, and GITLAB
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0328 (Del. Ch., March 29, 2024)
seeks declaratory relief to invalidate the Gitlab's Advance Notice
Bylaw. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Director Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that Gitlab's Advance Notice Bylaw contains
provisions that serve as an unlawful deterrent to those seeking to
meaningfully participate in the nomination process. He further
claims that 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.
Headquartered in California, GitLab is the provider of the
DevSecOps Platform, a single open source application enabling
organizations to deliver better and safer software faster. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, 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
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
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses All Claims Against Apple in CCS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Apple Inc.'s motion to dismiss all of
the claims against the Apple Defendants in the lawsuit captioned
CALIFORNIA CRANE SCHOOL, INC., Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-10001-PCP (N.D. Cal.).
In this class action lawsuit against Defendants Google LLC,
Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings Inc., Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and
former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (collectively, the Google
Defendants), as well as Apple Inc. and Apple CEO Tim Cook
(collectively, the Apple Defendants), Plaintiff California Crane
School, Inc. (CCS) alleges that Google and Apple unlawfully agreed
to divide the online search and search advertising markets in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
The Google Defendants now move to compel arbitration, and all
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons set forth
in this Order, the Court grants in part Google's motion to compel
arbitration, denying the motion only as to CCS's claim for public
injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law. The
Court grants Google's motion to dismiss that remaining claim, and
grants Apple's motion to dismiss all of the claims against the
Apple Defendants.
CCS is a crane operating school that advertises its services on
Google. CCS alleges that Google and Apple have unlawfully agreed to
divide the markets for search and search advertising. Specifically,
CCS alleges that since 2005 Apple and Google have agreed that Apple
will not enter the search and search advertising markets and will
instead make Google the default search engine on Apple's devices in
exchange for billions of dollars in payments from Google to Apple.
CCS alleges that CEOs Pichai and Cook secretly met several times to
continue this unlawful agreement. In its first amended complaint,
CCS asserted violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The
Google Defendants moved to compel arbitration in March 2022, and
the Court granted that motion (Cal. Crane Sch., Inc. v. Google LLC,
621 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2022)) ("Crane I").
In Crane I, the Court held that CCS had accepted Google's 2017 and
2018 Advertising Program Terms of Service, and that because CCS had
been provided with an opportunity to opt out of arbitration but did
not do so, the arbitration agreement was not adhesive. The Court
further held that the language of the Terms encompassed the claims
in the then-operative complaint. The Court also held that while
California's McGill rule makes an arbitration provision that waives
a party's ability to seek public injunctive relief in any forum
invalid and unenforceable, see McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th
945 (2017), such relief could not be sought on the federal law
claims in the complaint.
Finally, the Court suggested that even if CCS were to amend its
complaint to include state law claims for public injunctive relief,
CCS was seeking relief on behalf of itself and a "discrete subset
of similarly situated" consumers, who paid Google for advertising
services, and public injunctive relief cannot be sought in pursuit
of representative claims.
The Google and Apple Defendants separately moved to dismiss the
first amended complaint, and the Court also granted that motion.
The Court held that CCS had failed to adequately plead antitrust
injury, to plead facts plausibly alleging an antitrust conspiracy,
or to plead fraudulent concealment with particularity (Cal. Crane
Sch., Inc. v. Google LLC, 2023 WL 2769096 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31,
2023)) ("Crane II").
Regarding antitrust injury, the Court found a "mismatch," noting
that CCS "alleges that it was harmed in the search advertising
market" while CSS's claims arose from "Apple's decision not to
enter the search market." Regarding the alleged antitrust
conspiracy, the Court held that the complaint did not include
enough direct or circumstantial evidence of the purported agreement
between Google and Apple to make CCS's allegations regarding the
existence of that agreement plausible.
After the Crane I and Crane II decisions, CCS filed the
now-operative second amended complaint adding three state law
claims. The second amended complaint asserts class claims for: (1)
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering a
profit-sharing noncompete agreement; (2) violation of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act by conspiring to monopolize; (3) violation of
California's Cartwright Act by restraining trade and commerce; (4)
violation of the UCL by unfairly restricting competition; and (5)
unjust enrichment for unlawfully inflating prices and profits. CCS
seeks an order voiding the purported agreement between Google and
Apple, granting injunctive relief under the UCL enjoining
defendants from entering future non-compete agreements, and
awarding treble damages for the class, disgorgement, and
divestiture.
The Google Defendants now renew their motion to compel arbitration,
arguing that CCS is required to arbitrate all disputes with Google
per its contractual obligations. Google argues that its Terms of
Service, which CCS purportedly accepted in 2017 and 2018, require
the use of binding individual arbitration, rather than jury trials
or class actions, to resolve disputes. The Google Defendants
contend that the additional state law claims in the second amended
complaint do not support a claim for public injunctive relief under
the McGill rule given the issues identified by the Court in Crane
I.
Google's Terms of Service contain an unambiguous opt out provision,
allowing an advertiser to opt out of the arbitration provision
within 30 days of entering into the contract with Google, Judge
Pitts notes.
As the Court previously held in Crane I, the opt out provision in
Google's Terms of Service defeats CCS's argument that the
arbitration agreement is adhesive. The ability to opt out of
arbitration within a reasonable timeframe fatally undermines CCS's
position that the arbitration agreement imposes adhesive terms on
customers.
Because Google's arbitration agreement prohibits CCS from seeking
public injunctive relief under the UCL in any forum, it violates
the McGill rule and is unenforceable as to CCS's UCL claim for
public injunctive relief, Judge Pitts holds. The Court, therefore,
severs the UCL claim from the arbitration agreement and will allow
that claim to proceed in this Court.
Because the Court finds the arbitration agreement to be otherwise
valid and enforceable and because it encompasses CCS's remaining
claims against the Google Defendants, the Court grants the Google
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of those claims.
The Google and Apple Defendants separately move to dismiss CCS's
second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). They argue that the complaint fails to state a claim
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, that CCS lacks antitrust
standing, that the state law claims should be dismissed because the
predicate federal violations are insufficiently pleaded, and that
claims for damages predating Dec. 27, 2017 (four years before the
filing of the initial complaint on Dec. 27, 2021) are time-barred.
While the Court compels arbitration of four claims against the
Google Defendants, the Google Defendants' motion to dismiss the
remaining UCL claim for public injunctive relief remains before the
Court, and the Apple Defendants have moved to dismiss all of CCS's
claims against them. The Court must, therefore, address both of the
pending motions to dismiss CCS's second amended complaint, which
contend that the revised complaint does nothing to remedy the
multiple defects the Court identified in the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint.
The Court agrees that the second amended complaint, like the prior
complaint, fails to state any plausible claim for relief. Judge
Pitts finds that CCS fails to adequately plead claims under the
Sherman Act, and to adequately plead state law claims.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Google Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration of all claims except CCS's UCL claim for
public injunctive relief. The Court grants without leave to amend
the Google and Apple Defendants' motions to dismiss the UCL claim
and the Apple Defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4akcnfyp from PacerMonitor.com.
H & M HENNES: McDonald and Baez Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERRILL MCDONALD and MARIEL BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. H & M HENNES & MAURITZ,
L.P. And H&M FASHION USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02476
(S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024) arises out Defendant's failure to comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
New York City Fair Workweek Law, Title 20, Chapter 12 of the New
York City Administrative Code.
Plaintiff McDonald was employed by Defendants at H&M in New York
City as a sales advisor supervisor, a retail worker, from
approximately 2012 until 2018, and then as a supervisor, a retail
worker, from in or around October 2022 until October 13, 2023.
Plaintiff Baez was also employed by Defendants as department
manager, a retail worker, at H&M in New York City from in or around
2011 until September 2023. Despite being manual workers, the
Defendants have failed to properly pay Plaintiffs and retail
workers in New York their wages within seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which these wages were earned, says the
suit.
Headquartered in New Jersey, H&M Fashion USA, Inc. is a foreign
business corporation that sells clothes, shoes, bags, accessories,
cosmetics and home textiles through its physical stores and online
platforms. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
HIGH HEELS: Nevarez Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
--------------------------------------------------------
GISELLE NEVAREZ; MCKENNA DORN; KALINA SCHMIDT; and HANNAH DURKIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HIGH HEELS DANCING CO. d/b/a HIGH HEELS GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB f/k/a HIGH HEELS SALOON &GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; and KONSTANTIN
MATHIOUDAKIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. No. 1:24-cv-2447
(N.D. Ill., March 26, 2024) seek to recover for all unpaid minimum
wage and overtime pay owed during their employment, as well as all
unlawfully deducted pay, and all tips unlawfully retained through
illegal tip pools.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers.
HIGH HEELS DANCING CO. is an adult entertainment bar, with office
in Somonauk, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max P. Barack, Esq.
THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
701 N. Milwaukee Avenue,
THE CIVITAS
Chicago, IL 60642
Email: haskell@garfinkelgroup.com
max@garfinkelgroup.com
HISAMITSU AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 21
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI HRAPOFF, et. al., v.
HISAMITSU AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01943-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties Seek to extend the Class Certification briefing
schedule and related expert discovery deadline as follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Plaintiffs' class certification motion June 21, 2024
and Plaintiffs' class certification
expert disclosures due:
Defendant's class certification Aug. 23, 2024
opposition; Defendant's class certification
expert disclosures; and Defendant's class
certification Daubert motions due:
Plaintiff's class certification reply and Sept. 20, 2024
Plaintiffs' class certification Daubert
motions and oppositions to Defendants'
Daubert motions due:
Defendants' class certification Daubert Oct. 21, 2024
replies and oppositions to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions due:
Plaintiffs' class certification Daubert Nov. 21, 2024
replies due:
Hisamitsu manufactures pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4PYzN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Telephone: (212) 532-2000
Facsimile: (212) 532-2020
E-mail: kimj@HuntonAK.com
HUMMUS & PITA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Hummus & Pita Company, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02373-RER-TAM (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024) accuses
the Defendant of violating Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The class action arises from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Hummus & Pita Company, LLC owns and operates a restaurant at
585 6th Avenue, New York. Its restaurant offers a wide selection of
Mediterranean dishes, including homemade hummus, pitas, salads,
desserts and restaurant services such as dine-in, take-out,
delivery and catering. It also operates the Website,
Hummusandpitas.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, New York 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: McMurray Sues Over Returned Deposit Item Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA L. McMURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01481-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 30,
2024) arises from the Defendant's deceptive practices related
Returned Deposit Item Fees, bringing claims for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment,
and for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.
By charging Returned Deposit Item Fees, Huntington unfairly
targeted its customers with financial penalties for faulty checks
the customers had no hand in issuing. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages, including compensatory damages, and other
equitable relief, says the suit.
Headquartered in Columbus, OH, Huntington National Bank is a
full-service commercial and consumer bank with roughly 1,000
branches located in Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Wiest, Esq.
CHRIS WIEST, ATTY. AT LAW, PLLC
50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste. 1280
Covington, KY 41011
Telephone: (513) 257-1895
E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
IDAHO: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 2
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEVA ROSSOW, v. DAVE
JEPPESEN, Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, in
his official capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-00131-BLW (D. Idaho), the
Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a motion for
class certification:
Event Current Revised
Deadline
Deadline
Plaintiff moves for class Apr. 3, 2024 July 2,
2024
certification and discloses
expert witnesses for class
certification
Defendant opposes class June 3, 2024 Sept. 3,
2024
certification and discloses
expert witnesses in opposition
Plaintiff replies and discloses July 3, 2024 Oct. 1,
2024
rebuttal expert witnesses
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yTr58Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
INDEPENDENT BANK: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Grice Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamila Grice, on behalf of
herself and All others similarly situated, v. Independent Bank,
Case No. 7:20-cv-01948-TMC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Cain
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
-- The motion is granted to the extent the Plaintiff alleges that
the
Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff by assessing
Overdraft fees on APPSN transactions prior to March 9, 2017.
The
Plaintiff's other claims remain.
The court adopts the Report's analysis of the South Carolina Door
Closing Statute, overrules the Plaintiff's objections thereto, and
finds no reason for deviating from the magistrate judge's
recommendation that the court deny class certification on that
basis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is denied.
Finally, the court declines Plaintiff's suggestion that this action
should be transferred to the Western District of Michigan in lieu
of denial of class certification.
The Plaintiff contends the Defendant improperly assesses and
collects overdraft fees ("OD fees") on accounts that were never
actually overdrawn.
The Plaintiff asserts the Defendant breached its agreement with her
and other customers by charging non-sufficient funds fees ("NSF
fees") multiple times on a single transaction.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant assesses multiple
out-of-network fees ("OON fees") on withdrawals from out-of-network
ATMs when such withdrawals are preceded by a balance inquiry.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff defines three separate proposed
nationwide classes—one for each type of allegedly improper fee:
[1] All accountholders who, during the applicable statute of
limitations, were charged OD Fees on APPSN Transactions on
an
Independent checking account (the "OD Fees Class").
[2] All accountholders who, during the applicable statute of
limitations, were charged multiple NSF Fees on the same item
on
an Independent checking account (the "Multiple Fees
Class").
[3] All accountholders who, during the applicable statute of
limitations, were charged two OON Fees by Independent for a
single cash withdrawal at an out of network ATM (the "OON
Fees
Class").
The Defendant is a regional bank organized under Michigan law and
maintaining a physical presence only in Michigan and Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0sLiE8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INWOOD RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galindo Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ISAURO GALINDO; and ABRAHAM CORDERO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INWOOD RESTAURANT CORP
dba LA NUEVA ESPANA; 606 RESTAURANT CORP.; and FRANCO JIMENEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02411 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Galindo and Cordero were employed by the Defendants as a
cook and as a dishwasher, respectively.
INWOOD RESTAURANT CORP. operates as a restaurant, sports bar,
gastro pub, beer garden, and a hall. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Oscar Alvarado, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2207
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com
JOB PRO STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOB PRO STAFFING, INC. DBA SOLVIS
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES; MONTAGE FULFILLMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 24NWCV00969 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 29, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as a forklift
driver.
JOB PRO STAFFING, INC. DBA SOLVIS EMPLOYMENT SERVICES provides
staffing solutions to companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
Levon Shant Yepremian, Esq.
KJT LAW GROUP LLP
230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818) 507-8525
Email: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
vache@kjtlawgroup.com
caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
levon@kjtlawgroup.com
KARIBANDI FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nunez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YASMIN NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KARIBANDI FAMILY PRACTICE, P.C d/b/a 360 MD
MEDICAL CENTER, SHOPNO I, LLC, MAI CLINICALS, LLC, DESHI SENIOR
CENTER, LLC, TAHIRAH TOUCH, INC., HIBA EXCELSIOR INC, RAMAKRISHNA
KARIBANDI, ABDULLAH AL AHAD, and MISBA ABDIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02431 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024) seeks to recover damages
arising out of unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and interest pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked as a physician's assistant and administrative/
operational director for Defendants from approximately April 18,
2022, to April 30, 2023. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA by not compensating
her on a salary or fee basis, as required for the highly
compensated employee exemption. In addition, she claims that the
Defendants violated NYLL by failing to provide legally mandated
notices such as earning statements and wage notices.
Karibandi Family Practice is a medical group practice located in
Brooklyn, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Alvarado, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2207
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
E-mail: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com
LEVEL 3: Plaintiffs Seek to Reinstate Conditional Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JOHNSON on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEVEL
3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-BER (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to reinstate the
Plaintiffs' "Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
Class Certification Pursuant to Rule 23" and its exhibits along
with the Plaintiffs' related reply brief in support of the motion.
Level 3 was an American multinational telecommunications and
Internet service provider company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9KmjJA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gdesane@wfclaw.com
LLOYD AUSTIN: Parties in Arzamendi Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY ARZAMENDI, et al., v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, Secretary of Defense, et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-00770-P (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification until after the Court resolves the motions to dismiss
and the Parties have met and conferred about an appropriate
briefing schedule on the class certification motion.
Even if the Plaintiffs' claims are not entirely dismissed, staying
briefing will avoid the inefficiency of briefing class
certification without the benefit of knowing which claims and
parties will remain in the case after the motions to dismiss are
resolved, said the Parties.
The parties will be unable to meaningfully confer about how best to
move forward on any remaining claims until it is clear whether an
interlocutory appeal must be taken into account, the suit adds.
The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on July 24, 2023.
On Oct. 24, 2023, the Court struck Plaintiffs' motion for failing
to include a certificate of conference.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnruDW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ross Slaughter, Esq.
Laura K. Smith, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 616-8185
E-mail: ross.m.slaughter@usdoj.gov
laura.smith2@usdoj.gov
LOANCARE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Tederick Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in the lawsuit styled GARY TEDERICK and LISA TEDERICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LOANCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00394-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va.).
Before the Court is Defendant LoanCare, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint. LoanCare moves to dismiss, in its
entirety, Plaintiffs Gary and Lisa Tederick's Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For
the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court
rules that LoanCare's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part. The Motion is granted with respect to Count II
(Unjust Enrichment) and Count III (Conversion). The Motion is
denied with respect to Count I (WVCCPA Claims).
On Sept. 20, 2022, the Tedericks filed a Complaint seeking class
action status and alleging that LoanCare violated fair debt
collection provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, W. Va. Code Section 46A-2-122, et seq. ("WVCCPA"),
benefited from unjust enrichment, and converted their funds. On
Jan. 27, 2023, LoanCare filed its first motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Rule 12(b)(7) for
failure to join necessary parties under Rule 19.
On Oct. 2, 2023, the Court granted LoanCare's Rule 12(b)(6) motion
with respect to the Tedericks' fraud-based claims in Count I and
their Unjust Enrichment claim in Count II. The Court dismissed
those claims without prejudice and granted leave to amend. The
Court denied LoanCare's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion with respect to the
Tedericks' remaining statutory claims in Count I and their
conversion claim in Count III. The Court also denied LoanCare's
Rule 12(b)(7) motion.
On Oct. 25, 2023, the Tedericks filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). On Nov. 8, 2023, LoanCare filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Tedericks responded in opposition
on Nov. 22, 2023. LoanCare replied on Dec. 8, 2023.
The Tedericks built their home in 2002 in Hedgesville, West
Virginia. On March 4, 2004, they decided to refinance their home by
taking out a loan from Mid-States Financial Group, Inc. using a
Note backed by a Deed of Trust and held by the Federal National
Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). The terms of the loan required
the Tedericks to make scheduled monthly payments of $875.36 to the
Note Holder beginning May 1, 2004, with any remaining amounts owed
in full on April 1, 2034. Interest was to be charged on unpaid
principal until the full amount of Principal has been paid.
The Note states that each monthly payment will be applied as of its
scheduled due date and will be applied to interest before
Principal. The Tedericks were entitled to make payments of
Principal at any time before they are due. A payment of Principal
only is known as a "Prepayment." But the Tedericks could not
designate a payment as a Prepayment if they had not made all the
monthly payments due under the Note, and they had to notify the
lender in writing when making a Prepayment.
Upon receipt of a Prepayment, the Note Holder will use the
Prepayments to reduce the amount of Principal owed. The Note Holder
is also authorized to apply a Prepayment to the accrued and unpaid
interest on the Prepayment amount before applying the Prepayment to
reduce the Principal amount of the Note. The Deed of Trust further
specifies that voluntary prepayments will be applied first to any
prepayment charges and then as described in the Note.
The Tedericks frequently made Prepayments during the life of the
loan. When making payments, the Tedericks often wrote one check
containing their monthly payment amount and a Prepayment amount,
specifying in the memo line that a Prepayment amount was included
in the total.
According to the Second Amended Complaint, the loan accrued
scheduled interest, meaning the Tedericks did not owe interest on
the loan until the scheduled monthly payments were due. The Note
and Deed of Trust are contained on "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM
INSTRUMENT[S]." The Fannie Mae Servicing Guidelines ("Guidelines")
address the order in which a lender or servicer should apply
scheduled monthly payments and Prepayments.
Guideline F-1-09 provides that when a borrower includes a
Prepayment with the scheduled monthly payment, the loan servicer
must apply the scheduled monthly payment first, then apply the
Prepayment. In contrast, when the borrower submits a Prepayment at
any other time of the month, separately, the loan servicer must
apply the Prepayment first, then apply the next scheduled monthly
payment.
The Tedericks allege these Guidelines mean that when a borrower
makes a Prepayment any time before the due date of a scheduled
monthly payment, the servicer must immediately apply the Prepayment
to the unpaid principal.
Between 2005 and 2020 the Tedericks made 180 payments containing
both a scheduled monthly payment and a Prepayment ("combined
payment") before the monthly payment due date. For at least 152 of
those payments, a servicer failed to apply the Prepayment and
scheduled monthly payment in the correct order. Instead, the
servicer applied the scheduled monthly payment, then the
Prepayment.
Around April 2019, LoanCare became the subservicer of the
Tedericks' mortgage loan and began accepting and applying their
loan payments. That month, the Tedericks contacted LoanCare to
explain that previous servicers misapplied their Prepayments and to
request that LoanCare correct their account to accurately reflect
the amount of interest owed on the loan. The Tedericks spoke to a
Loan Care representative named "Tiffany," who allegedly assured
them that the problem was rectified. Yet, LoanCare made no changes
to the account and went to apply the Tedericks' final sixteen
combined payments in the order of the scheduled monthly payment
first and the Prepayment second. The Tedericks made "repeated
attempts to have the misapplications rectified," but LoanCare was
not responsive.
On Sept. 5, 2020, the Tedericks requested a payoff statement from
LoanCare, which LoanCare provided on Sept. 14, 2020. On Sept. 21,
2020, the Tedericks paid the loan in full. Because LoanCare
misapplied their combined payments, the Tedericks claim LoanCare
charged them undue interest.
The Tedericks assert three main claims against LoanCare: statutory
violations involving two fair debt collection provisions of the
WVCCPA, W. Va. Code Sections 46A-2-127 and 46A-2-128 (Count I);
unjust enrichment (Count II); and conversion (Count III). The
Tedericks also allege that the action is brought and may be
maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
In its Motion to Dismiss, LoanCare raises three main arguments.
First, the Tedericks fail to state a claim under all counts because
their allegations demonstrate that LoanCare applied their payments
exactly as required by the Note and Deed of Trust. Second, the
Tedericks do not have a right of action to enforce the Fannie Mae
Guidelines, meaning they cannot state a claim based on a Guidelines
violation as a matter of law. Third, the Tedericks fail to state a
fraud claim in Count I because they do not satisfy the
particularized pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b).
Judge Jackson finds that the Tedericks offer a reasonable
interpretation of their rights under the Note, and LoanCare's
interpretation is not plain and unambiguously correct. Therefore,
the Tedericks plausibly allege that they properly submitted
Prepayments--not overpayments or something else--along with their
monthly payments.
Judge Jackson also finds that the Guidelines support the Tedericks'
reasonable interpretation of the Note and Deed of Trust, and they
do not resolve any ambiguity such that LoanCare's interpretation of
those instruments is plain and unambiguously correct. The
Tederieks, therefore, plausibly allege that LoanCare misapplied
their combined payments.
The Court is persuaded that the Tedericks cannot claim a right of
action in the Guidelines themselves. The Tedericks identify nothing
in the Note, Deed of Trust, Guidelines, or other authority
suggesting the Guidelines impose enforceable duties on any servicer
or grant them enforceable rights. Therefore, the Court must
determine whether the Tedericks' statutory and conversion claims
arise from the Guidelines or from an enforceable right of action.
Because the Court dismisses the Tedericks' unamended claim of
unjust enrichment in Count II, the Court does not analyze that
claim here.
The Court concludes that the WVCCPA provides the Tedericks an
avenue for relief based on alleged Guideline violations, even
though the Guidelines themselves do not create an enforceable right
of action.
Judge Jackson notes that the Tedericks allege no contractual
relationship with LoanCare, and both parties have conceded that no
contract exists between them. Thus, the Guidelines are the only
possible source of a "right of possession" that the Tedericks
allege. But because the Guidelines do not give the Tedericks an
enforceable right, Judge Jackson holds that the Tedericks cannot
state a claim for conversion. Count III is, therefore, dismissed.
Judge Jackson opines that the Tedericks plead sufficient facts to
state a claim under Sections 46A-2-127 and 46A-2-128 in Count I.
For the reasons stated in the Court's Order issued on Oct. 2, 2023,
Count II is dismissed.
For reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court grants in part and denies in part LoanCare's Motion to
Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss Counts II (Unjust Enrichment) and
III (Conversion) is granted. The Motion to Dismiss Count I (WVCCPA
Claims) is denied. The Court directs the Clerk to provide a copy of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
March 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yj7yb6ae from
PacerMonitor.com.
LONG BEACH, CA: Class Certification Bid Due May 28
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guma, et al., v. The City
of Long Beach, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04529 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June
20, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting the following
briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion to be served by: May 28, 2024
-- The Defendants' Opposition to be June 18, 2024
served by:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply to be served by: July 2, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
LUCERO AG: Class Certification Bid in Ortiz Due June 2, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZUCENA ORTIZ, ET AL., v.
LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge e Erica Grosjean entered a class action
scheduling conference order as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification: June 2, 2025
-- A Status Conference will be held on: Feb. 10, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1QkmPh at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM, et al., v.
MARKETSOURCE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 14, 2024 are
adopted;
2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied,
without prejudice to its renewal;
3. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike is denied; and
4. The previously assigned district judge vacated the initial
pretrial scheduling conference due to the pending motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Brum and Michael Camero are individuals
bringing this putative class action against the Defendants.
MarketSource offers customized outsourced sales support, training,
and recruiting, as well as various marketing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IZPImB at no extra
charge.[CC]
MATTEL INC: Faces Prattico Suit Over ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS PRATTICO, individually and as a representative of a class
of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Mattel, Inc.
Personal Investment Plan, Plaintiff v. MATTEL, INC.; and DOES 1 to
10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02624 (C.D. Cal., April
1, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Plaintiff Prattico brings this ERISA action against Defendants for
breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties, violation of ERISA's
anti-inurement provision, and engaging in self-dealing and
transactions prohibited by ERISA.
The Defendants have continually breached their duty of loyalty with
respect to their control and management of the Plan's assets
throughout the class period by utilizing forfeited funds in the
Plan for the benefit of Mattel rather than solely in the interest
of the participants and beneficiaries, says the suit.
Mattel is a multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment
company headquartered in El Segundo, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
META PLATFORMS: 9th Cir. Affirms Damages Class Cert. in DZ Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DZ RESERVE; CAIN MAXWELL, DBA Max
Martialis, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. META PLATFORMS, INC., FKA
Facebook, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-15916 (9th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
the certification of the damages class.
The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California; Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD (N.D.
Cal.); James Donato, District Judge, Presiding. The matter is
before: J. Clifford Wallace, Sidney R. Thomas, and Danielle J.
Forrest, Circuit Judges. Opinion is written by Judge Sidney R.
Thomas; Partial Dissent by Judge Forrest.
Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), formerly known as Facebook, appeals
the district court's order certifying two classes of advertisers,
who paid Meta to place advertisements on its social media
platforms--a damages class and an injunction class.
Meta owns and operates several online social media and messaging
platforms and applications, including Facebook, Instagram, and
WhatsApp. As with many social media companies, Meta generates
substantially all of its revenue from advertising.
In 2018, a nationwide class of advertisers ("Plaintiffs") filed
this action against Meta, alleging that Meta had misrepresented the
Potential Reach of advertisements on its platforms. Meta tells
advertisers that "Potential Reach estimates how many people your ad
could potentially reach depending on the targeting and ad placement
options you select while creating an ad." Each time that an
advertiser designs a Meta advertising campaign, Meta's self-service
advertisement creation interface, known as the Ads Manager,
displays the campaign's Potential Reach.
The Plaintiffs assert that Potential Reach is misleading because it
actually measures social media accounts, not living humans. Meta
has taken steps to increase the accuracy of Potential Reach by
working to remove fake and duplicate accounts, as well as by
updating the calculation of Potential Reach to include only
accounts that were shown an advertisement in the last thirty days.
Nevertheless, throughout the class period, the number of accounts
was always larger than the number of people because non-human
entities like businesses and clubs have accounts, some people have
multiple accounts, and some people and bots create fake accounts.
The Named Plaintiffs are two former Meta advertisers, DZ Reserve
and Cain Maxwell. DZ Reserve was an ecommerce business that spent
over $1 million on 740 Meta advertising campaigns. Maxwell operated
an online firearm mount store and spent approximately $379 on 11
Meta advertising campaigns. DZ Reserve has ceased operations since
the filing of the complaint, and it is unclear from the record
whether Maxwell's business is still operating.
Following motion practice and the filing of several amended
complaints, the district court sustained three of the Plaintiffs'
claims under California state law: fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraudulent concealment, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiffs then moved to certify the
following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: United
States residents, who purchased at least one advertisement on
Meta's platforms from Aug. 15, 2014, to the present, excluding
advertisers, who used certain specialized purchasing methods or who
were shown a Potential Reach lower than 1,000.
The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) seeking
damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, and under
Rule 23(b)(2) seeking injunctive relief under the UCL.
The Panel affirmed the district court's order certifying one class
of advertisers, who paid Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), to place
advertisements on its social media platforms--the damages class,
and vacated the district court's order certifying another class of
advertisers--the injunction class.
The Panel affirmed the district court's certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of the damages class. Judge Thomas notes that the
misrepresentation constituted a "common course of conduct" under
the test for determining whether common issues predominate among
the class. Given that all class members encountered the same
misrepresentation about Potential Reach--the nucleus of the
fraud--the slight variations in the other information available on
the Ads Manager did not defeat the commonality of the
misrepresentation.
Judge Thomas opines that the district court properly determined
that the element of justifiable reliance was capable of classwide
resolution. The Panel affirmed the district court's holding that
the requirements of typicality and adequacy were satisfied.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) was
satisfied.
The Panel vacated the certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) injunction
class for the district court to reconsider whether Named Plaintiff
Cain Maxwell had Article III standing to seek an injunction. The
district court had no occasion to consider the record or to analyze
Meta's argument against Maxwell's standing to seek injunctive
relief.
Dissenting in part, Judge Forrest agreed that the district court's
certification of the injunction class must be vacated and remanded
for the district court to reconsider whether Plaintiff Cain Maxwell
had standing to pursue that claim. She disagreed that the district
court properly certified the damages class because the Plaintiffs
cannot satisfy the predominance requirement where there were
individual questions that must be answered related to multiple
elements of the Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/33rph54b from PacerMonitor.com.
Geoffrey Graber -- ggraber@cohenmilstein.com -- Andrew N. Friedman
-- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Karina G. Puttieva --
kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com -- Madelyn Petersen --
mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
in Washington, D.C.; Eric Kafka -- ekafka@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, in New York City; Charles
Reichmann -- cpreichmann@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Charles
Reichmann, in Kensington, California; for the
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Andrew B. Clubok -- andrew.clubok@lw.com -- Susan E. Engel --
susan.engel@lw.com -- Margaret A. Upshaw -- maggie.upshaw@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@lw.com -- Melanie M. Blunschi --
melanie.blunschi@lw.com -- Nicholas Rosellini --
nick.rosellini@lw.com -- Nicole Valco -- nicole.valco@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, in San Francisco, California; Samir Deger-Sen
-- samir.deger-sen@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, in New York
City; for the Defendant-Appellant.
Jennifer B. Dickey and Jordan L. Von Bokern, U.S. Chamber
Litigation Center, in Washington, D.C.; Erik R. Zimmerman --
ezimmerman@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Jazzmin M. Romero --
jromero@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Jordan T. DeJaco --
JDeJaco@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA, in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America.
David M. Berger -- dmb@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, in
Oakland, California, for Amicus Curiae Digital Content Next.
MICHAEL ISABELLA: Delcid Wins Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS DELCID, et al., v.
MICHAEL ISABELLA, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-03167-MJM (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew Maddox will entered an order granting:
-- the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment against
the
Defendant Isabella and Class Certification, and
-- the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs against
the
Defendant.
The Court will certify the Plaintiffs' proposed classes, enter
default judgment against the Defendant Isabella on Counts I through
III of the Complaint, award damages in the total amount of
$88,347.64, and award attorney's fees and costs in the total amount
of $332,939.28.
The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withheld
wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act ("DCMWA"); and
the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law
("DCWPCL").
The FLSA claims were brought as a putative collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and the D.C. law claims were
brought as a putative class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Id.
The Plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with Defendants
Allender, Ismail, and Olson, and the Court entered an Order
granting approval of the settlement agreements. The Defendant
Isabella has not participated in this litigation, and the Clerk of
Court has entered default as to this defendant.
The Plaintiffs request certification of two proposed classes
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:
(1) an "Unpaid Wages" class comprised of "persons who were
Defendants' employees, who worked at Requin, and who did not
receive wages for their work for Defendants during their
employment at Requin"; and
(2) an "Unpaid Overtime" class comprised of "persons who were
Defendants' employees, who worked at Requin, and who did not
receive overtime pay for their overtime work for the
Defendants
during their employment at Requin."
The Plaintiffs each worked for Defendants at a restaurant called
Requin located in a waterfront neighborhood of Southwest
Washington, D.C. known as "the Wharf."
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QS4MWL at no extra
charge.[CC]
MYLAN NV: Direct Purchaser Settlement Class Certified in KPH Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS INC., FWK HOLDINGS LLC, AND CÉSAR
CASTILLO, LLC, individually and on Behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. MYLAN, N.V., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN
SPECIALTY L.P., PFIZER, INC., KING PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, and
MERIDIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02065-DDC-TJJ
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered an order
granting the Class Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
settlement Class, preliminary approval of settlement with the
Pfizer Defendants, and related relief.
The court certifies a Direct Purchaser Settlement Class under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), for settlement purposes only,
defined as follows:
"All persons or entities in the United States, its
territories,
possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who
purchased
EpiPen or generic EpiPen directly from Mylan or Teva, for
resale, at any time during the period from March 13, 2014
until
the date on which the Court enters the Preliminary Approval
Order."
Excluded from the Class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, predecessors, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, and all federal governmental entities.
The court appoints Michael L. Roberts of the Roberts Law Firm US,
PC, and Linda P. Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group, LLC as Co-Lead
Settlement Class Counsel, and Bradley T. Wilders as Liaison Counsel
for the Class.
Mylan was a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jSBVuD at no extra
charge.[CC]
NCAA: Seeks to Provisionally File Docs Under Seal in Hubbard
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUBA HUBBARD and KEIRA
MCCARRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ATLANTIC
COAST CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC.; THE BIG 12
CONFERENCE, INC.; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; and SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01593-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting their administrative motion to
provisionally file under seal pursuant to stipulated order.
National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States,
and one in Canada.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UgmC4z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant are represented by:
Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
Aaron T. Chiu, Esq.
Anna M. Rathbun, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com
aaron.chiu@lw.com
anna.rathbun@lw.com
- and -
Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
Rakesh N. Kilaru, Esq.
Calanthe Arat, Esq.
Tamarra M. Johnson, Esq.
Clayton Wiggins, Esq.
Julian A. Jiggetts, Esq.
Kieran G. Gostin, Esq.
Matthew R. Skanchy, Esq.
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
2001 M Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 847-4000
Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
carat@wilkinsonstekloff.com
tmatthewsjohnson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
cwiggins@wilkinsonstekloff.com
jjiggetts@wilkinsonstekloff.com
kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com
mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com
- and -
Jacob K. Danziger, Esq.
ARENT FOX SCHIFF LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 757-5500
Facsimile: (415) 757-5501
E-mail: jacob.danziger@afslaw.com
- and -
Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq.
Ashley K. Corkery, Esq.
Mark F. Lambert, Esq.
Deepti Bansal, Esq.
Rebecca Tarneja, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com
khartnett@cooley.com
acorkery@cooley.com
mlambert@cooley.com
dbansal@cooley.com
rtarneja@cooley.com
- and -
Britt M. Miller, Esq.
Daniel T. Fenske, Esq.
Christopher J. Kelly, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
E-mail: bmiller@mayerbrown.com
dfenske@mayerbrown.com
cjkelly@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Robert W. Fuller, III, Esq.
Lawrence C. Moore, III, Esq.
Amanda P. Nitto, Esq.
Travis S. Hinman, Esq.
Patrick H. Hill, Esq.
ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Telephone: (704) 377-2536
Facsimile: (704) 378-4000
E-mail: rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com
lmoore@robinsonbradshaw.com
anitto@robinsonbradshaw.com
thinman@robinsonbradshaw.com
phill@robinsonbradshaw.com
- and -
Mark J. Seifert, Esq.
SEIFERT ZUROMSKI LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 869-8837
Facsimile: (415) 901-1123
E-mail: mseifert@szllp.com
- and -
Kathryn Reilly, Esq.
Michael T. Williams, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
370 17th St., Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
E-mail: reilly@wtotrial.com
williams@wtotrial.com
- and -
David L. Anderson, Esq.
Angela C. Zambrano, Esq.
Natali Wyson, Esq.
Chelsea Priest, Esq.
Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772-1200
Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
E-mail: dlanderson@sidley.com
angela.zambrano@sidley.com
nwyson@sidley.com
cpriest@sidley.com
chummel@sidley.com
NORDSTROM INC: Pochulsky Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL POCHULSKY, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 24-001462-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., April 1,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, which prohibits persons from
communicating with a debtor between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00
AM in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the
debtor.
On February 8, 2024, Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. However, the communication was sent by Defendant to
Plaintiff at 11:26 PM in Plaintiff's time zone, says the suit.
Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Nordstrom, Inc. is a fashion retailer
offering clothing, shoes and accessories for men, women and kids.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr, Esq.
Jennifer g. simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
NORTH MEMORIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Mekhail Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacqueline Mekhail,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. North
Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health, Case No.
0:23-cv-00440-KMM-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine M.
Menendez entered an order that:
1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and
denied
in part;
2. The Motion is granted to the extent that Counts III and VI
are
dismissed without prejudice; and
3. The motion is otherwise denied.
The case sits at the intersection of internet and medical privacy.
Ms. Mekhail alleges that North's use of a piece of hidden software
on its websites surreptitiously tracked, collected, and monetized
various aspects of her1 online activity, including sensitive
medical
information protected by law. Ms. Mekhail filed her complaint on
Feb. 22, 2023.
Ms. Mekhail brings claims under the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Minnesota Protection of
Communications Act.
North is a Minnesota-based health care provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ITsmkG at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Summary Judgment Bid vs Clemons Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH CLEMONS, ET AL.,
v. NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, Case No.
3:08-cv-00069-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
that:
1. Norton's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and
denied in part.
2. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in
part
and denied in part.
3. Norton's motion to exclude a portion of Exhibit C of the 2019
Libman Report [DE 309] is denied.
4. The Plaintiffs' Rule 56(c)(2) Objections [DE 316] are granted
in
part and denied.
5. The parties shall submit a joint report within 30 days of the
entry of this order outlining their proposed schedule for
briefing the following issues:
(1) whether a damages class may be certified, including but
not
limited to considering the due process considerations set
forth in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338
(2011),
(2) the scope of the potential damages class, and
(3) how to calculate damages.
A status conference will be held on Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at
10:30
a.m. at the Gene Snyder U.S. Courthouse.
The Plaintiffs are retired former employees of Norton and
participants in the Norton Health Care, Inc. Retirement Plan
("Plan"). The Plaintiffs claim the Plan underpaid their retirement
benefits. They allege that Norton did not properly calculate their
lump-sum pension benefit under the retirement plan document and/or
as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").
Norton offers eligible Norton Healthcare employees with retirement
and disability benefits.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jqwdvc at no extra
charge.[CC]
NOVA HOME: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA and
YEMILIYA MAZUR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES,
INC., ALEH HULIAVATSENKA, and YULIYA NOVIKAVA, Case No.
3:20-cv-01612-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala
entered an order denying Southern and Nova's motions for
decertification of the conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective, and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Although the Southern-Nova Plaintiffs assert additional claims
beyond those asserted by the Nova-only Plaintiffs and Southern-only
Plaintiff, there are similar questions material to the disposition
of all Plaintiffs' claims, and all Plaintiffs are similarly
situated in some respects. The Court declines to decertify the
collective on this basis.
Because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
numerosity requirement, it denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice on this basis, and need not reach
the other Rule 23 requirements.
The Plaintiffs are a conditionally certified collective of
twenty-six live-in caregivers employed by Southern Home, or both
between October 27, 2017, and the present, seeking to recover
unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Section 16 of the FLSA,
and unpaid hourly wages and overtime compensation pursuant to
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of "all homecare
workers who worked for Nova and Southern between Oct. 21, 2018, and
the present, and who had any workweeks split between Nova and
Southern
on the same live-in assignment."
Nova is a privately owned company operating in the home support
services field.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0eQ0Rp at no extra
charge.[CC]
NOVA HOME: SHCSI Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA and
YEMILIYA MAZUR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES,
INC., ALEH HULIAVATSENKA, and YULIYA NOVIKAVA, Case No.
3:20-cv-01612-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala Nagala entered
an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part Southern's motion for
summary
Judgment; and
-- denying Novikava's motion for partial summary.
Specifically, Southern's motion is granted insofar as the Court
finds it is entitled to summary judgment against the eighteen
Plaintiffs who only worked for Nova; that Southern entered into an
implied agreement to exclude sleep time with Plaintiff Chumakova;
and that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of sleep
time interruptions experienced by Plaintiff Fedotova and Plaintiff
Semir Ahmetovic.
Southern's motion is denied insofar as the Court finds there are
genuine disputes of material fact pertinent to Plaintiffs’ joint
employer theory of liability and whether Southern violated the Fair
Labor FLSA willfully.
Novikava's motion for partial summary judgment is denied, as there
are genuine issues of material fact concerning whether she was an
employer for FLSA or Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA) purposes.
The Plaintiffs are a conditionally-certified collective of
twenty-six live-in caregivers employed by the Defendant Southern,
Defendant Nova, or both between Oct. 27, 2017, and the present,
seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Section
16 of the Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA”), and unpaid hourly
wages and overtime compensation pursuant to CMWA.
Nova is a privately owned company operating in the home support
services field.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PefAHC at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLIN CORP: Faces Securities Over Caustic Soda Price-Rigging
------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that Olin,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin Corp.) and
other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six
purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26,
2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District court for the Western
District of New York.
Those cases were consolidated on May 22, 2019; the claims in the
consolidated "Direct Purchaser" lawsuit, as modified, are on behalf
of the respective named plaintiffs and a putative class comprised
of all persons and entities who purchased certain types of caustic
soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the defendants, their
parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates at any time on or
after October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2018. On December 28,
2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the Direct Purchaser lawsuit, and the plaintiffs
are seeking an interlocutory appeal of the court's ruling.
Olin Corporation is a Virginia corporation, incorporated in 1892,
having its principal executive offices in Clayton, MO. It is a
vertically-integrated global manufacturer and distributor of
chemical products and a leading U.S. manufacturer of ammunition.
OPTA GROUP: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss in MCGM Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss in
the lawsuit captioned MCGM, GmbH, Plaintiff, Plaintiff v. OPTA
GROUP LLC, SPEYSIDE EQUITY LLC, SPEYSIDE EQUITY FUND LLP, KAY
MICHEL, KEVIN DAUGHERTY, JEFF STONE, OLIVER MAIER, OPTA MINERALS,
INC., SPEYSIDE PRIVATE FUND ADVISERS LLC, SPEYSIDE PRIVATE FUND
LLP, SPEYSIDE EQUITY 1 LP and JOHN AND JANE DOE 1-99, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05851-PKC (S.D.N.Y.).
In a Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff MCGM GmbH, a shareholder
of SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG ("SKW"), brings claims of
conspiracy to commit common law fraud, promissory estoppel,
"conveyance without consideration" and conversion against 11 named
Defendants or entities and 99 Doe Defendants. The action was
commenced in Supreme Court, New York County, and removed to this
Court by the Defendants invoking subject matter jurisdiction
premised on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
Five of the Defendants, OPTA Group LLC, OPTA Minerals Inc.,
Speyside Equity Fund 1 LP, Jeffrey Stone and Oliver Maier, move to
dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Moving
Defendants, excluding OPTA Group LLC, also move to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.
The Complaint describes the purported malfeasance of Defendant Kay
Michel, a former CEO of SKW, who allegedly failed to address the
company's funding needs and drove it to insolvency. Michel,
according to the Complaint, lives in Germany beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court. A court in Munich, Germany presided over
insolvency proceedings for SKW, adopted an insolvency plan that
described SKW's shares as "economically worthless" and directed an
uncompensated compulsory transfer of shares to an entity that is
not a party to this action.
Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege a claim for relief
against any of the Moving Defendants, Judge Castel holds that their
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted. The
Court need not reach the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Non-party SKW was a German public company with approximately 2,000
shareholders whose shares traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
SKW had 24 subsidiaries and was the world's largest supplier of
chemical products used to manufacture steel. As of July 2018, its
operating value was EUR 222.3 million.
Plaintiff MCGM was SKW's largest shareholder, with 2.5% of the
Company's shares. (Compl't ¶ 27.) According to MCGM, Defendant
Michel used his authority as SKW's Chief Executive Officer to
secretly arrange for the acquisition of SKW by Defendant Speyside
Equity, LLC ("Speyside"), a private-equity firm managed by Michel's
personal friend, Defendant Kevin Daugherty.
The Complaint alleges that after SKW took out a three-year loan of
EUR 84 million in 2015 (the "2015 Loan"), Michel failed to
adequately maintain the Company's cashflow or arrange for the
loan's refinancing, and instead pursued secret negotiations to sell
SKW to Speyside. During this time, SKW's public statements
allegedly misrepresented the strength of the Company's finances and
failed to disclose SKW's negotiations with Speyside.
On July 20, 2017, SKW announced that the lenders on the 2015 Loan
had agreed to assign the loan to Defendant Speyside Private Fund
Advisers LLC, a "sister company" of Speyside, and that the Company
would exchange the loan in a debt-to-equity swap that the Plaintiff
asserts squeezed existing shareholders out of ownership.
According to the Complaint, the transaction occurred even though
SKW had other options for refinancing the 2015 Loan and meeting the
company's cashflow needs, including through a proposal made by MCGM
and an aborted 2015 plan to increase liquidity by issuing new
shares to existing shareholders. The Complaint acknowledges that
the transaction between SKW and a Speyside entity occurred pursuant
to an insolvency plan ordered by a court in Munich, Germany.
In September 2017, SKW opened insolvency proceedings for its assets
due to over-indebtedness. Insolvency proceedings occurred in the
Insolvency Division of the District Court of Munich, Germany. The
German court issued a 17-page, single-spaced opinion that observed
that the insolvency plan provides for an uncompensated compulsory
transfer of the shares to the investor Speyside S.a.r.l. by way of
the securities transaction clearing system and an exclusion of the
right of the existing shareholders to subscribe to the newly issued
shares of the Debtor. The shares of the previous shareholders must
be regarded as economically worthless in the insolvency plan
procedure and valued at EUR 0.00 per share. The German court stated
that the insolvency of the holding company threatens to infect the
subsidiaries, which would lead to a further deterioration of the
enterprise value.
The Complaint states that as a result of the insolvency plan, the
Shareholders were replaced with Speyside, and/or a Speyside
affiliate and finally SKW was merged into OPTA in New York.
The Complaint brings four claims for relief. Count One asserts
fraud against coconspirators, and asserts that at least ten persons
and entities agreed to a transaction, who planned and were able to
succeed to remove the Shareholders as owners of SKW AG. Count Two
asserts promissory estoppel against Speyside or a
Speyside-controlled company (for example, OPTA Group LLC). Count
Three asserts conveyance without consideration against Speyside
and/or OPTA. Count Four asserts a conversion claim against OPTA.
While the Complaint includes some allegations describing OPTA's
role in these underlying events, the other four Moving Defendants
are rarely mentioned. Jeff Stone and Oliver Maier are identified as
members of Speyside's "Senior Team" who allegedly "controlled
Speyside and related affiliate companies." Stone is alleged to be a
managing director of Speyside. No title is given for Maier, who is
identified as "responsible for sourcing, executing, managing, and
exiting investments" and a director of unspecified Speyside
portfolio companies.
OPTA Minerals, Inc. "was or is" a corporation purchased by
Speyside, allegedly for the purpose of later acquiring SKW.
Although it is not entirely clear from the Complaint, it appears
that after OPTA Minerals, Inc., acquired SKW, it became Defendant
OPTA. Defendant Speyside Equity Fund 1 LP ("Speyside Equity I")
announced on Feb. 2, 2016: "Speyside Equity Fund I LP (the "Fund")
that it was fully funded." The Fund was described as a limited
partnership which will invest $130 million funds raised by Speyside
Private Fund to fund Speyside Equity projects.
According to the Complaint, Speyside Equity 1 LP entered into a
confidentiality agreement with OPTA Minerals in June 2015, and in
April 2016, Speyside acquired OPTA Minerals by using its sister
company, Speyside Equity 1, to own OPTA Minerals. All of these
Defendants urge that the Complaint does not plausibly state a claim
for relief against them.
As noted, subject matter jurisdiction is premised on CAFA. This
action was originally filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York
County, and removed by OPTA. Judge Castel notes that the Notice of
Removal and the Complaint contain numerous legal errors about the
citizenship of limited liability companies, which take the
citizenship of all of their members. Notice of Removal states that
two putative class members are citizens of Austria. The body of the
then-operative complaint identified OPTA Minerals, Inc., as a
defendant incorporated in Delaware; no principal place of business
was alleged.
Notwithstanding the numerous defects in the parties' citizenship
allegations, the Court concludes that it had subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA at the time of removal based on the foreign
citizenship of two putative class members and the Delaware
citizenship of a defendant.
Judge Castel notes that four of the five Defendants have moved to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Here, OPTA does not
dispute the Court's personal jurisdiction over it, and all
Defendants urge that the Complaint does not plausibly state a claim
for relief against them. Because the Complaint does not plausibly
state a claim for relief against any of the movants, the Court need
not reach their arguments directed to personal jurisdiction.
In its response to the Defendants' motion, under the heading "Opta
Minerals Inc. is Not Needed," MCGM states as follows: "Defendants
intend to drop the full name of a company. Opta Minerals Inc. is
not Opta Mineral Group LLC. Opta Minerals Inc. is dropped."
The Court understands MCGM to be stating that it no longer will
proceed with any claim against OPTA Minerals Inc. Hence, all claims
against OPTA Minerals Inc. will be dismissed with prejudice.
Count One of the Complaint is labeled as a claim of "Fraud Against
Co-Conspirators." It recites the legal elements for fraud and of
civil conspiracy, and states, "At least ten persons and entities
agreed to a transaction who planned and were able to succeed to
remove the Shareholders as owners of SKW AG."
For the purposes of this motion, the Court assumes arguendo that
the Complaint adequately alleges fraudulent conduct by Michel, but
grants the motion to dismiss because it does not plausibly allege
that any of the Moving Defendants entered into an agreement with
Michel to commit an act of fraud. Accordingly, the motion to
dismiss Count One against the four Moving Defendants will be
granted.
Count Two is labeled "Promissory Estoppel Against Speyside
Controlled Company," and asserts that Michel acted as an alter ego
of either Speyside or a company controlled by Speyside.
Judge Castel finds that the Complaint does not identify a clear and
unambiguous promise by Michel or detrimental reliance by MCGM. The
Complaint asserts that in April 2015, Michel proposed to increase
the capital of SKW by doubling the outstanding SKW shares and
issuing the new shares for shareholders to buy. The shareholders
voted to approve the proposal on June 9, 2015.
Drawing every reasonable inference in favor of MCGM, Judge Castel
finds that the Complaint does not make any allegation that would
tend to show that Michel exercised domination and control over any
Speyside entity. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that
Michel was a longtime friend of a Speyside managing director,
Defendant Daugherty. Those allegations go toward actions that
Michel undertook at the expense of SKW in order to benefit himself
and entities controlled by a personal friend, but they do not go
allege Michel's domination and control over a Speyside entity,
including Movants OPTA and Speyside Equity 1 LP.
Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege an express promise
or detrimental reliance, or that any Speyside-related entity was
under the domination and control of Michel, Judge Castel says the
Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Two will be granted.
Count Three is headed "Conveyance without Consideration against
Speyside and/or OPTA," and asserts that conveyances by persons in
business made without fair consideration is fraudulent as to
creditors and as to other persons, who become creditors during the
continuance of such business transaction without regard to his
actual intent.
Judge Castel notes that neither the Complaint nor MCGM's opposition
memo cites New York Debtor and Creditor Law. MCGM emphasizes that
OPTA acquired SKW and that Michel pursued the transaction without
first seeking shareholder approval.
Generously construing Count Three to be a claim brought under the
New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Judge Castel finds that the
Complaint does not plausibly describe a violation of section 274 by
OPTA or any other Moving Defendant. The Complaint does not
otherwise allege facts that plausibly state a claim for "conveyance
without conversion." The motion to dismiss Count Three will be
granted.
Count Four is headed "Conversion by OPTA Group LLC Against OPTA
Group LLC," and asserts that the Plaintiff has good reason to
believe that SKW was merged into OPTA Group LLC notwithstanding the
Defendants' claim that there was no merger.
Because the Complaint expressly acknowledges that "Speyside, and/or
a Speyside affiliate" came to acquire MCGM's shares in SKW as a
result of the insolvency plan, Judge Castel holds that it does not
plausibly allege a conversion claim against OPTA.
Judge Castel observes that no appearance has been made on behalf of
Defendants Michel, Daugherty, Speyside Private Fund Advisers LLC
and Speyside Private Fund LLP. It is not apparent from the docket
whether these Defendants have been served with process. Separately,
in the portion of the Complaint that purports to allege the Court's
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, SKW states as follows:
"Each Defendant below purposefully availed him/itself of the
privilege of conducting business in New York or is 'at home' in New
York . . . Michel lives in Germany beyond the jurisdiction of this
federal court." This appears to be an acknowledgement that the
Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Michel.
Judge Castel directs the Plaintiff that within 14 days, it will
file a letter-brief setting forth the date, time and circumstances
of service of process on Michel, Daugherty, Speyside Private Fund
Advisers LLC and Speyside Private Fund LLP, including compliance
with Rules 4(l) and (m), Fed. R. Civ. P. The Plaintiff will also
show cause in the same letter-brief why any Defendant required to
be served within the time limit set by Rule 4(m) but who has not
been so served ought not be dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 21,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/227se76d from
PacerMonitor.com.
PATHWAYS IN EDUCATION: Moore Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS MOORE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. PATHWAYS IN EDUCATION, INC. d/b/a PATHWAYS TRAVELS, a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01968 (N.D.
Cal., April 1, 2024) arises from the Defendant's uniform day rate
pay scheme that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission's Wage Orders, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act, and their implementing regulations, the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, the DC Minimum Wage Act,
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiff Moore worked for Pathways in Education as an experiential
learning educator from approximately February 2022 through March
2023. He alleges that the Defendant violated the said laws by
depriving him and other day rate employees of overtime for their
overtime hours worked.
Based in Pasadena, CA, Pathways in Education operates as travel
agency that offers both in-person and virtual travel programs
across the country and abroad geared towards underserved, at-risk
youth. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com
PG&E CORP: Securities Suit Over CA Wildfires Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 27, 2023, that on September 30, 2022, the
District Court issued an order staying "In re PG&E Corporation
Securities Litigation" pending resolution of an ongoing bankruptcy
proceeding.
Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California administratively closed the case, subject to a motion by
the parties thereto to reopen the case. On October 31, 2022, the
Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (PERA) filed
a notice of appeal of the District Court's order staying the
action. PERA filed its opening brief on March 6, 2023, the
answering brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed its reply
on May 30, 2023. Oral argument was held on September 13, 2023.
In June 2018, a purported securities class action was filed in said
court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and
former officers as defendants, entitled "David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al."
The complaint alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other
things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the
2017 Northern California wildfires. The complaints asserted claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.
Said complaint identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015, to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court
consolidated said case into "In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation," (N.D. Cal.), Case No. 18-03509. The court also
appointed PERA as the lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated
amended complaint on November 9, 2018.
Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings
were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and its parent
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
PG&E Corporation is an energy and gas company based in California.
PHARMACARE US: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Granted In Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA SUNDERLAND and
BENJAMIN BINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC. and PHARMACARE LABORATORIES PTY
LTD., Case No. 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Allison Goddard entered an order granting in part the joint motion
to extend discovery deadlines.
The Court issues the following first amended scheduling order:
1. The Court sets a one-hour, counsel-only Status Conference
for
Apr. 18, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference before
Magistrate
Judge Allison Goddard. Counsel should be prepared to discuss
discovery progress and their outlook on settlement.
2. No later than June 3, 2024, the parties shall designate their
respective experts for class certification in writing. The
date
for exchange of rebuttal experts for class certification
shall
be no later than July 3, 2024.
3. No later than June 3, 2024, each party shall comply with Rule
26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions regarding experts
for
class certification.
4. No later than July 3, 2024, the parties shall supplement
their
Disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence for
class certification under Rule 26(a)(2)(D).
5. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class
discovery
must be completed by Aug. 5, 2024.
6. The Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by
Sept. 19, 2024.
PharmaCare markets and sells healthcare products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YkTnvN at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHARMACARE US: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 31
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA SUNDERLAND and
BENJAMIN BINDER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
PHARMACARE LABORATORIES PTY LTD., an Australian company, Case No.
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint motion
and stipulation for extension of discovery and class certification
deadlines:
-- Initial class certification expert disclosure May 1,
2024
and report deadline to:
-- Rebuttal class certification expert June 28,
2024
disclosure and report to:
-- Class discovery deadline to: Aug. 9,
2024
-- Bid for class certification deadline to: July 31,
2024
PharmaCare creates, markets and sells healthcare products.
A copy of the Court's order joint motion dated March 28, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RvOSDG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Luis Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 W. Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
rsoffin@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
ahoneycutt@milberg.com
nsuciu@milberg.com
mgeer@milberg.com
eruben@milberg.com
lcardona@milberg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
E-mail: gferrari@seyfarth.com
PHARMACARE US: Corbett Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB
DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons Jr. entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the motion for class certification,
denying the motion to exclude testimony of J. Michael Dennis and
Colin Weir, and denying motion to exclude testimony of Mark Keegan
and Keith Ugone.
Only the following classes are certified:
(1) A California Subclass for the NDI Claim;
(2) A Missouri Subclass for the NDI Claim; and
(3) A California Subclass for the Disease Claim.
Certification of the proposed nationwide classes are denied for the
reasons stated in this Order under the Mazza analysis.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show
that a class action is the superior method to adjudicate the class
member's claims.
On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against PharmaCare, asserting consumer protection and breach of
warranty claims based on its Sambucol product, a dietary supplement
that is alleged to contain a proprietary extract of black
elderberry.
Each of Defendant's products that are at issue in this case contain
black elderberry extract. Specifically, the following twelve
products are at issue:
1. Original Syrup (4oz and 7.8oz)
2. Kids Syrup (4oz and 7.8oz)
3. Chewable Tablets
4. Advance Immune Syrup (4oz)
5. Gummies3
6. Kid Gummies4
7. Advance Immune Capsules
8. Effervescent Tablets
9. Throat Lozenges
10. Daily Immune Drink Powder
11. Infant Drops
12. Sugar Free Syrup (4oz)
PharmaCare creates, markets and sells healthcare products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bsepGj at no extra
charge.[CC]
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, et al,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, V. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., Case No.
8:22-cv-01768-PJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Peter Messitte entered
an order that:
1. The Subpoenaed Judges' motion to quash is granted;
2. The County's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
granted;
3. The Judge Defendants' motion for judgment on the Pleadings is
Granted; and
4. The preliminary injunction hearing currently scheduled for
April 3, 2024 is cancelled.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AakdfI
at no extra charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD, v.
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel Slomsky entered an order granting
the Defendant's unopposed motion to extend class certification
deadlines:
1. The Defendant's Opposition to Class July 18, 2024
Certification shall be filed by:
2. The Defendant's Challenges to July 18, 2024
Plaintiff's Class Certification
Experts shall be filed by:
3. The Defendant's Class Certification July 18, 2024
Expert Disclosures shall be served
upon opposing counsel by:
4. The Defendant's Class Certification July 18, 2024
Expert Depositions shall be completed
by:
5. The Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Aug. 15, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification
shall be filed by:
6. The Plaintiff's Challenges to the Aug. 15, 2024
Defendant's Class Certification
Experts shall be filed by:
Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K2yDyU at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Seeks Redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID TAXER and SAUL
CORTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01255-HZ
(D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing
the proposed redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4 and maintain the
unredacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 4 under seal.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion on March 8, 2024. The Plaintiffs
moved to seal excerpts of the Motion, as well as certain exhibits
thereto.
However, because such materials were designated as "Confidential"
by Progressive or non-parties Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D.
Power, Plaintiffs took "no position" on the merits of their sealing
motion and invited the designating parties to address the
substantive requirements of LR 26-4.
On March 21, the Court ordered Progressive to show compelling
reasons for granting Plaintiffs’ motion to seal.
Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=17nh7a at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
Christopher C. Rifer, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
760 SW Ninth Ave, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
E-mail: timothy.snider@stoel.com
christopher.rifer@stoel.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Allexia Bowman Arnold, Esq.
Erin Munger, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
aarnold@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
PRYMOR INC: Potiyevskiy Sues Over Worker Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
ARKADIY POTIYEVSKIY, Plaintiff v. PRYMOR, INC., LILLY TOMA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02612 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2024) is a
class action lawsuit accusing the Defendants of violating multiple
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collections Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Prymor as a truck driver for about 11
months, between January 19, 2023 and December 22, 2023. Throughout
his employment, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor, and consistently underpaid. In addition, Defendants
also made deductions from his paychecks, which Plaintiff did not
consent to and was not alerted to beforehand, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Buffalo Grove, IL, Prymor, Inc. is an Illinois corporation
engaged in transportation and delivery business in Illinois and
throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julia Bikbova, Esq.
BIKBOVA LAW OFFICES, P.C.
666 Dundee Road, Suite 708
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (847) 730-1800
E-mail: julia@bikbovalaw.com
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retirement Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------
KHRISSMELY RAMIREZ, on her behalf and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SCHULTE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01257-VMC (N.D. Ga., March
22, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and other current and former similarly
situated employees overtime wages for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 for Defendant's failure to properly contribute to
retirement plans due to underpayment.
Plaintiff Ramirez was hired by the Defendant as an hourly paid
full-time employee from November 2021 through January 2024 to work
in the Food and Beverage Department but was assigned many different
job duties in several different departments throughout her
employment.
Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc. is actively engaged in the hotel
management business throughout the State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adeash Lakraj, Esq.
FARAH & FARAH, P.A.
2310 Parklake Drive NE Suite 262
Atlanta, GA 30345
Telephone: (470) 751-3767
E-mail: alakraj@farahandfarah.com
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Faces Schmitt Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
DONNA SCHMITT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., a Foreign
for Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02188 (W.D.
Tenn., March 22, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's systematic and
class-wide failure to pay Plaintiff and Class members proper
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Schmitt has been employed by Defendant since on or around
2008, and for the relevant period of time, was paid on a salaried
basis, and held the title of "Performance Assurance Analyst." On a
frequent basis throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant,
she frequently and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week
but was not compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
at a rate not less than one-and-one-half times the regular rate of
pay, the Plaintiff asserts.
Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. provides claims and
productivity management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ
533 Versailles Drive, Suite 100
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
SHANER OPERATING: Paton Seeks Proper Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY PATON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHANER OPERATING CORP. d/b/a Shaner
Operating and BRIDGE PARK HOTEL, LLC d/b/a VASO, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-01498-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 1, 2024) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Constitutional Law.
Plaintiff Paton has been employed by Defendants since approximately
March 2023 to the present as a non-exempt tipped employee. The
Plaintiff is paid an hourly rate by Defendants that is less than
the federal minimum wage rate and less than the Ohio minimum wage
rate. In addition, Defendants unlawfully took a tip credit even
though he and other tipped employees performed non-tipped work
exceeding twenty percent of their weekly time worked, says the
Plaintiff.
Shaner Operating Corp. is a Delaware for-profit corporation that
owns and operates a restaurant and bar in Dublin, OH named "VASO."
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Strongsville, OH 44136
E-mail: ekmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
SHIPWRIGHT SPAC: Richards Brings Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHEADRICK RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SHIPWRIGHT SPAC I, LLC, SHIPWRIGHT PARTNERS
LLC, BRUCE LINTON, ANDREW TOWNSEND, JONATHAN SHERMAN, YEVGENY
NEGINSKY, TIM SAUNDERS, WILSON KELLO, GEOFFREY W. WHALING and
EUGENE DOZORTSEV, Case No. 2024-0320 (Del. Ch., March 28, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties stemming
from Collective Growth's merger with Innoviz.
The Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated current and former stockholders of Collective
Growth Corporation, now Innoviz Technologies Ltd. The Defendants,
who served as controllers, directors, and/or officers of Collective
Growth, allegedly allowed their financial interests to override
their fiduciary duties to Collective Growth's public stockholders
by initiating a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC)
transaction and forcing through a value-destroying merger with
Innoviz. Additionally, the Defendants allegedly induced stockholder
approval of the deal by providing public stockholders, including
Plaintiff, with materially misleading information which impaired
stockholders' ability to exercise their redemption rights.
The Plaintiff brings a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the director defendants, the officer defendants, and the
controller defendants, as well as unjust enrichment against all
Defendants.
Shipwright SPAC, LLC was Collective Growth's sponsor based in
Austin, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
Jonathan C. Millis, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A
123 Justison St., 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
E-mail: cmackintosh@gelaw.com
jmillis@gelaw.com
- and -
Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: corrico@gelaw.com
- and -
Michael Klausner, Esq.
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: (650) 740-1194
E-mail: klausner@stanford.edu
STONEMOR GP: Simpson Loses Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUBERT SIMPSON, ET AL., v.
STONEMOR GP, LLC; CAROTHERS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; STONEMOR NORTH
CAROLINA, LLC; STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP; STONEMOR NORTH CAROLINA
FUNERAL SERVICES, INC.; AND STONEMOR NORTH CAROLINA SUBSIDIARY,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00217-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Kenneth Bell entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied;
2. Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied as moot; and
3. The Clerk is directed to remand this action to the Superior
Court for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and thereafter
close this matter in accordance with this Order.
The Plaintiffs assert multiple causes of action on behalf of
thousands of putative class members claiming that the Defendants
committed serious misconduct in operating York Memorial Cemetery,
where their "next of kin" are buried.
However, despite the Plaintiffs having now had three opportunities
to define one or more viable classes, it is clear that they cannot
properly maintain their widely varying claims as a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore,
the Court will deny the Motion to Certify Class. With this denial
of class certification, the lone basis for federal jurisdiction
over this very local dispute no longer applies. Accordingly, the
Court will remand this matter to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, leaving the merits of the Defendants'
motions to dismiss to be decided in the state courts, where similar
claims related to the same cemetery are pending and were the
subject of earlier litigation ultimately resolved in the North
Carolina Court of Appeals.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(3).
The first proposed class is "all individuals who entered into a
contract with Defendants for burial services at York Memorial
Cemetery from Jan. 1, 1969, through the date of class certification
(the "Contract Holder Class")" and
The second is "all individuals who are next of kin of any
individual buried at York Memorial Cemetery from January 1, 1969,
through the date of class certification (the "Next of Kin
Class")."
StoneMor is an owner and operator of cemeteries and funeral homes.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZfEXah at no extra
charge.[CC]
STORER TRANSPORTATION: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages & PAGA Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROMONICA TAYLOR, on a representative basis on behalf of the State
of California for all aggrieved employees, including herself and
other aggrieved employees v. STORER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
24STCV07865 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 2024) seeks
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from approximately February 2022 through February 5, 2023.
Throughout that period, Defendants allegedly engaged in a
policy/practice of manipulating the time records of Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees to intentionally undercompensate them,
resulting in Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees the proper minimum wage for all hours worked as
well as overtime/double-time compensation for all
overtime/double-time hours worked. The Defendants allegedly
committed several other Labor Code violations, including failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business
expenses, and failure to maintain accurate wage statements, says
the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Modesto, CA, Storer Transportation Service
provides transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
Ethan C. Surls, Esq.
STANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC
2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
Venice, CA 90291
Telephone: (323) 204-3124
STURM & RUGER: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK JONES, et al., v.
STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC., and FREESTYLE SOFTWARE, INC., Case
No. 3:22-cv-01233-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari Dooley
entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to
dismiss; and
-- dismissing Plaintiffs' negligence and unjust enrichment claims
against Sturm, Ruger; and
-- dismissing Plaintiffs' negligence claim against Freestyle.
The putative class action arises out of data breach of a server
which hosted several e-commerce sites and allegedly resulted in the
compromise of personal identifying information ("PII") belonging to
the Plaintiffs Mark Jones, Michelle Gould, Dicky Warren, Carl Jung,
Lauren Copeland, and Lee Woods and those similarly situated.
In a three-count Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert state law claims
for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment against
the
Defendants, alleging that the data breach of Freestyle’s server,
which hosted Sturm, Ruger's e-commerce site, provided
cybercriminals with access to their sensitive PII and payment card
data ("PCD") which could be used to perpetrate theft, identity
crimes, and fraud.
On Aug. 18, 2022, Sturm, Ruger notified Plaintiffs and others that
Freestyle was a victim of malware that infected its servers between
Sept. 18, 2020, and Feb. 3, 2022. Freestyle allegedly removed the
malware from the servers in Feb. 2022. The Plaintiffs and other
affected customers were offered twelve months of free identity
protection and a $1,000,000 insurance reimbursement policy.
Sturm, Ruger is a Connecticut corporation that manufactures
firearms and firearm accessories and sells such accessories on
www.ShopRuger.com.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 27, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tq5cPK at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Cilluffo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO CILLUFFO et al., v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-01897-RBK-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler
entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's motion to stay and
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
The Court said that because the Defendants' timeliness claim rests
upon whether the Plaintiffs' claim can be tolled due to fraudulent
concealment, we decline to rule on the timeliness of Count IX for
the same reasons expressed in Counts X–XII.
We also suspend our review of the underlying merits, because doing
so requires examining the same privity and reliance relationships
underpinning the common-law breach of implied warranty claim in
Count III. As discussed, such an analysis would be premature.
Accordingly, we deny the Defendants' motion as to Count IX, the
Court adds.
The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against the Defendants
on behalf of themselves "and all similarly situated persons in the
United States or residents of their respective states" who are
current and former owners or lessees of certain 2019–2023 model
Subaru vehicles equipped with an allegedly defective Starlink
in-vehicle infotainment system.
The Starlink system is a touchscreen multimedia and video interface
that includes, among other things, the visual for a backup camera,
controls for the audio and radio system, cell phone connectivity,
the navigation system, and other features.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Starlink system does not live up to
its billing as a product providing "seamless navigation," "extra
safety," and "everyday convenience."
The Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint on April 4, 2023. On May
26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.
Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand
vehicle.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wt9eOD at no extra
charge.[CC]
TEAM VOLKSWAGEN: Merritt Sues Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
ERIC LAMONT MERRITT, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TEAM VOLKSWAGEN OF HAYWARD CORPORATION, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24C063823 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., March
29, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating numerous provisions
of the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission's Wage Orders and asserts claims for violations of the
California Business and Professions Code in connection with the
Defendants' unfair competition practices.
Plaintiff Eric Lamont Merritt worked for Defendants from
approximately December 2022 through approximately April 2023. Among
other things, Plaintiff Merritt alleges that the Defendants failed
to pay overtime wages to him, in violation of California state wage
and hour laws.
Team Volkswagen of Hayward Corporation is a full service dealership
in Hayward, CA. It offers a variety of new & used cars, parts,
service, and financing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
Calyn V. Hadlock, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAWGROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd,
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jaf@tomorrowlaw.com
zach@tomorrowlaw.com
calyn@tomorrowlaw.com
THEMIS BAR: Gunter Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
COLE GUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THEMIS BAR REVIEW, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02566 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2024) arises from Defendant's
practice of knowingly sharing consumers’ personally identifiable
information and viewed video media to third parties without
authorization, including Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), in
violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.
When Themis transmitted Plaintiff and other consumers' personal
viewing information -- their persistent Facebook ID and viewed
video content -- that information was combined and sent to Facebook
as one data point, revealing the identity of the individual who
viewed a specific video, says the suit.
Themis Bar Review, LLC owns and operates the website,
www.themisbar.com, which offers test preparation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (813) 699-4056
E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com
THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE: Lefevere Alleges Unfair Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LEFEVERE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC
D/B/A THRIVEWORKS, Defendants, Case No. CACE-24-004459 (Fla. Cir.,
17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 1, 2024) arises under the
Florida Collection Practices Act.
On January 16, 2024, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff regarding the collection of the consumer
debt. However, the said communication was sent by Defendant at 7:19
AM in Plaintiff's time zone. On January 23, 2024, another
electronic communication was sent by Defendant at 7:23 AM in
Plaintiff's time zone. Thus, the Defendant violated FCCPA, which
prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor between the
hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 PM in the debtor's time zone without the
prior consent of the debtor, says the suit.
Headquartered in Lynchburg, VA, Thriveworks provides billing,
scheduling, credentialing, marketing, and more to their medical
professional clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G.Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
TWIN RIVERS: Facility Causes Noxious Odor, McDonald Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
STACY MCDONALD; and SANDRA PETERS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWIN RIVERS
TECHNOLOGIES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2482cv00295 (Mass. Super., March 27, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendant's operation of its facility which causes noxious odors
and air particulates.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant owns
and operates a fatty acid and glycerin manufacturing facility. The
noxious odors emitted from the facility are offensive and would be
offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary health and
sensibilities. These odors have caused property damage, including
interference with the Plaintiffs' and the Class' ability to use and
enjoy their homes and property.
The Defendant negligently, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly,
and willfully failed to properly design, operate, repair, and
maintain the facility and its associated operations, thereby
causing the invasion of the Plaintiffs' property by noxious odors
on unusually frequent, intermittent, and ongoing reoccurring
occasions, says the suit.
TWIN RIVERS TECHNOLOGIES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION manufactures a
wide range of fatty acid products that are commonly used in the
production of finished products that are sold worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P. Doyle, III, Esq.
COLONNA, DOYLE & SIMEOLA
26 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Lynnfield, MA 01940
Telephone: (781) 245-1127
Email: bill@colonna-doyle.com
- and -
Steven D. Little, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
Email: sliddle@LSCounsel.com
lsheets@LScounsel.com
mrobb@LSCcounsel.com
UNDER PRESSURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mouchas Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS MOUCHAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER PRESSURE COFFEE INC.; COFFEE WARSHIP
INC.; and MICHAIL PAPADOPOULOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02221
(E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
damages for minimum wage, overtime, spread of hours, unpaid tips,
liquidated damages and statutory damages, attorney’s fees, costs,
and interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Mouchas was employed by the Defendants as a barista and
delivery driver.
UNDER PRESSURE COFFEE INC. offers specialty coffee beans, brewed or
fresh, in Astoria, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Alvarado, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2207
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com
UNITED STATES: Bids to Dismiss Sequeira v. DHS Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendants' motions to dismiss filed in the lawsuit styled
NELSON SEQUEIRA, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-07996-HSG
(N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement; Western Union Financial Services, Inc.; Continental
Exchange Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Ria Financial Services and AFEX
Money Express; Viamericas Corporation; and DolEx Dollar Express,
Inc. For the reasons detailed in this Order, the Court grants the
motions in part and denies the motions in part. The Court relatedly
grants the Defendants' associated requests for judicial notice.
Plaintiffs Nelson Sequeira, Orsay Alegria, and Ismael Cordero bring
claims individually and on behalf of a proposed class, alleging
violations of the Right to Financial Privacy Act ("RFPA") and
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") by two groups of
Defendants: (1) the "Federal Government Defendants," which include
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); and (2) the "Money
Transfer Defendants," which include Western Union Financial
Services, Inc., Continental Exchange Solutions, Inc., DolEx Dollar
Express, Inc. ("DolEx"), and Viamericas Corporation.
In their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Plaintiffs allege
that the Money Transfer Defendants violated the RFPA by sharing the
Plaintiffs' private financial and personal records with law
enforcement agencies, including the Federal Government Defendants,
and that the Federal Government Defendants, in turn, violated the
RFPA by collecting and obtaining these private financial and
personal records.
The Plaintiffs allege that the financial records are collected and
shared through the Transaction Record Analysis Center ("TRAC"), a
collaboration of law enforcement agencies, including several
federal government agencies like Defendants DHS and ICE. The
Plaintiffs allege that this program, which has existed since
approximately 2014, was only recently made public, and that records
indicate that it targets immigrants and communities of color. TRAC
gathers and makes available consumer financial records from money
transfer companies for money transfers greater than $500 sent to or
from the Southwest border region, including Arizona, California,
New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico.
According to the FAC, the information gathered is sweeping, and not
intended to focus on particular individuals suspected of criminal
activity. The Plaintiffs raise concerns that TRAC can be weaponized
against vulnerable groups based on improper criteria, such as race,
religion, or national origin. The Plaintiffs further allege that
the Money Transfer Defendants were aware that multiple federal
government agencies could access and obtain the information
produced to TRAC.
Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Money Transfer Defendants'
sharing of their private financial and personal records is in
violation of the California Financial Information Privacy Act
("Cal. FIPA") and, therefore, constitutes an unlawful business
practice under the UCL. The Defendants now move to dismiss the
FAC.
The Court begins with the Defendants' primary argument for
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' RFPA claim: because the Money Transfer
Defendants are not "financial institutions" as defined by the RFPA,
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a legally cognizable theory
upon which relief can be granted.
The Defendants argue that the term "consumer finance institution"
should be construed to mean a company whose core function and
purpose is the provision of financing and cash loans to the public,
and that the allegations against the Money Transfer Defendants do
not satisfy that definition. The Plaintiffs counter that "consumer
finance institution" should not be construed so narrowly, and that
it should at least encompass "institutions whose primary purpose is
to assist consumers with financial transactions."
Judge Gilliam notes that while the Plaintiffs are correct that
dictionary definitions are not dispositive in questions of
statutory interpretation, here they have not cited a single source,
dictionary or otherwise, that supports the assertion that their
proffered definition is the "common understanding" of the term
"consumer finance institution." Instead, the overwhelming weight of
authority presented to this Court supports the Defendants' position
that the ordinary and common meaning of "consumer finance
institution" is a company that provides financing and cash loans to
consumers as a core function and purpose of its business.
The Plaintiffs and amici nonetheless argue that this definition is
contrary to Congress's intent in enacting the RFPA. The Court does
not find these arguments persuasive for several reasons. First, in
a report by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
discussing the bill that would eventually become the RFPA, the
Committee stated that the term "consumer finance institution" is
intended to mean a consumer finance company, a sales finance
company, a small loan company, a consumer discount company, or
other similar institution.
Second, and more importantly, Judge Gilliam opines, the Plaintiffs
and amici's argument that the RFPA was intended as a statutory
response to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v.
Miller, 425 U.S. 437 (1976), and thus, intended to protect consumer
privacy in all financial transactions generally does not convince
the Court that the specific term "consumer finance institution"
should be construed broadly.
Finally, the Court addresses the Plaintiffs' and amici's policy
arguments. Ultimately, while the Court finds these arguments to be
substantial as a public policy matter, they are insufficient to
change the result here. As with their legislative intent arguments,
the critical flaw with these policy arguments is that while they
cogently articulate the position that entities, such as the Money
Transfer Defendants, should be covered by the RFPA generally, they
fail to show that the Money Transfer Defendants actually are
covered as consumer finance institutions, a specific term within
the RFPA.
Accordingly, the Court interprets the term "consumer finance
institution" to mean a company for which the provision of financing
and cash loans to consumers is a core function and purpose of its
business. Because the FAC does not allege that Continental or
Viamericas provide loans as part of their business, the Plaintiffs
fail to allege that they are "consumer finance institutions,"
meaning that they have not stated a legally cognizable claim for
relief as to these defendants. The Plaintiffs' RFPA claim is,
therefore, dismissed as to Continental and Viamericas.
However, Judge Gilliam says, the FAC does allege that Western Union
provides consumer financial services including "lending services,"
and that DolEx provides financial services, including "personal
lending," and advertises "quick and easy personal loans." Western
Union and DolEx protest that these allegations are untrue, but the
Court finds these to be factual disputes that cannot be resolved on
a motion to dismiss.
Because the Plaintiffs' well-pled allegations must be taken as true
on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that Western Union and DolEx are "financial
institutions" under the RFPA.
DolEx argues that the Plaintiffs' RFPA claim should be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege they were
its "customers" under the RFPA. DolEx argues that, because the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they utilized DolEx's
services in relation to an account maintained in their name, they
have failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under the RFPA.
While the Court disagrees with DolEx's characterization of the
statute as "unambiguous," it nonetheless agrees with the weight of
authority in concluding that, to be a "customer" under the RFPA, a
plaintiff must allege that the financial institution in question
maintains an account in their name.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a
cognizable claim for relief under the RFPA for two separate
reasons. First, the Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that
Continental and Viamericas are "consumer finance institutions"
under the RFPA, and second, the Plaintiffs fail to adequately
allege that they are "customers" under the RFPA. Accordingly, the
Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the
Plaintiffs' RFPA claim.
Judge Gilliam holds that because Plaintiff Alegria has alleged no
loss of money or property as a result of the unlawful conduct
alleged in the Plaintiffs' UCL claims, Plaintiff Alegria does not
have standing to pursue a UCL claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
UCL claim is dismissed as to Continental, Viamericas, and DolEx.
The Plaintiffs' only remaining UCL claim is against Western Union.
Western Union argues that because the Cal. FIPA does not provide a
private right of action, the Plaintiffs cannot bring a UCL claim
predicated on an alleged violation of that statute.
As was the case in Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores,
Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553, 566 (1998), Judge Gilliam opines that there
is no evidence here that the Cal. FIPA "expressly provides" that
the civil penalties of Section 4057 are not cumulative of remedies
under the UCL. Absent any such express provision, the Plaintiffs
are entitled to pursue their UCL claim under the unlawful prong.
Western Union argues that the Plaintiffs cannot allege a cognizable
UCL claim under the unlawful prong, because its conduct was not
unlawful under the Cal. FIPA or alternatively, immunized by the
Annunzio–Wylie Anti–Money Laundering Act. Judge Gilliam says
these arguments raise affirmative defenses, which the Court does
not have an adequate factual record to resolve at this stage.
Accordingly, the Court denies Western Union's motion to dismiss on
these grounds.
Because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
they have standing to pursue a UCL claim against Continental,
Viamericas, or DolEx, the Court grants Continental, Viamericas, and
DolEx's motions to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' UCL claim. The
Court denies Western Union's motion to dismiss as to the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim.
Because the Court cannot conclude at this stage that amendment
would be futile, the Court grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend.
Related to their motions to dismiss, Western Union, DolEx, and
Continental request the Court take judicial notice of subpoenas,
court orders, and other publicly available documents relating to
their production of financial records to the Arizona state
government and/or TRAC. The Plaintiffs do not challenge these
requests. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' requests
for judicial notice and takes notice of the existence of the
documents, without accepting their underlying factual contents as
true.
Accordingly, the Court grants with leave to amend Continental,
Viamericas, DolEx, and the Federal Government Defendants' motions
to dismiss. Western Union's motion to dismiss is granted with leave
to amend as to the Plaintiffs' RFPA claim, and denied as to the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim. Any amended complaint must be filed within
28 days from the date of this Order. The Court also grants the
Defendants' requests for judicial notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/33mvtwfc from PacerMonitor.com.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE GROUP: Be Well Balks at Inadequate Data Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BE WELL INTEGRATIVE HEALTH PARTNERS, PLLC, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE GROUP INCORPORATED, OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE
HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00337 (M.D. Tenn.,
March 22, 2024) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms
caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated persons, in the massive and preventable cyberattack
purportedly discovered by Defendants on February 21, 2024.
According to the complaint, the cybercriminals, known as the
BlackCat/ALPHV ransomware group, infiltrated Defendants'
inadequately protected network and accessed highly sensitive
information which was being kept unprotected. As a result of the
breach, Change Healthcare "disconnected [its] systems to prevent
further impact," according to a statement released on February 26,
2024. With those systems disconnected, Plaintiff and Class Members
have been cut off from over 100 services provided by Change
Healthcare, including benefits verifications, claims submissions,
and prior authorizations. Without those services, Plaintiff and
Class Members cannot be paid for their work with patients, says the
suit.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that sensitive 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, the suit further contends.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE GROUP is an American multinational health
insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trey Harwell, Esq.
Charles Barrett, Esq.
Simon N. Levitsky, Esq.
NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
1201 Demonbreun St. Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-1713
E-mail: trey@nealharwell.com
cbarrett@nealharwell.com
slevitsky@nealharwell.com
VI-JON, LLC: Loughlin' Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristina Loughlin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Vi-Jon, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-11555-MLW (D. Mass.), the Court
entered an order that:
1. Vi-Jon's motion to exclude the Plaintiff's microbiology
expert
is denied.
2. Vi-Jon's motion for summary judgment is denied.
3. Loughlin's motion for class certification is denied.
4. Loughlin's motion to compel defendant to produce discovery
is
denied as moot.
Loughlin has brought this action on behalf of herself and
Massachusetts consumers who, within four years of the initial
filing on Aug. 26, 2020, purchased hand sanitizer (Germ-X)
manufactured by the Defendant.
Loughlin alleges that the representation is deceptive and leads
reasonable consumers to believe that Vi-Jon's Products are more
effective at killing germs than they actually are.
Vi-Jon is a private brand dry goods bath and personal care products
provider that includes Epsom salts and other personal care
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LAuoyl at no extra
charge.[CC]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hernandez Loses Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HERNANDEZ, et al.,
v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No.
5:21-cv-00166-FLA-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando
Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Court said that the Plaintiffs fail to establish adequately
that the original meal period punches reflect missed, short, late,
or otherwise non-compliant meal periods -- thus, triggering a
presumption of liability under Donahue -- and argue instead that
meal period punches were compliant only after having been
adjusted.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals, alleging Walmart
engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices and failed to
provide compliant meal breaks, authorize and permit rest breaks,
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, pay all wages due, and
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of their duties.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of
"All non-exempt employees of the Defendant's Walmart stores in
California during the period of Nov. 17, 2016 through the date
of
class certification."
Walmart argues that "because the issues raised by the Plaintiffs'
expense reimbursement and meal period claims depend on
associate-specific facts, rather than evidence common to all [class
members], individual fact issues would dominate the trial," and are
"not suitable for class treatment."
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74tbDk at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Proposed Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aljanal Carroll, Claudia
Provost Charles, Tiffany Fair, and Tareion Fluker, v. Walden
University, LLC, and Walden e-Learning, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00051-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs and Class
Representatives ask the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, to enter an order:
(1) preliminarily approve the parties' proposed Settlement
Agreement;
(2) conditionally certify a settlement class; and
(3) approve the form and manner of giving notice of the
settlement
to members of the proposed settlement class.
The Defendants have not opposed the Plaintiffs' motion.
Walden University is a private for-profit online university. It
offers bachelor's, master's, doctoral, and specialist degrees.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5AIcuD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexa T. Milton, Esq.
Glenn Schlactus, Esq.
Tara K. Ramchandani, Esq.
Lila R. Miller, Esq.
Edward K. Olds, Esq.
RELMAN COLFAX PLLC
1225 19th St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 728-1888
Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
E-mail: amilton@relmanlaw.com
gschlactus@relmanlaw.com
tramchandani@relmanlaw.com
lmiller@relmanlaw.com
tolds@relmanlaw.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
WALMART ASSOCIATES: Fact Discovery in Hernandez Due April 26
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HERNANDEZ, et al.,
v. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00166-FLA-SHK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order
resetting pre-trial and trial dates as follows:
Fact Discovery Deadline: April 26, 2024
Initial Expert Disclosure: May 3, 2024
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: May 17, 2024
Expert Discovery Deadline: May 31, 2024
Last Day to Hear Motions: June 28, 2024
First Round Trial Filings: July 26, 2024
Second Round Trial Filings: Aug. 9, 2024
Final Pretrial Conference: Aug. 23, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.
Trial: Sept. 9, 2024, at 8:15 a.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UYoWjk at no extra
charge.[CC]
WARNER BROS: CPPB Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that on February 5, 2024, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an
amended complaint with prejudice. The original class action lawsuit
was captioned "Collinsville Police Pension Board v. Discovery,
Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-08171.
The initial complaint named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.,
Discovery, Inc., David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants.
The complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in SEC filings and in certain public
statements relating to the merger of Discovery, Inc. with the
WarnerMedia, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages and other
relief. On November 4, 2022, the court consolidated the
Collinsville complaint under case number 1:22-CV-8171, and on
December 12, 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Advance/Newhouse
Programming Partnership, Steven A. Miron, Robert J. Miron, and
Steven O. Newhouse as defendants. The amended complaint continues
to assert violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks damages and other
relief. On April 7, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a premier global media and
entertainment company that combines the WarnerMedia Business's
premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's
leading non-fiction and international entertainment and sports
businesses, thus offering audiences a differentiated portfolio of
content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming
and gaming.
WARNER BROS: Todorovski Shareholder Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that on February 5, 2024, the court dismissed an
amended complaint with prejudice. Original class action lawsuit
captioned "Todorovski v. Discovery, Inc., et al.," Case No.
1:22-cv-09125 was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The complaints named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Discovery, Inc.,
David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements in SEC filings and in certain public statements relating
to the Merger, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages and other
relief. On November 4, 2022, the court consolidated the Todorovski
complaint under case number 1:22-CV-8171, and on December 12, 2022,
the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Advance/Newhouse
Programming Partnership, Steven A. Miron, Robert J. Miron, and
Steven O. Newhouse as defendants. The amended complaint continues
to assert violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks damages and other
relief. On April 7, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a premier global media and
entertainment company that combines the WarnerMedia Business's
premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's
leading non-fiction and international entertainment and sports
businesses, thus offering audiences a differentiated portfolio of
content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming
and gaming.
WAVES AMERICAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diarra Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
BOUKARY DIARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAVES AMERICAS CORPORATE SYSTEMS, LLC, Case
No. Case No. 4:24-cv-01119 (S.D. Tex., March 27, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Diarra was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
WAVES AMERICAS CORPORATE SYSTEMS, LLC provides valet, car
detailing, concierge, and cleaning services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
WAYFAIR LLC: Stricker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
TY STRICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-10740-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., March 22, 2024) is a putative
class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, to promote its goods and services, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to
text message consumers, including Plaintiff, after they have opted
out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, the
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Wayfair LLC is an American e-commerce company based in Boston,
Massachusetts that sells furniture and home goods online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
WEIRTON MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Foltz Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW FOLTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00063-TSK (N.D.W.V., March 29, 2024) is an action
arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on
the Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to
highly sensitive patient data.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant was
negligent and reckless because it failed to properly maintain and
safeguard its computer systems and data.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and the Class
Members, suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm
caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information,
says the suit.
WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC. is a non-profit hospital focused on
providing quality care to patients across West Virginia, Ohio and
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
J. Zak Ritchie, Esq.
HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
P.O. Box 3983
Charleston, WV 25339
Tel: (681) 265-3802
Fax: (304) 982-8056
Email: rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com
zritchie@hfdrlaw.com
WESTON EDUCATIONAL: Waunsch Loses Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dianne Waunsch, Amy
D'Andrea, Tanja Johnson, and Clay Adair, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, v. Weston Educational, Inc., Case
No. 16-01516-JGR (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying Plaintiffs motion for class certification.
Weston provides educational services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l63Wo0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Esquivel Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of the WHATABURGER
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN (f/k/a the Whataburger Profit Sharing and
401(k) Savings Plan) all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS LLC; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WHATABURGER
RESTAURANTS LLC; THE WHATABURGER 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE (f/k/a the Whataburger Profit Sharing and 401(k) Savings
Plan Administrative Committee); and DOES No. 1–20, Defendants,
Case No. e 5:24-cv-00310 (W.D. Tex., March 27, 2024) alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to appropriately monitor the Plan's investments, resulting in the
retention of unsuitable investments in the Plan instead of prudent
alternative investments that were readily available at all times
Defendants selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout
the Class Period.
Since the Defendants have discretion to select the investments made
available to participants, Defendants' breaches directly caused the
losses alleged herein, says the suit.
WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS LLC is an American regional fast food
restaurant chain, headquartered and based in San Antonio, Texas,
that specializes in hamburgers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented byL
John S. "Jack" Edwards, Jr., Esq.
Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
Eric Chenoweth, Esq.
AJAMIE LLP
Pennzoil Place - South Tower
711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 860-1600
Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
Email: jedwards@ajamie.com
tajamie@ajamie.com
echenoweth@ajamie.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
DON BIVENS PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
Email: don@donbivens.com
YIELDSTREET INC: Tecku Class Certification Bid Denied in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TECKU, et al., v.
YieldStreet Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07327-VM-SDA (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero entered an order:
-- Denying the Defendant's motion to strike;
-- Granting in part and denying in part motion for class
certification and appointment as class representative
-- Certifying a class with respect to Counts I-IV, Count VII of
the
corrected amended class action complaint in this action as
follows:
"All persons who purchased a Borrower Payment Dependent Note
(BPDN) issued by YS ALTNOTES I in connection with the following
offerings: (1) Vessel Deconstruction I; (2) Vessel
Deconstruction
Fund III; and (3) Louisiana Oil & Gas Fund, excluding
Defendants,
any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest,
Defendants' agents and employees, and any judge to whom this
action is assigned and any member of such judge's staff and
immediate family."
Yieldstreet is an alternative investments platform that provides
retail investors with access to income-generating investment
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dDA4bC at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZAGG INC: Faces Nasim Suit Over Worker Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------
AMNA NASIM, on behalf of herself and All others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ZAGG, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10826 (D.
Mass., March 29, 2024) arises under the Massachusetts overtime law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant hired the Plaintiff as a market sales manager in or
around March 2023. Allegedly, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff as exempt from overtime and failed to pay her at a rate
of time and one half her regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, says the suit.
Headquartered Midvale, UT, Zagg Inc. is a Delaware corporation
engaged in the business of selling mobile device accessories like
screen protectors, portable chargers, cell phone cases, Bluetooth
keyboards, and other such accessories through retailers across the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
Eric J. Walz, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 723-7700
Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com
ewalz@rflawyers.com
ZERO BELOW: Failed to Pay Proper Wages, Edwards Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZERO BELOW TRUCKING CORP.; and RODNEY A.
HUNTER, Defendants, Case No. 651569/2024 (N.Y., Sup., New York
Cty., March 27, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Edwards was employed by the Defendants as a safety
flagger.
ZERO BELOW TRUCKING CORP. specializes in the removal of soil and
debris and other construction materials generated/excavated from
contruction, demolition of roads, structures and land clearings.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Q Davis, Esq.
Brendan Sweeney, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 430-7940
Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
Email: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
bsweeney@workingsolutionsnyc.com
[^] 2024 Class Action Conference Agenda
---------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference to be held next month in Manhattan. This year's
event is led by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP;
and Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, as conference
chairs.
The agenda for CAME 2024 are:
(A) State of the Industry: Class Action Review
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane
Morris will present key findings from their inaugural
Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2024. Their one-of-a-
kind publication provides an analysis of class action
trends impacting Corporate America, including, Class
Action Fairness Act, mass appeals, consumer fraud, data
breaches and more.
(B) The Ethics of Wiretapping and Data Privacy Class Actions
David Bertoni (Moderator), Partner, Brann & Isaacson;
Kelly Iverson, Partner, Lynch Carpenter; Terence "Terry"
Coates, Managing Partner, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco;
David Lietz, Senior Partner, Milberg; and Max Bernstein,
Associate, Cooley, will delve into the moral intricacies
of wiretapping and data privacy class actions; explore
legal, ethical, and technological dimensions, weighing
individual rights against security needs; and navigate
through case studies, ethical dilemmas, and corporate
responsibilities, while scrutinizing the global
landscape of privacy regulations.
(C) Maximizing Financial Strategy: Exploring Qualified
Settlement Funds
Nicholas Sanchez (Moderator), Partner, Miller Kaplan;
Eric Gladbach, Partner, King & Spalding; Justin Parks,
Vice President, AB Data; Amy Gernon, Founder, Gernon
Law; and Michael O'Connor, Senior Vice President,
Western Alliance Bank, will discuss the complexities of
Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) and tax implications
in class actions; analyze strategies for maximizing
benefits, minimizing tax liabilities, and ensuring
compliance; and navigate through legal nuances,
financial considerations, and practical insights for
attorneys, plaintiffs, and stakeholders.
(D) The Double-Edged Sword: TCPA and Email Restrictions in
Case Notifications
Christopher Longley (Moderator), Co-Founder & CEO,
Atticus Administration; Christopher Roberts, Partner,
Butsch Roberts & Associates; Jessica Ranucci, Attorney,
New York Legal Assistance Group; and Bryn Bridley,
Director of Project Management at Atticus, will examine
the intricate balance between TCPA regulations and email
restrictions in case notifications; navigate through
legal pitfalls, compliance challenges, and best
practices for effective communication; and explore
strategies for optimizing outreach while mitigating
risks and respecting recipients' privacy rights.
(E) Luncheon Roundtable Discussion: Resolution of Mass Tort
Claims in Bankruptcy
Join esteemed judges -- Hon. Michael Kaplan, Chief United
States Bankruptcy Judge, District of New Jersey; the Hon.
Shelley Chapman (Ret.), Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP; and the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.),
Partner, Otterbourg P.C. -- for an intimate roundtable
on resolving mass tort claims in bankruptcy as they
delve into legal intricacies, precedents, and ethical
considerations shaping outcomes; and explore strategies
for balancing creditor rights, public interests, and
equitable distribution, fostering dialogue and insights
over a luncheon setting. Chad Husnick, Partner, Kirkland
& Ellis, moderates.
(F) Comparative Class Action Funding: a Multi-Jurisdictional
Examination
Dai Wai Chin Freman (Moderator), Managing Director,
Parabellum Capital; Kyle Taylor, Partner, Orr Taylor;
Luke Streatfeild, Partner, Hausfeld; Michael Dell'Angelo,
Executive Shareholder, Berger Montague; and Manuel "John"
Dominguez, Partner, Cohen Milstein, discuss different
class actions funding models, exploring the benefits and
drawbacks of various models, as well as explore whether
the US model is ripe for disruption.
(G) Fraud in Class Actions
Ross Weiner (Moderator), Legal Director, Certum Group;
Rebecca Gilliland, Principal, Beasley Allen; Kyle Mason,
Director, EisnerAmper; Franco Corrado, Partner, Morgan
Lewis; Jeff Wilkerson, Partner, Winston & Strawn; and
Etia Rottman Frand, Head of Sales, Darrow, tackle the
complexities of detecting and addressing fraud in class
actions; explore case studies, legal precedents, and
emerging trends; discuss strategies for safeguarding
integrity, ensuring fair outcomes, and upholding justice
within class action litigation; and delve into ethical
considerations and practical measures for combating
fraudulent practices.
(H) ESG Litigation From A Securities Perspective
Eric Zagar (Moderator), Partner, Kessler Topaz; Lauren
Wagner, Counsel, O'Melveny; and Minor Myers, Professor
of Law, UConn Law School, dive into the intersection of
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors with
securities litigation; explore evolving regulations,
shareholder activism, and fiduciary duties; and dissect
recent cases, analyze market trends, and propose
strategies for navigating ESG-related risks and
opportunities within the securities landscape.
(I) The Revolution of Lead Generation in Mass Tort With
Cutting Edge AI and Marketing Tools
Erin Mulvaney (Moderator), Reporter, The Wall Street
Journal; Brendan Kane, Founder, Hook Point; Rustin
Silverstein, President and Founder, X Ante; and
Christopher Ege, Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully,
Mansukhani, explore the transformative impact of AI
and marketing tools on mass tort lead generation;
discuss data-driven strategies, predictive analytics
and ethical considerations; and how innovative
technologies are reshaping legal marketing, enhancing
client acquisition, and revolutionizing mass tort
litigation.
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club. To
register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/
Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.
Conference agenda is subject to change. Additional panels and
speakers will be added leading up to the conference. Check back
frequently for updates!
For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***