/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240418.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 79
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Settlement in Camden Lawsuit Gets Court Nod
ACCREDITED HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Corcho Alleges
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sayles Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Carlisle Modified to May 29
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Certifies Suit Over Biometric Collection
AMERICAN HONDA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Shammam Suit Claims
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Certifies Suit Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
APPLE INC: Court Certifies Suit Over Anticompetitive Agreements
APPLE INC: Faces Kurtz Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
APPLE INC: Giamanco Sues Over Smartwatch Market Monopoly
APPLE INC: Loewen Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopolization
ARENA GROUP: Sornsin et al. Sue Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
ARHAUS INC: Engages in Deceptive Pricing, Moses Suit Alleges
ASR GROUP: King Kullen Seeks Damages Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
AT HOME GROUP: McFadden Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
AT&T INC: Faces Suit Over Data Leak Affecting 73-Mil. Customers
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bagley Alleges
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Foley Suit Alleges
AURORA CANNABIS: Undisclosed Settlement Reached in Investors' Suit
AVALARA INC: Sohovich Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
AVANT GARDNER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bunke Alleges
B.A. MASON: Mason Cos. Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Clotz Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
BEYOND INC: Awaits Ruling on Plaintiff's Appeal to Suit Dismissal
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Patlan Suit
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Bid for Leave to Supplement Complaint OK'd
BRAINSTORM CELL: Response to Sporn Amended Complaint Due May 31
BREAKTHROUGH TOWING: Court Dismisses Robertson Suit
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Bid to File Docs Under Seal Partly OK'd
BRUMIS IMPORTS: Nonstick Cookware Contains PFAS, Lowry Says
BUFFALO, NY: Galbraith Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 2nd Cir.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Mercer Can File First Amended Complaint
CANO HEALTH INC: Continues to Defend Gonzalez Class Suit in Florida
CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Loses Class Status Bid
CAREFIRST INC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
CENTENE CORPORATION: Duff Seeks to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Rowe Suit Over Private Data Breach
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 26
CIRCLE MEDICAL: Lefevere Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
CITADEL SERVICING: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Deadline
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Bowden Suit Over Mislabeled Sports Drinks
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Entry of Revised Final Judgment OK'd
COLORADO: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
CONNECTICUT: Issokson Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on Petition
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Amended Sched Order on Class Cert Sought
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly OKd
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 17, 2025
DALLAS JONES: McClurg Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Tosses w/o Prejudice Class Cert Bid
DONALD TRUMP: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by April 20
DOUBLETREE EMPLOYER: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2025
E.I. DU PONT: Thomas & Thomas Sue Over Drinking Water Contamination
EF INSTITUTE: Wins Bid to Seal Opposition, Supporting Declarations
ELIZABETH MEDICAL: York Bid for Leave to Seal Docs Tossed
ELRAC LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Odam Suit Due July 1
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Settlement in Hardy Gets Fina Nod
EZRICARE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Mosley Suit
FAST PACE: Collects Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges
FCA US: Hearing on Alger's Motions Continued to May 9
FEDEX GROUND: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in Roy Suit
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Milles & Knight Sue over Unlawful Fees & Charges
FINEPOINTS PRIVATE: Bobb Conditional Status Bid Partly OK'd
FLORIDA: Bid to Transfer Alianza Class Suit to N.D. Fla. Tossed
FLORIDA: Court Narrows Claims in Americas Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Miller Suit
FORT BELVOIR: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Extended to April 29
FOULGER-PRATT CONSTRUCTION: Parties Seek to Certify FLSA Claims
FRED MEYER: Class Certification Bid Filing Due June 27
FTX CRYPTOCURRENCY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Class Settlement
GARRISON PROPERTY: Class Fact Discovery in Romes Due June 30
GENCARE RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Alleges
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Delete Browsing Data as Part of Settlement
GRO INTELLIGENCE: Bielefeldt Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice
H&R BLOCK: Cox Sues Over Misleading Tax Services Fees
HAPPY GROUP: Parties in Rusoff Seek to Seal Class Cert Materials
HARD ROCK: White Wins FLSA Class Certification Bid
HARRIS & HARRIS: Class Cert Response Extended to April 22
HOPE CREDIT: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 31
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Suit for $8.7-Mil.
HOST INT'L: Parties in Frankenstein Must File Supplemental Findings
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in York County Suit
INTERNATIONAL LEISURE: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JOHNS HOPKINS: Boots Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement Addendum
JR GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McLaughlin Suit Says
KENTUCKY: Court Remands Bramblett Suit to Circuit Court
KEVIN JOHNSON: Colon Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
KNIGHT BARRY: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Johnson Says
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
LANDS' END: Plata Sues Over Products' False Discount Ads
MAYO CLINIC: S.M.O. Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
MCDONALD'S CORP: Shields Balks at Breakfast Combo Meals' False Ads
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Suit Over Defective Engines Tossed in D.N.J.
META PLATFORMS: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Metroplex Suit
NATIONAL DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges
NATIONS DIRECT: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Plan Participant Class Certified in Sweeney Suit
NORTH CAROLINA: Bid to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Tossed
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settlement Deal in Weiner Gets Initial Nod
ONEREP LLC: Kellyman Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
PADAGIS ISRAEL: Acne Products Contain Benzene, Daugherty Says
PETERSON FARMS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Reid Suit Says
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Court Dismisses Shareholders' Class Suit
PRECISION TUNE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Phillips Says
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Ambrosio Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
PROJECT RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges
QUEBEC: Taxi Drivers Sue Over Permit Losses Due to Uber's Entry
R.T. FARM: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 27, 2025
RALEIGH, NC: Edwards Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
RAY JONES: Back Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
REAL BROKERAGE: Agrees to Settle Umpa Class Action for $9.25-Mil.
RICE DRILLING: XTO's Summary Judgment Bid vs JRP Partly OK'd
SAC WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Janson Alleges
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: White Seeks to Compel Production of Documents
SECRETLAB US: Court OKs Bid to Vacate Case Deadlines in Nugent
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Court Junks Herrick Class Action
SOFAR SOUNDS: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Ticket Booking Fees
SONDER HOLDINGS: May Face Class Suit for Misleading Investors
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lapwood Says
ST. ELIZABETH: York Bid to Extend Discovery Nixed
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces ADA Class Suit Over Milk Surcharges
SUFFOLK COUNTY, CA: Court Sets Class Cert Oral Argument for May 23
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Faces Stockholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures
SYMETRA LIFE: Davis's Wins Bid to Seal Documents
T&T FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Porter
TAMKO BUILDING: Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
TAMKO BUILDING: Melnick Loses Bid for Class Certification
TAPESTRY INC: Class Discovery in Nguyen-Wilhite Extended to June 28
TEAM DISCOVERY: Jackson Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
TEAM HEALTH: Bid to Strike Plaquemine Class Action Tossed
TENET FINTECH: Settles Boxtel Class Action Suit for $1.2-Mil.
TERRAN ORBITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
TERRAN ORBITAL: Faces Jones Class Suit in Delaware
TETRA TECH: BHPR Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
TETRA TECH: Class Cert Bid Terminated Pending Status Conference
TETRA TECH: CPHP Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
TETRA TECH: FPH Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
TETRA TECH: Pennington Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
TRACY LOGISTICS: Shanley Sues over Wage and Hour Law Violations
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
TRICIDA INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Amended to April 30
ULTIMATE CARE: Court Conditionally Certifies Cruz Action
ULYSSES OLIVER: Hampton Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd
UNIFIED LIFE: USF Loses Summary Judgment Bid
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Subsidiary Bids to Combine Data Breach Suits
VALENTINO USA: Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
VERU INC: Continues to Defend Ewing Class Suit in S.D. Fla.
WELLS FARGO: Hummels Appeal Final Approval of Sorace Suit Deal
[*] Rise in U.S. Royalty Class Actions Poses Risk in Oil Industry
*********
3M COMPANY: Settlement in Camden Lawsuit Gets Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
3M Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-03147-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Richard Mark Gergel entered an order granting Class Counsel's
motion for final approval of class settlement and final
certification of the settlement class, and granting the Parties'
joint motion for entry of final order and judgment.
The preliminarily approved Settlement Class consists of:
"Every Active Public Water System in the United States of
America
that—(a) has one or more Impacted Water Sources as of the
Settlement Date (June 22, 2023); or (b) does not have one or
more
Impacted Water Sources as of the Settlement Date, and (i) is
required to test for certain PFAS under UCMR-5 [Fifth
Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule], or (ii) serves more than 3,300
people, according to SDWIS [Safe Drinking Water Information
System]."
Subsection (a) Settlement Class members are referred to as "Phase
One" Class Members and subsection (b) Settlement Class members are
referred to as "Phase Two" Class Members. For reasons explained
infra, the Parties have allocated 55% of the Settlement Amount to
Phase One Class Members and 45% to Phase Two Class Members.
The following are excluded from the Settlement Class: the Public
Water Systems associated with specific PFAS-manufacturing facility
owned by 3M, as set forth in Exhibit G to the Settlement Agreement;
any Public Water System that is owned by a State government, is
listed in SDWIS as having its sole "Owner Type" a "State
government," as set forth in Exhibit H to the Settlement Agreement,
"and lacks independent authority to sue and be sued"; any Public
Water System that is owned by the federal government, is listed in
SDWIS as having as its sole "Owner Type" the "Federal government,"
as set forth in Exhibit I to the Settlement Agreement, "and lacks
independent authority to sue and be sued"; the Public Water Systems
that are listed in Exhibit J to the Settlement Agreement having
previously settled their PFAS-related Claims against 3M; and any
privately owned well that provides water only to its owner’s (or
its owner's tenant's) individual household and any other system for
the provision of water that is not a Public Water System.
On August 29, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The
Court
conducted a Fairness Hearing on Feb. 2, 2024 regarding the proposed
Settlement Agreement.
On Dec. 7, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized in this Court approximately 90 civil actions from eight
judicial districts involving claims that aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") had contaminated local ground water and drinking water
supplies in numerous communities across the United States.
3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3Q3mF at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACCREDITED HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Corcho Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MIROSLAVA CORCHO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCREDITED HOME HEALTH CARE OF
BROWARD, INC. a/k/a ONE AT HOME A/K/A ONEHOME, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-60529-XXXX (April 4, 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 Corcho was employed by the Defendant as a home healthcare
aide.
ACCREDITED HOME HEALTH CARE OF BROWARD, INC. is a senior home
health care company offering in-home nursing services and also home
care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALIGN
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an administrative order sealing
limited portions of Align's opposition to motion for class
certification and Daubert motion to preclude expert testimony, and
certain exhibits attached to Joseph W. Doman's declaration.
The limited portions of Align's Opposition and exhibits sought to
be sealed reflect Align's confidential business information,
including Align's strategic thinking about, and negotiations of, an
agreement with another company; the confidential terms of that
final agreement; Align's competitive analyses and diligence; and
materials relating to confidential arbitrations between Align and
SmileDirectClub ("SDC").
While Align does not contend that the entirety of the Expert
Reports be held permanently under seal, certain portions that quote
or
reference confidential Align documents should remain sealed. The
reports also contain the confidential material of multiple other
non-parties.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KVme3D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq.
John M. Hughes, Esq.
Joseph W. Doman, Esq.
Mark L. Levine, Esq.
Robert B. Tannenbaum, Esq.
Luke C. Beasley, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-3100
Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
E-mail: john.hughes@bartlitbeck.com
karma.giulianelli@bartlitbeck.com
joe.doman@bartlitbeck.com
mark.levine@bartlitbeck.com
robert.tannenbaum@bartlitbeck.com
luke.beasley@bartlitbeck.com
- and -
James M. Pearl, Esq.
Thomas A. Counts, Esq.
Abigail H. Wald, Esq.
Adam M. Reich, Esq.
Michael C. Whalen, Esq.
Michael F. Murray, Esq.
Noah Pinegar, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
E-mail: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
tomcounts@paulhastings.com
abigailwald@paulhastings.com
adamreich@paulhastings.com
michaelcwhalen@paulhastings.com
michaelmurray@paulhastings.com
noahpinegar@paulhastings.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sayles Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SAYLES is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Samantha
Sayles, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allstate Insurance Co., Defendant, Case No.
3-16-cv-01534, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that an auto insurance policy issued by Allstate under
which she was insured contains an "examination requirement" that
violates Section 1796 of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law.
On Jan. 19, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On Oct. 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson filed a Report
and Recommendation (R&R), which recommended denial of the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On Mar. 8, 2024, Judge Malachy E. Mannion adopted Mag. Judge
Carlson's R&R and denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
The action was remanded to Mg. Judge Carlson for all further
pre-trial proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned Samantha Sayles v. Allstate
Insurance Co., Case No. 24-8011, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 26, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner SAMANTHA SAYLES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
104 W. High Street
Milford, PA 18337
Telephone: (570) 296-6471
Defendant-Respondent ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. is represented by:
Marc E. Wolin, Esq.
SAIBER
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 622-3333
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Carlisle Modified to May 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlisle v. Amazon.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06856 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 3,
2022), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order modifying case
schedule.
-- The last day to file Plaintiff's motion May 29, 2024
for class certification is:
-- The last day to file Defendant's June 27, 2024
opposition to the motion for class
certification is:
-- The last day to file Plaintiffs' reply July 10, 2024
brief in support of the motion for
class certification is:
-- The class certification hearing is reset July 30, 2024
for:
-- Close of fact discovery and expert reports Dec. 4, 2024
are due by:
-- Rebuttal reports are due by: Dec. 23, 2024
-- Close of expert discovery is: Jan. 15, 2025
-- The last day to file dispositive Feb. 13, 2025
motions is:
-- The pretrial conference is reset for: April 22, 2025
-- Jury trial/jury selection is reset for: May 19, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Labor Litigation.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company, engaged
in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Certifies Suit Over Biometric Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports users of virtual try-on
technology on Amazon.com's Inc.'s mobile app can bring their
biometric-privacy claims against the company as a class action, a
federal court ruled.
Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of people who used a virtual try-on feature on Amazon's
mobile web site while located in Illinois after Sept. 6, 2017.
Tanya S. Svoboda and Antonella Ortiz Colosi alleged that Amazon
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
collecting their face scans through the technology without first
providing notice it. [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Shammam Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUINTIN SHAMMAM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal., April 5, 2024)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION provides financial services. The
Company offers a range of leasing and financing solutions for
automobiles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 30
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 222-7429
Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Certifies Suit Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Brown of Minnesota Lawyer reports that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota on March 22 granted class
certification in a lawsuit alleging that health insurer Anthem Cos.
Inc. and two subsidiaries violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
denying overtime pay to nurses hired to review medical
authorization requests.
Medical management, or utilization review, nurses evaluate medical
authorization requests that are submitted by health care providers
to decide whether medical treatments are necessary, and,
consequently, whether those treatments will be covered by
insurance. To do this, the review nurses survey clinical data,
consider the clinical guidelines, and compare them to decide if it
meets the necessary medical criteria. This is a process referred to
as "medical management" or "utilization review."
The workload often demands more than 40 hours of work per week, per
the plaintiffs. Some of Anthem's positions are paid hourly; those
individuals are licensed as licensed practical nurses (LPNs).
Others are salaried, as they require licensure as registered nurses
(RNs).
Under the FLSA, those who exceed over 40 hours may be entitled to
overtime. However, some salaried employees are considered exempt,
depending on how much money they make and if they perform the job
duties of an exempt profession, such as an administrative role.
Christine Learing, who worked as a medical management review nurse
and sought to be appointed class representative, filed a lawsuit in
2021 claiming that Anthem did not pay proper overtime compensation
for the past three years. She has argued that utilization review
positions should not be exempt from overtime pay and that Anthem
did not demonstrate that its overtime exemption decision was made
in good faith.
Anthem argued that nurse medical mangers (NMMs) were properly
classified as employees who are ineligible for overtime pay. They
were salaried, and Anthem treated them as exempt from FLSA
requirements and Minnesota law under both the administrative and
learned professional overtime exemption. To qualify for the
administrative exemption, an employee's primary duty must be
performing office or nonmanual work that is directly related to
management or business operations of the employer or employer's
customers and the primary duty must involve exercising discretion
and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
The court found that Learing was not engaged in direct business
management activities. "NMMs do not directly consult insurance
company customers about how they go about processing insurance
coverage do not perform work that directly relates to how customers
operate as a business; and are not directly involved in managing,
operating, or otherwise running the customers' business," the court
stated. "NMMs' work product is their response to an authorization
request."
Nor did the court find that the learned professional overtime
exemption applied. Under this exemption, the employee's primary job
must be to perform work that requires advanced knowledge in a field
of science or learning that is acquired by a prolonged course of
specialized instruction. Advanced knowledge requires the consistent
exercise of discretion and judgment. "The NMMs' primary task is to
make an insurance coverage determination based on an
inspector-clipboard checklist appraisal of medical records for the
presence or absence of medical necessity criteria," the court
stated, finding that the NMMs' work "mostly involves routine mental
work."
Additionally, Anthem put forth a good faith defense to liquidated
damages, but the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff
on the motion. Anthem argued that the FLSA exemptions that they
asserted applied to the NMMs were well-established. "Anthem does
not otherwise show what steps it took to determine FLSA
requirements for the NMM positions or point to evidence showing the
company had reasonable grounds to believe that classifying NMMs are
exempt did not violate the FLSA," the court concluded. "The
existence of applicable regulations and the fact that Anthem's NMMs
are salaried positions do not show Anthem's intent or
classification process."
Learing also argued that collective proceedings were appropriate
because those other NMMs had the same training protocols,
performance expectations, and overarching policies. Conversely,
Anthem argued that the nurses worked in very different work
settings and had different assignments depending on the complexity
of the case. However, the court sided with Learing, claiming that
the "structural similarity" across the positions was "apparent from
the record." The court wrote, "Thus, despite some individual
variability, NMMS are similarly situated in Anthem's utilization
management program and all face the same alleged FLSA violation:
their work was misclassified as exempt from overtime pay."
The class is defined that those who have worked for defendants from
three years prior to the filing through judgment as medical
management nurses, utilization management nurses, and utilization
review nurses who were salaried and treated as exempt from overtime
laws.[GN]
APPLE INC: Court Certifies Suit Over Anticompetitive Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that a lawsuit accusing companies, including Apple and
Google, has just been granted class action status by a federal
judge, meaning the tech giants will need to face accusations that
the companies made anticompetitive agreements not to hire each
others employees.
Reports say the class action, made up of more than 64,000
employees, are accusing the companies -- Google, Apple, Intel and
Adobe Systems -- of colluding to not hire each others' employees
and subsequently keeping those workers' wages down.
US District Judge Lucy Koh granted the case class action status
last March 28, 2024, following an April rejection of the status. A
hearing held last August found the group's case to be "much
stronger" than when they had originally applied for class action
certification.
Three additional companies named in the original suit have offered
settlements; Intuit offered $11 million, while Walt Disney's Pixar
and Lucasfilm have offered $9 million.
The employees are professional programmers, animators, Web
developers and other technological specialty groups. [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Kurtz Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
STACEY KURTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04355 (D.N.J., March 28, 2024) alleges Defendant's
violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Apple monopolized the
markets for Smartphones and Performance Smartphones. Apple's
anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the
Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries
affected by these restrictions, including financial services,
fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and
more.
Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped,
it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other
markets and parts of the economy. As a result of its
anticompetitive conduct, Apple sells iPhone brand Smartphones at
supracompetitive monopoly prices to consumers, says the suit.
APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
APPLE INC: Giamanco Sues Over Smartwatch Market Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GIAMANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02694 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Apple used
anticompetitive agreements and tactics to limit competition with
its smartwatch, the Apple Watch, and acquire and maintain a
smartwatch monopoly.
Allegedly, Apple forces competing smartwatch manufacturers to enter
into contracts in which they agree not to compete with Apple in
critical respects. These contracts protect Apple's smartwatch
monopoly by preventing smartwatch competitors from ever offering
the full range of features the Apple Watch provides and challenging
the Apple Watch's dominant market position.
Apple's years-long campaign to degrade the performance of competing
smartwatches has harmed its own customers. The company has made it
needlessly difficult for its customers to use competing
smartwatches and, by foreclosing competition, has been able to
charge supracompetitive prices for the Apple Watch for many years.
The Plaintiff seeks to put an end to Apple's anticompetitive
practices and hold Apple responsible for its monopolistic abuses,
asserts the suit.
APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
David Walchak, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
dwalchak@koreintillery.com
- and -
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
505 N 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Email: stillery@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
Steven F. Molo, Esq.
Eric Posner, Esq.
MOLOLAMKEN LLP
300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 450-6700
Facsimile: (312) 450-6701
Email: smolo@mololamken.com
eposner@mololamken.com
APPLE INC: Loewen Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopolization
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK D. LOEWEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02006 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of anticompetitive practices in the
smartphone market.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully maintains its
monopoly power in the smartphone industry through its "lock in"
strategy whereby Defendant imposes contractual restrictions, fees,
and taxes on app creation and distribution. Further, Defendant
allegedly uses methods to control the behavior and innovation of
third parties, thereby insulating itself from competition.
Defendant's strategy is allegedly aimed at frustrating super apps,
suppressing competing cloud streaming services, diminishing
cross-platform messaging communication, diminishing functionality
of non-Apple smartwatches, and limiting third-party digital
wallets, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff purchased iPhones at inflated prices allegedly as a
result of Defendant's anticompetitive and monopolistic practices.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant is able to maintain its dominance
in the smartphone market through its lock in strategy and not by
having a superior product. The Plaintiff further asserts the
Defendant of multiple violations, including, among others,
monopolization under state law, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Sherman
Act.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology
company based in Cupertino, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
mweiler@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Email: jkim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Peter B. Schneider, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
E-mail: PSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
ARENA GROUP: Sornsin et al. Sue Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SORNSIN, JAMES HECKMAN, DAVID BAILEY, MARK E. STROME LIVING
TRUST, STROME MEZZANINE FUND LP, and STROME MEZZANINE FUND II LP,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of THE ARENA GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs v. ROSS LEVINSOHN, Defendant, and
THE ARENA GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2024-0352 (Del. Ch., April 3, 2024) is derivative action for
breaches of fiduciary duty by Defendant Ross Levinsohn in his roles
as Director and CEO of The Arena Group Holdings, Inc., for
conspiring with others to lead the Arena Group into a series of
self-dealing transactions lacking any signs of any process to
ensure the transactions were entirely fair to Arena and its
stockholders.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, tortious interference with
a prospective contractual relationship, and unjust enrichment. By
allegedly withholding or minimizing superior offers from the Board
of Directors in favor of the Simplify Transaction, which was
objectively worse for the Arena, Levinsohn breached his fiduciary
duty and acted in bad faith to further his own self-interest, at
the expense of the Arena and its shareholders, say the Plaintiffs.
Headquartered in New York, NY, the Arena Group Holdings, Inc. is a
technology platform and media company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Uebler, Esq.
Kathleen A. Murphy, Esq.
Terisa Shoremount, Esq.
MCCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC
2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 468-5960
- and -
Perrie M. Weiner, Esq.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201 4709
E-mail: perrie.weiner@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Ben Turner, Esq.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201 4753
E-mail: ben.turner@bakermckenzie.com
ARHAUS INC: Engages in Deceptive Pricing, Moses Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAH MOSES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARHAUS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-00728 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
This action arises from Defendants' alleged practice of false
reference pricing, which is prohibited under California law.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants are engaged in an unlawful,
unfair, and fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious
prices and corresponding phantom discounts on nearly every product
sold through its website, https://www.arhaus.com, and retail
locations.
The Plaintiff is among those who have purchased one or more
products from Defendant's online store or retail locations and have
been allegedly victimized by Defendant's alleged false, misleading,
and deceptive pricing scheme. She seeks damages, injunctive relief,
and other appropriate relief for Defendant's alleged violations.
Headquartered in Boston Heights, OH, Arhaus, Inc. is an American
retail chain that designs and sells home furnishings online and
through its retail stores and catalogs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 861-7797
E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com
ASR GROUP: King Kullen Seeks Damages Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; UNITED SUGAR
PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION;
CARGILL, INCORPORATED; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; COMMODITY
INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Case No.
0:24-cv-01122-JMB-ECW (D. Minn., April 2, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of conspiring to artificially inflate the price of
Granulated Sugar in the United States, in violation of the Sherman
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this Class action over Defendants' alleged
unlawful agreement to fix prices for Granulated Sugar in the United
States. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants are involved in a
price-fixing conspiracy and exchanged detailed, competitively
sensitive, private information about Granulated Sugar prices,
capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand that has allowed them to
charge higher prices for Granulated Sugar in the country from at
least January 1, 2019 to the present. As a result, Plaintiff and
Class members were forced to pay supra-competitive prices for
Granulated Sugar. Plaintiff now seeks treble damages and injunctive
relief over Defendants' alleged violations, says the suit.
Based in West Palm Beach, FL, ASR GROUP is the world's largest
refiner and marketer of cane sugar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Telephone: (612) 596-4092
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
- and -
David E. Kovel, Esq.
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
David Bishop, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
telrod@kmllp.com
- and -
Anthony F. Fata, Esq
Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 767-5180
E-mail: afata@kmllp.com
amaneiro@kmllp.com
AT HOME GROUP: McFadden Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
NOELLE MCFADDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT HOME GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04504 (D.N.J., April 3, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
New Jersey Administrative Code, the New Jersey Trust in Consumer
Contract, and Warranty and Notice Act and for breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Allegedly, At Home was not properly reducing prices to create a
deal for New Jersey consumers like Plaintiff McFadden, but instead
improperly inflating the non-discounted, original prices to mislead
customers into thinking they were receiving a better deal.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and disgorgement
of all profits and unjust enrichment that At Home obtained from
Class members as a result of its unlawful, unfair, and deceptive
business practices.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, At Home Group, Inc. is a retail chain
that sells home goods and furnishings. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin P. Schrama, Esq.
Stefanie L. Colella-Walsh, Esq.
STARK & STARK
100 American Metro Blvd.
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Telephone: (609) 895-7261
Facsimile: (609) 895-7395
E-mail: mschrama@stark-stark.com
scolellawalsh@stark-stark.com
- and -
Daniel B. Centner, Esq.
Grace A. Van Hancock, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
935 Gravier St. Ste. 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: dcentner@peifferwolf.com
gvanhancock@peifferwolf.com
AT&T INC: Faces Suit Over Data Leak Affecting 73-Mil. Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kan of PC Mag reports that an AT&T customer has launched a
class-action lawsuit against the carrier for allegedly ignoring a
data breach involving 73 million users.
Injury law firm Morgan & Morgan announced the lawsuit two days
after AT&T reset passcodes for millions of users after the stolen
data was found circulating on the internet.
“We allege AT&T knew about the vulnerability that allegedly led
to this breach, but allowed it to occur by failing to act,” the
law firm said in a statement.
The suit notes that cyber criminals may have been circulating
stolen AT&T customer data as far back as 2021. That’s when a
hacking group called Shinyhunters was spotted auctioning off an
archive containing data on over 70 million AT&T users, including
full names, email addresses, physical addresses, and at least in
some cases, Social Security numbers and dates of birth.
While some of the user data appeared to be legit, at the time AT&T
denied that the information had come from the carrier, or that it
had suffered a breach. The mysterious leak then made headlines last
month when a new user called MajorNelson began circulating another
5GB archive that appeared to contain the same data. Only this time,
MajorNelson made the data freely available on a hacking forum.
AT&T again initially denied that the data had come from the
carrier. But this past weekend, the company changed its tune after
a security researcher analyzed the leaked data and found users'
AT&T passcodes in the archive, according to TechCrunch. In
response, the company reset passcodes for 7.6 million users.
“Based on our preliminary analysis, the data set appears to be
from 2019 or earlier, impacting approximately 7.6 million current
AT&T account holders and 65.4 million former account holders,”
the carrier said on March 30, 2024.
Although the carrier is now taking action to address the threat,
the class-action lawsuit faults AT&T for allegedly failing to
respond in 2021 by thoroughly examining the leak or warning
customers. “We're also alleging AT&T exacerbated the problem by
failing to acknowledge the breach had occurred until March 30 of
this year, allowing customers' personal data to linger in criminal
hands without their knowledge for more than two-and-a-half
years,” the suit says.
AT&T didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But in
a company FAQ about the incident, the carrier says it still hasn't
determined the origin of leaked data, and whether it came from AT&T
or one of its vendors. “Currently, AT&T does not have evidence of
unauthorized access to its systems resulting in theft of the data
set,” the FAQ adds.
In the meantime, the class-action lawsuit is urging the court to
force AT&T to pay damages, monetary relief, and for lifetime credit
monitoring to the affected consumers. The plaintiff, Patricia Dean
of Illinois, filed the lawsuit in Texas, where AT&T is
headquartered. [GN]
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bagley Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
LACRISTA A. BAGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case
3:24-cv-00770-X (N.D. Tex., April 1, 2024) is an action arising
from a massive and preventable data breach involving the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of more than 70 million current
and former AT&T customers (the "Data Breach" or "Breach").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that due to AT&T's
inadequate data security, millions of current and former customers
of Defendant had their social security numbers, full names, email
and mailing addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth, as well
as AT&T account numbers and passcodes were leaked on the dark web.
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings
to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII. As a result of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff’s and the Class’s personal and highly sensitive
information is in the hands of cybercriminals who deliberately
placed their PII on the dark web to be used for identity theft and
fraud, says the suit.
AT&T INC. operates as a communications holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides local
and long-distance phone, wireless and data communications, Internet
access and messaging, IP-based and satellite television,
telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and
publishing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
212 Spring Valley Road
Richardson, TX 75081
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
AT&T INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Foley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
GERALD FOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00819-S (N.D. Tex., April 4, 2024) for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members',
personally identifiable information ("PII"), stored within the
Defendant's information network.
According to the complaint on March 30, 2024, AT&T publicly
announced an ongoing investigation of a data breach, and upon
information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals
gained access to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted
with the Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of
the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII 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.
As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the suit.
AT&T INC. operates as a communications holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides local
and long-distance phone, wireless and data communications, Internet
access and messaging, IP-based and satellite television,
telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and
publishing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
AURORA CANNABIS: Undisclosed Settlement Reached in Investors' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Stevens of Business of Cannabis reports that Canadian cannabis
giant reached an undisclosed settlement via mediation with the
plaintiffs, understood to be a group of investors who purchased
Aurora stock between January and November 2019.
The plaintiffs argue that Aurora reported a 'sham' transaction in
its Q4 2019 figures and subsequently misled investors on numerous
fronts, including the company's ability to turn a profit.
This alleged transaction relates to a $21.7m sale of dried cannabis
to Radient Technologies, a company partly owned by Aurora at the
time, with an Aurora executive on its board.
According to the lawsuit, there was no legitimate reason for
Radient to buy the cannabis, which they also say was later resold
back to Aurora.
The transaction came at a time of increasing pressure for Aurora
and many of its peers to show investors they could turn a profit
after their stock prices had fallen off a cliff months earlier.
None of the plaintiffs' claims have been proven in court, and
Aurora has refused to comment on the lawsuit, citing company policy
not to comment on internal legal matters.
In February, Aurora became the latest company. [GN]
AVALARA INC: Sohovich Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MARTIN SOHOVICH filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated March 1, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled MARTIN
SOHOVICH, Plaintiff v. AVALARA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01580-MJP, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington at Seattle.
Plaintiff Martin Sohovich, an investor in Avalara, Inc., alleges
that Avalara and its Board of Directors (which includes Avalara's
CEO) misled investors as to the fairness of Avalara's $8.4 billion
sale in August 2022 to a private investor -- Vista Equity Partners
Management, LLC. Plaintiff Sohovich alleges the Proxy distributed
to the investors to vote on the sale to Vista contained misleading
and false statements that misrepresented the fair value of Avalara
and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The Court previously dismissed Sohovich's Amended Complaint, but
granted leave to amend. Plaintiff Sohovich has filed a Second
Amended Complaint and Defendants again seek dismissal.
On March 1, 2024, the Court GRANTED the motion to dismiss the SAC.
And because the Court has already granted leave to amend and the
Court believes that further amendment would be futile, the Court
DISMISSED the claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court also noted that
Sohovich has not requested leave to amend in his Opposition, which
further supports dismissal with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Sohovich v. Avalara, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-1646, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on March 25,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on March 26,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on April 25, 2024;
-- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on June 4, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on July 5, 2024;
and
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the
petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MARTIN SOHOVICH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq.
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 3rd Avenue 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
E-mail: taweinrib@pomlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees AVALARA, INC., et al., are represented by:
Matthew Solum, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4688
E-mail: msolum@kirkland.com
AVANT GARDNER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bunke Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JANELA BUNKE; ALBEIL BENITEZ-MARURI; LAURIE BOWEN; AYLA BROWN;
NORBERTO CAMPOS HERNANDEZ; KAITLIN CAPACCIO; DANIELLE CASALE;
FELIPE CASTRO; EDDY CEDENO; JANELLE COLANTUONE; OMAR CRUZ; NAZARETH
DEHKORDI; JOVANNA DEL PLATO; NILSSON DOMINGUEZ; JOVANNI ESPINOZA;
DORIS GALINEC; JUAN CARLOS GARCIA; ROSALINA GIAQUINTO; CELESTINO
CRUZ GUEVARA; ANDRES FELIPE PEREZ GUZMAN; DIANA HENRIQUEZ; GISELLE
JOHNSON; SARAH KABIR; PAULINA LEMPICKA; ANIBAL MENDOZA; AUGUSTO
MEYO; AFSARA MIR; VANESSA MOLINA-PADIERNE; PAOLA MONTELLESE; JORGE
MOTA CORTORREAL; MIGUEL OCAMPO; ARTURO OLMOS; LINGPENG QIAN; ARIEL
RAMAGE; ANA RALBOVSKI; TIFFANY RASOMBATH; HECTOR RODRIGUEZ; SABRINA
LORENA ROJAS; FERNANDO ROMERO; ANNA SHAKHBAZOV; GIOVANNI WILLIAM
TAMAYO; KAITLENE TAN; and LUIS RAFAEL VELAZQUEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVANT
GARDNER, LLC; EZ FESTIVALS LLC; MADE EVENT, LLC; JURGEN BILDSTEIN
a/k/a BILLY BILDSTEIN; PHILLIP WIEDERKEHR; MICHAEL BINDRA; LAURA
DEPALMA; RITTY VAN STRAALEN, and ABC ENTITIES 1-10, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02469 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024)
is an action for damages resulting from the Defendants' willful and
systemic failure to pay the Plaintiffs' wages, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.
AVANT GARDNER, LLC is a live music entertainment brand, known for
its 80,000-square-foot flagship venue in East Williamsburg, which
features the world-famous Brooklyn Mirage. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
2300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 100A
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 618-2344
Email: jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
B.A. MASON: Mason Cos. Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Clotz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MASON COMPANIES, INC. filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated March 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
TERRY CLOTZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. B.A. MASON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01426,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio at Cleveland.
On July 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this class action against
B.A. Mason, Inc. who collects debts under the tradename
stoneberry.com pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant routinely violates the law by using an artificial or
prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places
to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service,
without prior express consent. More specifically, the Defendant
routinely uses an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection
with non-emergency calls it placed to wrong or reassigned cellular
telephone numbers, says the suit.
On October 16, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to stay court
proceedings and compel arbitration.
On March 5, 2024, Judge James S. Gwin entered an Opinion and Order
denying the motion to compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Terry Clotz v. Mason Companies,
Inc., Case No. 24-3229, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2024.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant MASON COMPANIES, INC. is represented by:
Scott Helfand, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL
120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
Plaintiff-Appellee TERRY CLOTZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian Thomas Giles, Esq.
GILES & HARPER
7247 Beechmont Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45230
Telephone: (513) 379-2715
BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL PFEFFER, DAVID
DESSNER, ADAM SHERMAN, FRANK CRONIN, ROGER ROJAS, JASON AUERBACH,
GRACE BOZICK, MUHAMED VRLAKU and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Case No.
3:23-cv-00813-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for conditional collective
certification and facilitated notice to:
"All Loan Officers, who were employed by Defendants any time
during
the time period of November 30, 2020 through the date of
judgment."
The Plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime compensation and
unpaid minimum wage owed to them and other similarly situated
current and former employees of Bank of America Corporation and/or
Bank of America N.A., who opt into the action.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLCGhw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Wellman, Esq.
TEAGUE CAMPBELL DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 450
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: (919) 719-4734
Facsimile: (919) 873-1814
E-mail: JWellman@teaguecampbell.com
- and -
Barry R. Lax, Esq.
LAX & NEVILLE, LLP
350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4640
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 696-1999
Facsimile: (212) 566-4531
E-mail: blax@laxneville.com
BEYOND INC: Awaits Ruling on Plaintiff's Appeal to Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2024, that Plaintiffs in a consolidated
action filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the ruling of the
district court on October 18, 2021. The company filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and on September 20, 2021,
the court granted the company's motion and entered judgment in its
favor. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the Tenth Circuit
that heard oral argument on the appeal last February 9, 2023.
On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former Chief Executive
Officer and former Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were
consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019. The Court
appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead plaintiff
in January 2020.
In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against
the company, the company's President, the company's former Chief
Executive Officer, and the company's former Chief Financial
Officer. We filed a motion to dismiss and, on September 28, 2020,
the court granted the company's motion and entered judgment in the
company's favor. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint on October 23, 2020. The United States District Court of
Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint on
January 6, 2021. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on
January 11, 2021.
Beyond, Inc. is an e-commerce platform that provides furniture and
home furnishings. Its "Bed Bath & Beyond" is a premier online
retailer, catering to customers in the United States and Canada,
and www.overstockgovernment.com serves as a gateway for those
seeking a diverse array of top-tier, on-trend home products at
competitive prices. From furniture, bedding and bath essentials to
patio and outdoor gear, area rugs, tabletop and cookware, décor,
storage and organization solutions, small appliances, and home
improvement items.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Patlan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL PATLAN, RYAN
CORNELL, and LA DELLA LEVY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-09546-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi
entered an order granting BMW NA's motion to dismiss the Patlan
Plaintiffs' complaint as to Count Two (Breach of Express Warranty),
and such Count is dismissed without prejudice, and denied as to all
remaining Counts.
-- BMW NA's motion to dismiss or stay Vasquez's complaint is
denied;
and
-- BMW NA's motion to dismiss Wilkinson's complaint is denied as
to
all Counts.
These consolidated cases involve allegations of defective
blower-motor wiring systems and Positive Crankcase Ventilation
("PCV") valve heaters (the "Defects") present in over one million
BMW automobiles.
The Plaintiffs contend that the alleged Defects can cause the
Defective Vehicles to "spontaneously combust and catch fire," even
when the vehicles are not in operation.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defects can and do result in
personal injury, vehicle destruction, and injury to nearby
property.
The Plaintiffs aver that BMW NA was aware of such Defects as of
2011 for the blower-motor wiring and 2012 for the PCV valve
heaters, but failed to address them, repair them, or warn consumers
or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA")
about the issues.
Patlan owns a 2011 BMW 328i, purchased on September 10, 2015, and
is a citizen of California.
BMW NA imports, distributes, warrants, and markets BMW vehicles in
North America.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EmmnQM at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Bid for Leave to Supplement Complaint OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ALLEN PHILLIPS, et
al., v. BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, et al., Case
No. 2:19-cv-02402-TC-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Brooks Severson
entered an order granting motion for leave to supplement complaint.
The Court's research discovered no such authority. Even so, the
Court is persuaded by the weight of authority cited by Plaintiffs
to establish that this issue would better be addressed during a
class certification analysis.
The Court finds that for purposes of the present motion, the
Defendants have not established the futility of Plaintiffs’
proposed supplementation. The Defendants' futility objection is
overruled. While Defendants do not argue undue delay, prejudice, or
bad faith under Rule 15, the Court finds that these factors do not
exist in regard to Plaintiffs' filing of the present motion.
The Plaintiffs' lawsuit was initiated on July 17, 2019, with the
filing of their purported class action Complaint.
The Plaintiffs alleged claims arising under the Employment Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and alleged violations of the terms
and administration of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust and ERISA.
Boilermaker-Blacksmith offers pension, retirement, health, and
welfare funds.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ocRMsM at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRAINSTORM CELL: Response to Sporn Amended Complaint Due May 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics 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
deadline for defendants to respond to Sporn's Amended Complaint is
on May 31, 2024.
On November 1, 2023, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its officers, captioned Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell
Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09630 (the "Securities
Complaint"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Securities Action").
The Securities Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants and control person
violations of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants,
relating to NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, the Company's
submissions to and communications with the FDA in support of the
approval of NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, and the prospects of
future approval of NurOwn by the FDA.
The Securities Action seeks, among other things, damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
15, 2022 and September 27, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
The lead plaintiff's deadline to file an Amended Complaint in the
Securities Action is April 1, 2024; and the Company's and
individual defendants' deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint
is May 31, 2024.
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc., operates as a biotechnology
company, which develops innovative adult stem cell therapeutic
products. It currently focuses on utilizing the patients own bone
marrow stem cells to generate neuron-like cells that may provide
an effective treatment initially for amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis,
Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury.
The company was founded on September 22, 2000 and is headquartered
in New York, NY.
BREAKTHROUGH TOWING: Court Dismisses Robertson Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA ROBERTSON et al.,
v. BREAKTHROUGH TOWING, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10266-MAG-EAS
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order:
(i) granting the motions for summary judgment filed by Detroit,
Hamtramck, and Breakthrough;
(ii) dismissing all John Doe Defendants from the action; and
(iii) denying the motion to certify class filed by the
Plaintiffs.
Because the Court is dismissing all claims as to all Defendants,
the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as moot.
Plaintiffs filed this class action alleging that a private towing
company and its owner engineered a scheme to illegally impound
vehicles with the assistance of local businesses and police
officers. The scheme forms the basis of Plaintiffs' claims brought
against a variety of
municipal and private party Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Claim, 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) (RICO).
According to the Plaintiffs, Breakthrough's tows violated the
Michigan Vehicle Code in two ways: (i) Breakthrough purportedly
impounded vehicles that were not "abandoned" but were, in fact,
legally parked, and (ii) Breakthrough made tows from private lots
that had inadequate signage under the Michigan Vehicle Code.
The Plaintiffs bring claims against three groups of Defendants: (i)
municipal Defendants Detroit and Hamtramck; (ii) private party
Defendants Breakthrough Towing, LCC, Breakthrough's owner Michael
Dickerson, and Breakthrough's "alter ego" Magic Towing LLC
(collectively Breakthrough); and (iii) John Doe Detroit and
Hamtramck police officers.
Breakthrough is a private towing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UIhgnZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Bid to File Docs Under Seal Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, ET AL, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
conditionally file under seal.
The Court agrees that the portion of the Class Certification Memo
including the name and other personally identifiable information of
a resident family member should be sealed.
However, the Court finds that Brookdale has failed to establish any
compelling reason to seal other portions of the Class Certification
Memo.
Accordingly, within two weeks of this Order, the Plaintiffs are
ordered to file a redacted version of the Class Certification Memo
redacting only the personally identifiable information of the
resident family member.
The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against Brookdale for alleged
breach of contract and unfair trade practices related to
Brookdale's residential services.
On Aug. 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On that same date, the Plaintiffs filed the pending
motion for leave to conditionally file under seal.
Brookdale owns and operates retirement homes across the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2IwwcJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRUMIS IMPORTS: Nonstick Cookware Contains PFAS, Lowry Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LOWRY; and FRIEDA TAWIL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRUMIS IMPORTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02544 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant failed to disclose that its Brooklyn
Steel-branded nonstick cookware (the "Products") contain per-and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which are synthetic chemicals
that pose undue health risks, even at low levels.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant does not
inform consumers of the presence of PFAS, despite its knowledge
that the products contain PFAS. The Defendant knew, or should have
known, that PFAS are unsafe and raise health risks because "the
dangers of PFAS are well known" to the point where "public demand
is leading to a growing market for PFAS-free products."
Based on Defendant's omission and misrepresentations, a reasonable
consumer would expect that the Products are free from PFAS, as well
as promote health and are good for the environment. Yet Defendant
does not notify consumers, like Plaintiffs, that the Products
contain PFAS, synthetic chemicals that pose undue health risks to
humans and are bad for the environment, says the suit.
BRUMIS IMPORTS, INC. operates as a real estate development company.
The Company develops, owns, and manages strip malls, apartment
buildings, and multi asset properties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32 Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
BUFFALO, NY: Galbraith Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ROBERT GALBRAITH, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's February 12, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit
entitled Robert Galbraith, Melissa Mosko, Dana McWhite, Kenneth
McWhite, Antwanett Williams, Rahwa Ghirmatzion, Rebecca Whipple,
Nolan Whipple, Susan Gillick, Felicia Richardson, Richard
Richardson, Abdukadir Abdullahi, on behalf of themselves and their
respective minor children, and on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated v. City of Buffalo, Buffalo Water Board, Buffalo
Municipal Water Finance Authority, Byron W. Brown in his official
capacity as Mayor of Buffalo, Oluwole A. McFoy in his official
capacity as Chairman of the Buffalo Water Board, Veolia Water North
America-Northeast, LLC, Veolia North America, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-814, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York, Buffalo.
In January 2023, Buffalo residents Abdukadir Abdullahi, Melissa
Mosko, and Robert Galbraith filed a putative class action in New
York state court against Veolia North America, the City of Buffalo,
the Buffalo Water Board, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, and Buffalo
Water Board Chairman Oluwole McFoy. The primary allegations in that
complaint centered around Defendants' failure to fluoridate
Buffalo's drinking water. In total, the Abduliahi complaint listed
twelve causes of action. The complaint remained pending for
approximately one year, until Plaintiffs voluntarily discontinued
it in January 2024.
About six months after filing the Abdullahi complaint -- and while
the Abduliahi complaint remained pending -- Abdullahi, Mosko, and
Galbraith filed a new putative class action in state court with
virtually identical claims. This complaint, which is the one before
the Court, also centers around Defendants' failure to fluoridate
Buffalo's drinking water. This second iteration included nine
additional Buffalo resident plaintiffs: Dana McWhite, Kenneth
McWhite, Antwanett Williams, Rahwa Ghirmatzion, Rebecca Whipple,
Nolan Whipple, Susan Gillick, Felicia Richardson, and Richard
Richardson. The Galbraith complaint also included two additional
defendants: the Buffalo Municipal Water Finance Authority and
Veolia Water North America—Northeast.
The Abdullahi and Galbraith complaints are near duplicates. Each
asserts the same twelve causes of action. Indeed, most of the
factual allegations are identical. Each complaint alleges that
Defendants stopped fluoridating Buffalo's drinking water, made
inaccurate representations about fluoride in the water, and did not
provide sufficient notice about halting fluoridation. Further, each
complaint shares the same purported class of Buffalo residents.
As reported previously in the Class Action Reporter, the Galbraith
case was removed from the State of New York Supreme Court, to the
Western District of New York on Aug. 10, 2023.
On October 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to the state court.
On February 12, 2024, Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. entered an Order
denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
The appellate case is captioned as Galbraith v. City of Buffalo,
Case No. 24-548, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on March 19, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT GALBRAITH, et al., on behalf of
themselves and their respective minor children, and on behalf of a
class of all persons similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert Macwilliams Corp, Esq.
LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP
42 Delaware Avenue Suite 120
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 849-1333
E-mail: rcorp@lglaw.com
Defendants-Appellees CITY OF BUFFALO, et al., are represented by:
Kevin D. Szczepanski, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
The Avant Building Suite 1200
200 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 858-3834
E-mail: kszczepanski@barclaydamon.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Mercer Can File First Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANN MERCER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. CAESARS
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING CO., LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00958-MMD-NJK (D. Nev.),
the Court entered an order granting leave to file first amended
complaint.
Caesars is an American hotel and casino entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CAVeIH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
HENDRICKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
325 W Liberty St
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 502-8332
E-mail: josh@hendricksonlawgroup.com
- and -
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
Amy L. Thompson, Esq.
Michael D. Dissinger, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
620 S Tryon St Suite 950
Charlotte, NC 28202
CANO HEALTH INC: Continues to Defend Gonzalez Class Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cano Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending January 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Gonzalez class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On March 18, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain of its
former officers, captioned Alberto Gonzalez v. Cano Health, Inc.
f/k/a Jaws Acquisition Corp., et al. (No. 1:22-cv-20827).
An amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2023.
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint, which the Court granted on January 3, 2024.
Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on January 5, 2024.
The second amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the Company regarding compliance with GAAP, the timing of its
revenue recognition from Medicare Advantage contracts in 2021, and
its processes for recognizing Medicare risk-adjusted revenue.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, certification of a class
action and unspecified compensatory damages for purchasers of the
Company's Class A Common Stock between May 7, 2021 and August 10,
2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Company from this lawsuit,
without prejudice, on February 16, 2024, following the Company's
filing of the Chapter 11 Cases.
The Company believes there are meritorious defenses and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against the allegations.
Cano Health (NYSE: CANO) -- canohealth.com -- is a high-touch,
technology-powered healthcare company delivering personalized,
value-based primary care to more than 250,000 members.
CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Loses Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANDE NQADOLO, et al., v.
CARE AT HOME, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00612-KAD (D. Conn.),
the Hon. Judge Kari Dooley entered an order denying Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification, motion for Rule 23 class
certification, and motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.
The Plaintiffs assert in an Amended Complaint two causes of action:
(1) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and
(2) a failure to pay overtime in violation of the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA").
The Plaintiffs allege, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, that Defendants required caregivers to work
long shifts without uninterrupted meal and sleep breaks and failed
to account for food and lodging provided to them when calculating
their overtime rates of pay.
This Court cannot conditionally certify a class to litigate a claim
not pled. Because Plaintiffs do not seek conditional certification
on issues actually contained in the Amended Complaint, i.e.,
whether Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate them
for interruptions to their sleep periods and meal breaks, the
motion for conditional certification of an opt-in collective under
the FLSA is denied.
On June 6, 2023, after the Plaintiffs moved for class
certification, the Court struck all allegations that relate to a
section 203(m) credit or allegations that the Plaintiffs' overtime
should be calculated using an enhanced regular rate of pay based
upon food or lodging that may have been provided.
Care provides home care and caregiving services.
A copy of the Court's memorandum of decision dated March 28, 2024
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nYq9MM at no extra charge.[CC]
CAREFIRST INC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al., v.
CAREFIRST, INC., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Christopher Cooper granting in part and denying as moot
in part Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.
The Court further orders that the parties meet and confer and, by
April 26, 2024, file a joint status report indicating the need for
further proceedings in the case.
After careful consideration and a hearing on the matter, the Court
finds that certification of the proposed contract class is
warranted.
The standing issue that prevented the Court from certifying the
last go around has since dissolved because, as all sides agree,
each member of the proposed class has allegedly suffered a concrete
injury based on CareFirst’s supposed breach of its contractual
obligation to safeguard its customers’ data -- regardless of
whether they sustained an additional, tangible injury due to the
data breach.
The Court finds that all putative class members have standing to
pursue their breach of contract claim -- thereby settling the one
issue that prevented the Court from certifying the proposed class
in the previous outing.
The Plaintiffs are residents of the District of Columbia, Maryland,
and Virginia who were customers and insureds of the Defendant.
CareFirst offers health insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Lze2s at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTENE CORPORATION: Duff Seeks to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY DUFF, individually
and on behalf of R.D., a minor, et. al., v. CENTENE CORPORATION, ET
AL. Case No. 1:19-cv-00750-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a sur-reply in further support of their motion for class
certification by April 12, 2024 to address new arguments raised by
the Defendants in their amended opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The Defendants' amended opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification improperly presents myriad new arguments not
previously raised in the Defendants' original opposition brief.
On Jan. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs served a supplemental expert
report from Dr. Adam Block which, in accordance with Rule
26(e)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only analyzed
and addressed the documents produced by the Defendants after Dr.
Block had provided his original expert report.
Centene provides multi-line healthcare solutions to individuals
across all states and internationally.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZO9JJF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melanie S. Bailey, Esq.
Jessica L. Powell, Esq.
BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE PC
201 East Fifth Street, Suite 1340
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 852-5600
Facsimile: (513) 852-5611
E-mail: mbailey@burgsimpson.com
jpowell@burgsimpson.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Rowe Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., a Delaware
corporation, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, a Delaware
corporation, UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
OPTUM, INC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn., April 3, 2024) arises out of Defendants'
failure to implement adequate security measures to secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information from a
targeted cyberattack on Change Healthcare Inc. that was announced
on February 21, 2024.
Despite widespread public knowledge and dissemination of resources
to safeguard private information and combat the unauthorized access
of private information by cybercriminals within the healthcare
industry, the Defendants allegedly failed to exercise reasonable
care in protecting the privacy and security of Plaintiff's and the
Class's private information. Accordingly, Plaintiff Rowe asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare Inc. is a
healthcare technology company provides payments and revenue cycle
management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
Michael Iadevaia, Esq.
Emily Schiller, 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
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Christopher L. Springer, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ChargePoint Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending January 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from securities class suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
A class action lawsuit (the "November 2023 Class Action") alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed on November 29,
2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its former officers
(the "Class Defendants").
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between June 1, 2023 and November 16, 2023
and alleges that the Class Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding component costs and supply overruns
for DC charging products which resulted in impairment charges and
an adverse impact on profitability.
A second class action lawsuit (together with the November 2023
Class Action, the "Class Actions") asserting the same claims and
premised on the same underlying allegations, which purports to be
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 7,
2021 and November 16, 2023, was filed against the Class Defendants
on January 22, 2024.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Applications to serve as lead plaintiff and to consolidate the
class action are pending with the court.
No response to the complaints is required at this time; a deadline
will be set following the court's ruling on the pending
applications.
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides electric vehicle
charging solutions which enables the electrification of mobility
for all people and goods. [BN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, et al., v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order
setting briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's intended motion for
class certification.
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
certification shall be April 12, 2024.
2. The Defendants' deadline to file an opposition to the
Plaintiffs' intended motion shall be April 26, 2024.
3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of their
motion shall be May 3, 2024.
4. The court reserves May 17, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. for the hearing
on
Plaintiffs' intended motion.
On Jan. 22, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report that
included a proposed briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' intended
motion for class certification.
The Defendant is an American telecommunications and mass media
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZnunZp at no extra
charge.[CC]
CIRCLE MEDICAL: Lefevere Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LEFEVERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCLE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-004332 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., March
28, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
CIRCLE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides software solutions. The
Company designs and develops healthcare application for users to
scan health insurance card and book an appointment with an
affiliated primary care physician. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Idndi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Edaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
CITADEL SERVICING: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Falon Ballard and Matthew
Ballard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Citadel Servicing Corporation, a/k/a Acra Lending; and
DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP")
6(b) and 15(a), move the Court ex parte for an order to continue
the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification by
twelve weeks, from April 11, 2024 to July 5, 2024.
This motion is made on the grounds that on January 31 Magistrate
Judge Autumn Spaeth granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs'
motion to compel discovery and ordered supplemental briefing from
the parties on two issues, to be completed by Feb. 28, 2024, the
lawsuit says.
The outstanding discovery issues primarily relate to Plaintiffs'
class claims against defendant Citadel Servicing Corporation, a/k/a
Acra Lending.
According to Citadel's counsel, Citadel and ServiceMac will need up
to several weeks to produce the credit reporting data, and then the
Plaintiffs will need time to review the information, complete the
two depositions of ServiceMac's corporate representatives, and
prepare and file the class certification motion and supporting
documents.
The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint seeking to certify
the following two classes:
"Credit Reporting Class: All persons in California who received
a
payment "accommodation" from Citadel as defined by the CARES
Act,
were current before the accommodation, and whose accounts were
reported as delinquent or past due as a result of the non-
payments subject to the accommodation, during the relevant
statute of limitations period.
"Debt Collection Class: All persons in California who received
a
payment "accommodation" from Citadel as that term is defined by
the CARES Act, were current before the accommodation, and
received
a past due debt collection notice as a result of the
non-payments
subject to the accommodation, during the relevant statute of
limitations period."
The Plaintiffs Falon Ballard and Matthew Ballard and numerous other
California borrowers had home loans serviced by defendant Citadel
Servicing Corporation, and as of March 2021, sub-serviced by
Citadel's agent, ServiceMac, LLC.
Citadel provides non-prime loans for residential properties on both
an owner occupied and non-owner occupied basis.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NjKhKZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
RAY KIM LAW, APC
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (833) 729-5529
Facsimile: (833) 972-9546
E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Bowden Suit Over Mislabeled Sports Drinks
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BOWDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00328 (M.D. Fla., April 1, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled the sports drink, Powerade as having "50% more
electrolytes vs the leading sports drink."
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Product is
"misbranded" and misleads consumers because "50% more electrolytes
vs the leading sports drink" characterizes the level of nutrients
of the type required in the labeling of food, sodium and potassium,
yet is not made in accordance with such requirements.
As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Product is sold at a premium price, around $2.49 for
20 oz, subject to minor per ounce variations based on size and
packaging, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the suit.
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY manufactures, markets, and distributes soft
drink concentrates and syrups. The Company also distributes and
markets juice and juice-drink products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Entry of Revised Final Judgment OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA M. MCCUTCHEON, et
al., v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04170-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of a revised final
judgment.
The Defendants' request for oral argument is denied as moot.
The Plaintiff and class representative Rebecca McCutcheon, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, moves for entry of
a revised final judgment.
The contents of the revised final judgment are undisputed except
for two pension benefit calculation issues.
Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q450a6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLORADO: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wind v. Colorado
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01011 (D.
Colo., Filed April 21, 2023), the Hon. Philip A. Brimmer Judge
entered an order regarding motion to certify class filed by Gregory
Carl Wind, Jr.
-- The motion is referred to Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez
Braswell.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
CONNECTICUT: Issokson Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on Petition
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Issokson v. Connecticut
General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-30070 (D. Mass.,
Filed May 17, 2018), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an
order granting the Defendants' motion to stay pending decision on
Rule 23(f) Petition.
The court finds that a stay is appropriate here, given "that
sending the [class] notice now risks harm to class members who
likely would be confused if the [First] Circuit reversed this
Court's certification decision."
Accordingly, the court concludes a stay of the case is appropriate
pending the First Circuit's decision on Defendants' Rule 23(f)
petition for leave to appeal this court's order granting class
certification. The parties shall promptly notify the court when the
First Circuit takes action on Defendants' petition.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Connecticut General Corporation, doing business as, Cigna, provides
insurance services.[CC]
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Amended Sched Order on Class Cert Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gilbert Blevins, Jr., et
al., on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly Situated, v.
Continental Resources, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00160-RAW-DES (E.D.
Okla.), the Parties jointly move the Court to enter an amended
scheduling order for class certification:
-- Motions for leave to amend or add additional June 28,
2024
Parties:
-- Documents previously produced by parties Oct. 15,
2024
shall be deemed authenticated except as
to those objected to:
-- Class Certification Motion filed with all Nov. 15,
2024
supporting evidence, including expert
disclosures:
-- Class Certification Response filed with Jan. 15,
2025
all supporting evidence, including expert
disclosures:
-- Class Certification Reply filed with any Feb. 17,
2025
rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any:
-- Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 17,
2025
Continental is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and
production company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZF0AOK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
Charles V. Knutter, Esq.
CHUCK KNUTTER, PLLC
300 N.E. 1st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 236-0478
Facsimile: (405) 236-1840
E-mail: chuck.knutter@outlook.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey C. King, Esq.
Elizabeth L. Tiblets, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 347-5270
Facsimile: (817) 347-5299
E-mail: jeffrey.c.king@klgates.com
elizabeth.tiblets@klgates.com
- and -
Joe M. Hampton, Esq.
TOMLINSON MCKINSTRY, P.C.
Two Leadership Square, Suite 450
211 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 702-4346
Facsimile: (833) 657-0184
E-mail: joeh@TMoklaw.com
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLETTA HARWELL-PAYNE,
v. CUDAHY PLACE SENIOR LIVING LLC and 41 MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00328-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered
an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's partial
motion for summary judgment,
-- granting the Plaintiff's expedited motion for reconsideration,
and
-- granting in part the plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery and
requiring parties to file joint status report.
The court grants in part the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment. The court grants the motion to the extent that it asks
the court to find, as a matter of law, that the time spent to do
the COVID19 screening was indispensable and integral to work as a
Med Aide.
The court denies the motion in all other respects. The court grants
the plaintiff's motion for the court to reconsider the language in
the notice of suit.
The Plaintiff Charletta Harwell-Payne, who worked as a Med Aide at
the Cudahy Place Senior Living memory care facility, brought this
individual, collective and class action in the Western District of
Wisconsin under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin
wage law.
Cudahy Place offers assisted living care.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nf4ihW at no extra
charge.[CC]
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 17, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN CROWL, et al., v.
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-04007-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order
as follows:
Last Day to Request Leave to Amend the 60 Days from Date of
Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15 this Order
Last Day File Motion Class Certification Jan. 17,2025
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions Aug. 21, 2025 at 9:00
AM
Final Pretrial Conference Nov. 20, 2025 at 1:30
PM
Trial Jan. 12, 2026 at 9:00
AM
Cupertino is a privately owned electrical engineering and
construction company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ALfewe at no extra
charge.[CC]
DALLAS JONES: McClurg Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY McCLURG, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. DALLAS JONES
ENTERPRISES INC, d/b/a CLAY'S TRUCKING, Case No.
4:20-cv-00201-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a Rule 23 class composed of the following
persons:
"All persons employed as a truck driver by Dallas Jones
Enterprises, Inc. who worked, according to daily sheets
maintained
by Dallas Jones Enterprises, Inc., more than 40 hours in one
or
more workweeks for which the payday for such workweek(s) fell
on
or after Dec. 7, 2015."
The Plaintiff further asks that he be appointed as class
representative and that the undersigned be appointed as class
counsel.
The Defendant does not deny that the Defendant's numerous truck
driver employees worked overtime and that Defendant did not pay
them overtime compensation.
Instead, the Defendant claims it is a trucking company operating in
interstate commerce and that every one of its drivers is also
operating in interstate commerce.
Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Motor Carrier's Act
exemption applies. However, the application of facts and law common
to all drivers demonstrates that drivers are eligible for overtime
compensation and that the Defendant's exemption assertions are
incorrect.
Thus, the drivers' response to Defendants' exemption arguments are
based on common-across-the-class facts and law, and a class action
would be superior than individualized litigation of the drivers'
claims.
The Defendant operates a trucking company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eu1cWl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-130
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corp. disclosed in its form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Jones 401(k) class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company, its Board of Directors at that time,
and its Retirement Plan Committee at that time alleging fiduciary
breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.
As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.
On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be
denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be
granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the
district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
It cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corp. disclosed in its form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Lingam securities fraud class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against the Company and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to
February 27, 2023 class period.
In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network's public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that it
allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information
technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer
data and its operations were susceptible to widespread service
outages.
In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed an
amended complaint that abandoned the original allegations.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the
class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G
network buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the
network to obtain enterprise customers.
The amended complaint adds as individual defendants James S. Allen,
its Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John
Swieringa, its President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer;
Dave Mayo, its former Executive Vice President of Network
Development; Marc Rouanne, its Executive Vice President and Chief
Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, its former Executive Vice
President and Chief Commercial Officer.
After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint, asserting the same theory, on
February 23, 2024.
The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban
and James Allen as individual defendants.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. It cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corp. disclosed in its form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Owen-Brooks data breach class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against us in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in
the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a
result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a
North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals).
On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for
contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on
behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North
Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. Since that
filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of
people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint.
On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the
first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16,
2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. It cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Tosses w/o Prejudice Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NB et al v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-01511 (D.D.C., Sept 7, 2010),
the Hon. Judge entered an order denying without prejudice the
Plaintiffs motion to certify class.
The Court finds it appropriate to address plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint and defendant's motion to
dismiss before addressing the class certification issue.
If the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, the
Court will new deadlines for briefing on the class certification
issue so that the Court has the benefit of updated briefing
applicable to the new proposed class representatives.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]
DONALD TRUMP: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by April 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C. et
al v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01469 (D.D.C., Filed:
June 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order
directing the parties to file a joint status report on or before
April 20, 2024, proposing a briefing schedule for any remaining
pre-discovery motions, including
(1) the defendants' motions to dismiss and
(2) the Black Lives Matter plaintiffs' motions for class
certification.
The Court prefers to resolve any motion for class certification in
parallel with any motions to dismiss. Discovery remains stayed
pending resolution of pre-discovery motions. This order does not
alter the rights of any party with respect to party discovery.
The nature of suit Civil Rights. [CC]
DOUBLETREE EMPLOYER: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 27, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA SILVA HUERTA, v.
DOUBLETREE EMPLOYER LLC, et al. Case No. 8:23-cv-02433-CJC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be completed
by
June 26, 2025.
-- The parties shall have until August 25, 2025, to file and have
heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the
pleadings.
-- A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, October 27, 2025,
at
03:00 PM.
-- The case is set for Nov. 4, 2025, at 08:30 AM.
-- The parties shall have until July 10, 2025, to conduct
settlement
proceedings.
-- The Plaintiff shall have until January 27, 2025, to file and
have
heard any class certification motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=egq7Qi at no extra
charge.[CC]
E.I. DU PONT: Thomas & Thomas Sue Over Drinking Water Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY THOMAS and LANA THOMAS, Plaintiffs v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00166 (S.D. W. Va., April 3, 2024) is a class action
arising out of Defendants' negligent acts and omissions in
connection with contamination of human drinking water supplies and
asserting claims for negligence, concealment, misrepresentation,
fraud, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
punitive damages, and loss of consortium.
During the course of its operations at the manufacturing plant, the
Defendant has negligently allowed C-8 to be discharged, vented,
emitted and/or otherwise released from the plant into the
environment at, under and/or surrounding the plant, including into
air, soil, sediment and water, in such a manner as to result in C-8
contamination of human drinking water supplies. As a direct, legal,
and proximate result of the culpability and fault of Defendant,
Plaintiff Bobby Thomas, was diagnosed with kidney cancer on April
21, 2022, and was caused to sustain severe and permanent personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit.
Headquartered in Wilmington, DE, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours owns and
operates a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia
known as the “Washington Works Plant” until at least 2015.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ethan Vessels, Esq.
FIELDS, DEHMLOW & VESSELS, LLC
309 Second Street
Marietta, OH 45750
Telephone: (740)- 374-5346
Facsimile: (740) 374-5349
E-mail: ethan@fieldsdehmlow.com
- and -
Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
Brett Thompson, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com
EF INSTITUTE: Wins Bid to Seal Opposition, Supporting Declarations
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute
for Cultural Exchange, Inc., et al.,Case No. Case 1:20-cv-11740 (D.
Mass., Filed Sept. 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper
entered an order granting motion to seal the Defendants' opposition
and supporting Declarations and Exhibits to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification by EF Education First International, Ltd., EF
Explore America, Inc., EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc.
Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of this order with
instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has
been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
EF Institute provides educational services.[CC]
ELIZABETH MEDICAL: York Bid for Leave to Seal Docs Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH YORK, v. ST.
ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00125-DLB-CJS (E.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Candace Smith entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff's motions for leave to seal (R. 56; R. 59; R.
67;
R. 85) are denied.
2. The Clerk is directed to strike Plaintiff's liability
expert's
affidavit (R. 84) from the record.
3. The Defendant's motion for leave to seal (R. 89) is denied,
and
the Clerk is directed to unseal Defendant's response in
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and
exhibits (R. 82 through R. 82-6).
The Defendant requests leave to seal its Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, arguing the exhibits
attached thereto "were explicitly marked 'CONFIDENTIAL –
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,' in the manner contemplated by the
Stipulated Protective Order." As noted previously, mere reference
to a protective order is insufficient to warrant sealing. Thus, to
the extent Defendant seeks to seal the Response and its exhibits
solely due to the Protective Order, Defendant's motion will be
denied.
The Defendant argues the Response and its Exhibits "reference[]
sensitive, non-public commercial information that St. Elizabeth
considers confidential, in addition to medical information
regarding Plaintiff Sarah York."
The Defendant's vague and conclusory statement is insufficient to
demonstrate that sealing is warranted. The Defendant has made no
effort to make the required showing here, instead offering only
"bare platitudes and vague generalities" as to what portions of the
record require sealing and why.
St. Elizabeth is a mid-size for-profit teaching hospital.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kQ5gDe at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELRAC LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Odam Suit Due July 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ODAM, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, v. ELRAC, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02017-LAK-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn
Tarnofsky entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than July 1, 2024.
-- The deadline for the Defendants' opposition is July 22, 2024.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff's reply is Aug. 5, 2024.
Additionally, the action is scheduled for a telephonic Initial Case
Management Conference in accordance with Rule 16(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on, May 8, 2024 at 10:30 AM.
Elrac provides passenger cars on rents and lease.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2EvXgs at no extra
charge.[CC]
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Settlement in Hardy Gets Fina Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HARDY, et al., v.
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02090-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties'
class action settlement.
In addition, the Court grants in part and denies in part
plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs;
Specifically, the Court awards the following:
-- $625,000 in attorney's fees;
-- $120,456.77 in litigation costs; and
-- settlement administration costs of no more than $105,000.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative securities class action alleging
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of individuals who purchased stock in Embark
Technologies Inc., or its predecessor Northern Genesis Acquisition
Corp. II.
While the Defendants' motion to dismiss was pending, the parties
reached an agreement to resolve Plaintiffs' claims, and on
September 26, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
The settlement calls for two classes: an Exchange Act class and a
Securities Act class, collectively referred to as the Settlement
Class.
The Exchange Act class is defined as
"all persons and entities that beneficially owned and/or held
the
Company's common stock as of October 6, 2021, the record date,
and
were eligible to vote at the Company’s November 9, 2021
special
meeting with respect to the Business Combination between the
Company and privately held Legacy Embark, completed on or about
November 10, 2021, and were damaged thereby."
The Exchange Act class period is defined as the period from
October
6, 2021 through November 10, 2021.
The Securities Act class is defined as
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Embark common stock pursuant or traceable to the July 2, 2021
registration statement, including all amendments thereto, issued
in
connection with the November 2021 Business Combination between
the
Company and Legacy Embark, including shares of Embark common
stock
purchased in the open market during the period November 11, 2021
through December 13, 2021, both dates inclusive, (the
"Securities
Act Class Period") and were damaged thereby."
Embark is an autonomous vehicle company building the software
powering autonomous trucks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p6Jvy9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
EZRICARE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Mosley Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MOSLEY and ALISA
MCMILLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. EZRICARE LLC, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00020-REW-HAI
(E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Robert Wier entered an order granting in
part and denying in part EzriCare's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, premised on three separate standing
arguments.
The Plaintiff Mosley may, at this posture, continue to pursue all
of Counts III, IV, V, and VI against EzriCare. Further, because the
merits as to EzriRx and EzriCare are analytically parallel, the
Court will likewise retain only Counts III, IV, V, and VI against
EzriRx.
Since Mosley has not alleged that he experienced any physical harm
from his use of EzriCare Artificial Tears, he fails to properly
state the strict product liability failure to warn and
manufacturing defect claims.
The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their use and purchase of the
Defendants' artificial tears products, specifically, EzriCare
Artificial Tears and Delsam Pharma Artificial Tears. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants "manufactured, imported, sold, marketed,
labeled, and distributed" EzriCare Artificial Tears and Delsam
Pharma Artificial Tears. These products were "adulterated and
contaminated" with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a drug-resistant
bacteria.
According to the Plaintiffs, the artificial tears products became
contaminated due to the Defendants' violations of standard
manufacturing practices. Moreover, in labeling their artificial
tears products, the Defendants allegedly failed to adequately
inform consumers that the products were compromised and unsafe. As
a result, Plaintiffs claim that they (and the putative class
members) have "suffered economic damages."
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=liquR7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAST PACE: Collects Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF I.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAST PACE MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00352 (M.D. Tenn., March 28, 2024) seeks to
address the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's
and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively
referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including
Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"), Google, Inc.
("Google"), and LinkedIn without consent, through the use of
tracking software that Defendant installed and embedded into its
website and webpages.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to its
patients, Defendant installed tracking technologies ("Tracking
Tools") onto its Website, including the following: Facebook Pixel,
SDK, and related Facebook Business Tools; Google Analytics, Google
Tag Manager (which works in conjunction with Facebook, LinkedIn,
and other with other third-party plug-ins), the DoubleClick
tracking tool, owned by Google; and LinkedIn trackers.
The Tracking Tools surreptitiously intercept and collect patient
communications with Defendant as they are made via the Website. In
the process, the Website user's web browser is manipulated by the
Tracking Tools, which forcibly redirect their substantive
communications to undisclosed third parties, including Facebook,
Google, and LinkedIn, says the suit.
FAST PACE MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC is an urgent care medical walk-in
clinic, offering convenient, affordable healthcare, and the ability
to be seen without an appointment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865)-247-0080
Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
FCA US: Hearing on Alger's Motions Continued to May 9
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN ALGER, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA
US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-00360-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting
motion to continue hearing date on Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the
Class Certification Order and Motion to Amend Complaint to
Substitute New Class Representative to May 9, 2024.
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicle.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u7qhvK at no extra
charge.[CC]
FEDEX GROUND: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in Roy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN ROY and JUSTIN
TRUMBULL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-30116-KAR (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Robertson entered an order
granting FedEx's motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") conditional collective.
The Plaintiffs' claims will remain pending before this court, but
the opt-in Plaintiff' claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to schedule a status conference in the matter
by no later than April 26, 2024.
The Plaintiffs claim that they were jointly employed by FedEx and
the Plaintiffs' respective Independent Service Providers ("ISP") to
deliver packages in Massachusetts and that FedEx violated the FLSA
by failing to compensate them for overtime.
FedEx moves for decertification on the grounds that there is no
common policy or practice that has led to the same or similar
law-violating wage practices of the ISPs that employ the plaintiff
drivers and that liability and damages will have to be individually
proved because
Plaintiffs' hours, wages, and delivery vehicles varied depending on
which of the ISPs employed them.
The Plaintiffs argue that whether FedEx is Plaintiffs' joint
employer is an issue common to the collective that can be proved by
common or representative evidence, and for this reason, FedEx's
decertification motion should be denied so that the joint employer
issue can be resolved on a collective basis.
FedEx is a federally registered motor carrier that provides package
pick-up and delivery services to business and residential customers
throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sq6oLR at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Milles & Knight Sue over Unlawful Fees & Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE M. MILLES, and RHONDA D. KNIGHT and JEFFREY KNIGHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00186-DRC (S.D. Ohio, April 3, 2024) arises from
the Defendant's conduct of unlawfully charging its customers with
Return Deposit Item Fees.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant unlawfully charged its
customers with financial penalties or Return Deposit Item Fees for
faulty checks the customers had no hand in issuing. Moreover, they
assert claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, Fifth Third Bank, N.A. is a
financial services institution engaged in the business of providing
retail banking services to consumers and businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher D. 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
FINEPOINTS PRIVATE: Bobb Conditional Status Bid Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Margaret Bobb v.
FinePoints Private Duty Healthcare, LLC et al, Case No.
1:23-cv-03129-JKB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge James Bredar entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
for class conditional certification as follows:
a. Conditional certification of the class as defined by the
Plaintiff is granted.
b. The Plaintiff's request for tolling of the Fair Labor
Standards
Act (FLSA) statute of limitations is denied.
The Court said that a collective of individuals meeting the
following definition is conditionally certified under the FLSA:
"Any individual who works or worked as a Home Care Aide (also
know
as a Personal Care Aide or Certified Nursing Assistant) for
Defendants from Feb. 7, 2021, through the date of the close of
the
Opt-in period."
FinePoints provides skilled and non-skilled home health care
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=84CdZY at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLORIDA: Bid to Transfer Alianza Class Suit to N.D. Fla. Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIANZA AMERICAS, YANET
DOE, PABLO DOE, and JESUS DOE on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RONALD D. DESANTIS, Governor of
Florida, in his official and personal capacities, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-11550-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs
entered an order denying Vertol's request to transfer case to the
Northern District of Florida.
Because there is a presumption in favor of Plaintiff[s]' choice,
transfer is not appropriate where its effect is merely to shift the
inconvenience from one party to the other. All of the relevant
factors weigh against transfer or are neutral, and thus the Court
declines to transfer the case.
The Plaintiffs bring several constitutional, federal, and state
claims in connection with alleged false promises that led the
Plaintiffs to board two flights from San Antonio, Texas, to
Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts on Sept. 14, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint on Nov. 29,
2022. On Feb. 28, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss in three
separate motions. On Mar. 29, 2024, the Court granted the motions
to dismiss.
The Defendants include JARED W. PERDUE, Secretary of the Florida
Department of Transportation, in his official and personal
capacities; LAWRENCE A. KEEFE, Florida Public Safety Czar, in his
official and personal capacities; JAMES UTHMEIER, Chief of Staff to
Florida Governor, in his official and personal capacities; STATE OF
FLORIDA; THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JAMES
MONTGOMERIE; PERLA HUERTA; and VERTOL SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TBxOyz at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLORIDA: Court Narrows Claims in Americas Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIANZA AMERICAS, YANET
DOE, PABLO DOE, and JESUS DOE on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RONALD D. DESANTIS, Governor of
Florida, in his official and personal capacities; JARED W. PERDUE,
Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation, in his
official and personal capacities; LAWRENCE A. KEEFE, Florida Public
Safety Czar, in his official and personal capacities; JAMES
UTHMEIER, Chief of Staff to Florida Governor, in his official and
personal capacities; STATE OF FLORIDA; THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; JAMES MONTGOMERIE; PERLA HUERTA; and VERTOL SYSTEMS
COMPANY, INC.,Case No. 1:22-cv-11550-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Allison Burroughs entered an order that the motions to dismiss are
granted and the Amended Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice,
as to Huerta, DeSantis, Perdue, Keefe, Uthmeier, the State of
Florida, and the Florida DOT.
The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
-- It is granted insofar as the Amended Complaint is dismissed in
its entirety, without prejudice, as to Montgomerie. With
respect
to Vertol, it is granted insofar as Counts II, V, and IX are
dismissed without prejudice, and denied as to Counts I, VI,
VII,
VIII, X, XI, XII, and XIII.
The Plaintiffs alleges violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 2000d,
preemption, violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section
1985(3), false imprisonment, fraud/deceit, intentional infliction
of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, civil
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and Ultra Vires in connection with
alleged false promises that led Plaintiffs to board two flights
from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts on
Sept. 14,
2022.
Alianza is a non-profit corporation that provides "programming and
resources to immigrant communities, immigrant-serving
organizations, state and local officials, and the public concerning
issues of immigration, human rights, and democratic
participation."
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YY0Nqk at no extra
charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Miller Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA MILLER, et al., v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order granting in part and denying
in part defendant's motion to dismiss certain claims brought by the
Plaintiffs in the first amended consolidated complaint:
-- Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, without leave to
amend,
as to the following claims including:
a. Plaintiff Hodges's express warranty claim (Claim 3);
b. Plaintiff Miller's express warranty claim (Claim 3); and
c. Plaintiff Christodaro's express warranty claim (Claim 10)
-- Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to the following
claims:
a. Plaintiff Lund's express warranty claim (Claim 7);
b. Plaintiff Thomas's implied warranty claim (Claim 50);
c. The MMWA claim (Claim 51) brought by plaintiffs Wests (CA),
Lund (AR), Christodaro (CO), Balaszek (IN), Pickering (IN),
Morfords (KS), Manfras (MD), Goodrich (MI), Metro (MI), and
Thomas (OH);
On May 6, 2021, the previously-assigned district judge issued an
order consolidating three related cases, and plaintiffs filed the
initial consolidated class action complaint on the docket in this
consolidated case on June 21, 2021.
On Aug. 10, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss the initial consolidated class action
complaint, with leave to amend.
On Sept. 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed the operative first amended
consolidated class action complaint against defendant Ford
Motor Company.
The Plaintiffs allege that before leasing or selling the class
vehicles, defendant had knowledge of the Engine Defect based on the
following sources:
(1) testing, including "pre-production testing, pre-production
design failure mode analysis, pre-release evaluation and
testing";
(2) repair and warranty data;
(3) replacement part sales data;
(4) high failure rates and analysis in response; and
(5) early consumer complaints made directly to Ford and/or
posted
on public online vehicle owner forums.
Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sArc2w at no extra
charge.[CC]
FORT BELVOIR: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Extended to April 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chief Petty Officer JOHN
FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITIES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the joint motion to extend
current deadlines pending execution of formal settlement agreement,
and extending all current deadlines by three (3) weeks, including
the deadline to file a motion to alter or amend the Feb. 16, 2024
judgment
and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class
certification.
The new deadlines shall be as follows:
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment: April 26, 2024
Renewed Motion for Class Certification: April 29, 2024
Defendants' Opposition Briefs: May 13, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply Briefs: May 20, 2024.
Fort Belvoir offers privatized military housing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lQ1KXg at no extra
charge.[CC]
FOULGER-PRATT CONSTRUCTION: Parties Seek to Certify FLSA Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON ANTONIO RIVAS
FERRERA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FOULGER-PRATT CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00262-TNM (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order conditionally certifying their claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and DC Wage Payment Law, as a collective
action and to facilitate notice to all potential members of the
collective action.
The Court-facilitated notice to prospective plaintiffs will
effectuate the remedial nature of the FLSA and DC Wage Payment
Law.
All of the Parties consent to the filing of this Joint Motion and
agree that Conditional Certification of the Collective Action will
facilitate settlement discussions.
The Parties have chosen to engage in mediation on May 9, 2024
before former Magistrate Judge William Connelly of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.
Foulger-Pratt provides construction services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BhT0d1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arlus Stephens, Esq.
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Nicole Rubin, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
astephens@murphypllc.com
nrubin@murphypllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Marty Heller, Esq.
Theresa Connolly, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LP
1230 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 3300
Atlanta, GA 30309
E-mail: mheller@fisherphillips.com
tconnolly@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Christine Burke, Esq.
LORENGER & CARNELL PLC
651 South Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
E-mail: cburke@lorengercarnell.com
FRED MEYER: Class Certification Bid Filing Due June 27
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Woody, et al., v. Fred
Meyer Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01800 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 17,
2022), the Hon. Judge Marco A. Hernandez entered an order on motion
for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines:
-- Class certification motion is due by: June 27, 2024
-- Joint ADR Report and Pretrial Order are June 27, 2024
due 30 days after resolution of dispositive
motions or, if no dispositive motions are
filed, by:
The nature of suit states labor litigation.[CC]
FTX CRYPTOCURRENCY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange
Collapse Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-03076-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement
Class;
(2) appointing Class Representatives as Rule 23(c) class
representatives;
(3) appointing Adam Moskowitz of Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC and
David
Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel
pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g);
(4) approving the proposed Notice Plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P.
23(e) and set a schedule for approving the form and
disseminating notice to Class Members, as well as deadlines
to
comment on or object to the Settlements; and
(5) scheduling a hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) to
determine whether the proposed Settlements are fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and should be finally approved.
The Settlement Class consists of:
"All persons or entities who, within the applicable
limitations
period, purchased or held legal title to and/or beneficial
interest in any fiat or cryptocurrency deposited or invested
through an FTX Platform, purchased or enrolled in a YBA, or
purchased FTT." To the extent not otherwise included in the
Class, Class Members include customers of the FTX Group who
deposited cash and/or digital assets at either or both of the
FTX Group's U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based trading platforms
and
have been unable to withdraw, use or access the billions of
dollars in assets that were contractually required to be held
safely in accounts on their behalf.
Excluded from the Classes are MDL Defendants and their
officers,
directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees,
the
FTX Group and their officers, directors, affiliates, legal
representatives, and employees, any governmental entities,
any
judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this
matter
and the members of their immediate families and judicial
staff.
From Dec. 2023 to Feb. 1, 2024, Class Representatives and certain
defendants engaged in jurisdictional discovery.
On Feb. 16, 2024, Class Representatives moved for leave to file
supplemental oppositions to the motions to dismiss and/or to amend
the relevant Complaints to include information learned via
jurisdictional discovery, proffers with Settling Defendants, or
other recent
public sources.
FTX is a cryptocurrency exchange platform.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9M1QmL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
service@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Brooke A. Alexander, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
balexander@bsfllp.com
GARRISON PROPERTY: Class Fact Discovery in Romes Due June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramona Romes, v. Garrison
Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00176-SMB
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered a case management
order as follows:
-- The deadline for fact discovery, including June 30, 2025
discovery by subpoena, shall be:
-- The Plaintiff(s) shall provide full and Dec. 20, 2024
complete expert disclosures, as required by
Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, no later than:
-- Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be May 16, 2025
made no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's expert depositions shall be Jan. 31, 2025
completed no later than:
-- Deposition of Defendant's experts shall April 18,
2025
be completed no later than:
Garrison provides property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BAJEcV at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENCARE RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LADY GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENCARE RESOURCES, LLC a/k/a GENCARE
RESOURCES HOME HEALTHCARE; and OLIVE GAYE, Defendants, Case No.
6:24-cv-00650-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla., April 4, 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 Gomez was employed by the Defendants as a home healthcare
aide.
GENCARE RESOURCES, LLC provides home healthcare services such as
home health aides, live-in aides, licensed practical nurses,
registered nurses and other health related disciplines. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Delete Browsing Data as Part of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Feiner of The Verge reports that Google agreed to destroy or
de-identify billions of records of web browsing data collected when
users were in its private browsing "Incognito mode," according to a
proposed class action settlement filed on April 1, 2024.
The proposed settlement in Brown v. Google will also mandate
greater disclosure from the company about how it collects
information in Incognito mode and put limits on future data
collection. If approved by a California federal judge, the
settlement could apply to 136 million Google users. The 2020
lawsuit was brought by Google account holders who accused the
company of illegally tracking their behavior through the private
browsing feature.
The proposal is valued at $5 billion, according to April 1,
2024’s court filing, calculated by determining the value of data
Google has stored and would be forced to destroy and the data it
would be prevented from collecting. Google would need to address
data collected in private browsing mode in December 2023 and
earlier. Any data that is not outright deleted must be
de-identified.
"This Settlement ensures real accountability and transparency from
the world's largest data collector and marks an important step
toward improving and upholding our right to privacy on the
Internet," the plaintiffs wrote in the proposed settlement filing.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda said in a statement that the
company is "pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always
believed was meritless." Though the plaintiffs valued the proposed
settlement at $5 billion, which was the amount they originally
sought in damages, Castañeda said that they are "receiving zero."
The settlement does not include damages for the class, though
individuals can file claims.
"We never associate data with users when they use Incognito mode,"
Castañeda added. "We are happy to delete old technical data that
was never associated with an individual and was never used for any
form of personalization."
Part of the agreement includes changes to how Google discloses the
limits of its private browsing services, which the company has
already begun rolling out on Chrome. Google also agreed for five
years to let users block third-party cookies by default in
Incognito mode to keep Google from tracking users on outside
websites while they're in private browsing.
Individuals can still file claims for damages in California state
court, according to the settlement terms. Already, there have been
50 claims filed. [GN]
GRO INTELLIGENCE: Bielefeldt Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE BIELEFELDT; and SIMON FIRESTONE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRO INTELLIGENCE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02472 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs seeking to recover from
the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.
GRO INTELLIGENCE, INC. operates as a software development company.
The Company provides an application that pulls together global food
and agriculture data and structures it into a common language.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
Email: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
H&R BLOCK: Cox Sues Over Misleading Tax Services Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
STACEY COX; and SANDRA NEWTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. H&R BLOCK, INC.; and HRB
TAX GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. Case 4:24-cv-00252-GAF (W.D.
Mo., April 4, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for
misleading the public, including their clients, in respect of the
cost of their tax preparation services.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that H&R Block deceptively
markets its online tax preparation products ("Online Products") by
representing to consumers that they can file for free using H&R
Block, when in fact, many consumers cannot file for free, and,
having expended time and effort to enter the relevant information
into H&R Block's systems, are invoiced hundreds of dollars to
submit their tax returns.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered monetary
losses as a result of having to pay for services which were
advertised as "Free Online" to the public, says the suit.
H&R BLOCK, INC. is an American tax preparation company operating in
Canada, the United States, and Australia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Rd, Suite 200,
Kansas City, MO 64113
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
walsh@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
ronald.podolny@ForThePeople.com
HAPPY GROUP: Parties in Rusoff Seek to Seal Class Cert Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF and JOSEPH
GAMBINO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-08084-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order sealing certain materials filed in
connection with the Parties' briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
Happy Group has agreed to withdraw the confidentiality designations
for Exhibits 1, 2, 9, 11, 23, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40,
42, 48, 60, 63, 80, and 81 to the Declaration of Aubry Wand in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and thus
agrees that these documents may be filed publicly without
redactions.
THG requests that the redacted portions of pages 92, 100, and 102
to Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Amit Rana be filed under seal
because they contain testimony regarding confidential, non-public
information concerning market research, competitive analysis, and
marketing and business strategy.
The Plaintiffs ask that portions of Exhibit 15 to the Declaration
of Amit Rana remain filed under seal because that testimony
describes confidential, non-public information concerning market
research, operational practices, marketing strategy and
development, and/or public relations strategy of the Association of
Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers ("GAPP"), a third party, which has
no connection to this case, and for which Dr. Morris currently
serves as CEO.
THG requests that Exhibit 86 to the Wand Declaration remain under
seal because this exhibit depicts the property of a third-party
partner.
Happy Group is a for-profit human resources advocacy and business
management consultancy.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v9OCMD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Aubry Wand, Esq.
THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
100 Ocean Gate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (310) 590-4503
E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Angel A. Garganta, Esq.
Amit Rana, Esq.
Nicholas M. DePalma, Esq.
Christian R. Schreiber, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 653-3750
Facsimile: (415) 653-3755
E-mail: agarganta@venable.com
arana@venable.com
nmdepalma@venable.com
crschreiber@venable.com
HARD ROCK: White Wins FLSA Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY WHITE, et al., v.
HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04224-AT
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order:
-- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);
-- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
approval of notice plan and class discovery, and directing the
parties to meet and confer as to the specifics of pre-notice
expedited discovery and notice within the time frame
specified;
-- Granting in part, denying in part, and denying as moot in part
the
Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal;
-- Directing the Plaintiffs to re-file Docs. 55-17, 55-19, 55-24,
and
55-25 publicly with appropriate redactions within 14 days of
the
date this Order is entered
-- Directing the Clerk to lift the provisional seal on Docs. 55-6,
55-12, 55-20, and 55-21.
-- Denying as moot the Defendant's motion to exclude declaration
of
Liesl M. Fox, Ph.D. and Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant
Hard Rock's motion to exclude the Declaration of Liesl Fox,
Ph.D.
and, in the alternative, motion for continuance; and
-- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Declarations
Submitted with Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' motion
for
conditional certification.
The Court sets a telephone conference to take place on April 25,
2024 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the specifics of the notice plan and
form of notice. If any counsel are unavailable at that date and
time, they should meet and confer on an alternate date and time and
email the Court's Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Harry Martin, at harry
martin@gand.uscourts.gov to coordinate.
The Plaintiff Troy White brings this action on behalf of himself
and other servers and bartenders employed at various restaurants
owned and operated by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs contends that
Hard Rock violated the FLSA by improperly applying the FLSA's tip
credit provisions in several respects as to the servers and
bartenders it employed.
The Plaintiffs initially filed this case on Oct. 24, 2022, with
Terry Carpenter as the sole named Plaintiff. Eleven additional
Plaintiffs filed consent forms to opt into the action on Nov. 21,
2022. On March 3, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling Order after
holding a teleconference with the parties.
Hard Rock provides hospitality services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6nidJ6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HARRIS & HARRIS: Class Cert Response Extended to April 22
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTER CHURCH,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated; LUDWIG
LAUDENCIA, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated;
JEREMY GYRON, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated; JESSICA BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., a foreign
corporation; DOES I-V, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I-V,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00517-APG-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge
Maximiliano Couvillier III entered an order extending deadline for
the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint up to and
including Apr. 22, 2024.
Harris & Harris is a legitimate debt collector.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AmOQ0b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott M. Holper, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT M. HOLPER
3175 S. Nellis Blvd., Ste. A
Las Vegas, NV 89121
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Ayers, Esq.
Alia A. Najjar, M.D., Esq.
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
3740 Lakeside Drive, Ste. 202
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: (775) 322-4697
Facsimile: (775) 322-4698
E-mail: michael.ayers@qpwblaw.com
Alia.najjar@qpwblaw.com
HOPE CREDIT: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOPE CREDIT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01003-BNW (D. Nev.), the Court
entered an order extending discovery deadlines as follows:
-- Discovery Cut-off Oct. 28, 2024
-- Deadline to Disclose Expert July 1, 2024
Disclosures:
-- Deadline to Disclose Rebuttal Expert July 31, 2024
Disclosures:
-- Deadline for Class Certification July 31, 2024
-- Dispositive Motions: Nov. 27, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzUK44 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 250
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
R. Christopher Reade, Esq.
Rowland Graff, Esq.
COREY READE DOWS & SHAFER
1333 North Buffalo Drive, Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89128
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Suit for $8.7-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Holland & Knight LLP of JD Supra reports that multi-employer plan
participants involved in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) class action lawsuit against Horizon Actuarial
Services LLC (Horizon), a national retirement services firm, have
entered into an $8.733 million settlement agreement. The agreement
(originally proposed as a $7.75 million non-revisionary fund), if
approved by a Georgia federal judge, would resolve all claims
brought against Horizon in response to a cyberattack that exposed
the personally identifiable information (PII) of more than 100,000
Horizon customers and a potential settlement class of over 4
million individuals.
The proposed Horizon settlement highlights the importance of plan
sponsors and other plan fiduciaries conducting regular audits of
their data security practices -- and those of their third-party
service providers -- to mitigate cybersecurity risks in accordance
with the best practices identified by the Employee Benefits
Security Administration (EBSA).
Case Background
In November 2021, a group of cybercriminals breached two servers of
Horizon, an actuarial consulting firm that specializes in
multi-employer plan benefits. The group claimed to have stolen a
list of PII, including names, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers (SSNs) and health plan information, among other sensitive
financial information. In total, more than 100,000 participants in
25 different multi-employer plans administered by Horizon were
affected in the breach. Horizon ultimately negotiated a ransom
payment with the cybercriminal group in exchange for the group's
agreement to delete and not otherwise sell, publish or distribute
the stolen data in any way.
In April 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by several plan
participants whose PII data was compromised in the attack. The
plaintiffs alleged that Horizon's negligence jeopardized the
security of sensitive personal data when it failed to adequately
implement reasonable and appropriate systems and safeguards despite
the growing commonplace of data breaches and the havoc they wreak.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that Horizon failed to 1)
properly train and supervise employees and vendors, 2) comply with
industry-standard data security practices, including the use of
effective security procedures, and 3) comply with state and federal
laws and regulations governing data security practices. According
to the plaintiffs, Horizon also failed to inform the affected
individuals of the cyberattack for upward of five months.
The plaintiffs argued that by collecting and deriving benefit from
the personal information of its customers, Horizon had assumed
legal and equitable duties to protect such information. They
further claimed that they were -- and continued to be -- at risk of
identity theft, fraud and various other forms of personal, social
and financial harm. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the time,
expenses and hardship associated with securing their personal and
financial identities, as well as the fallout of having to protect
themselves from a lifetime risk of attack, a risk especially
heightened by the loss of their SSNs.
The parties reached an initial agreement in September 2023 that
proposed a $7.75 million non-reversionary settlement fund to pay
the following: 1) losses related to fraud or identity theft, 2)
professional fees, including attorneys, accountants and credit
repair services, 3) costs associated with freezing and unfreezing
credit with reporting agencies, 4) credit monitoring costs incurred
from the point of Horizon's notice of the breach until the date the
claim was submitted and 5) other miscellaneous out-of-pocket
expenses. The settlement was modified in December 2023 to the
$8,733,333 submitted for court approval. The settlement agreement
does not require Horizon to admit to any wrongdoing.
Prudent Mitigation of Cybersecurity Risks
Cybersecurity presents an increasing area of risk for ERISA-covered
plan fiduciaries, and the safeguarding of sensitive individual
health and financial information is paramount. United States
retirement plans hold trillions of dollars in assets on behalf of
individual investors, a wealth of personnel data along with such
funds and remote access points to all of this information. These
factors expose plan administrators as attractive targets to the
sophisticated underworld of cyberhacking, ransomware and wire
fraud. EBSA has now published guidance on the "best practices"
fiduciaries should follow to ensure prudent mitigation of
cybersecurity risks.
The best practices are as follows:
-- Have a formal, well-documented cybersecurity program.
-- Conduct prudent annual risk assessments.
-- Have a reliable annual third-party audit of security
controls.
-- Clearly define and assign information security roles and
responsibilities.
-- Have strong access control procedures.
-- Ensure that any assets or data stored in a cloud or managed
by a third-party service provider are subject to appropriate
security reviews and independent security assessments.
-- Conduct periodic cybersecurity awareness training.
-- Implement and manage a secure system development life cycle
program.
-- Have an effective business resiliency program addressing
business continuity, disaster recovery and incident response.
-- Encrypt sensitive data that is stored in transit.
-- Implement strong technical controls in accordance with best
security practices.
-- Appropriately respond to any past cybersecurity incidents.
[GN]
HOST INT'L: Parties in Frankenstein Must File Supplemental Findings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frankenstein, v. Host
International, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-PJM (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Peter Messitte entered an order that parties must file
Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
any Responses, if any, within 30 days of the Order, and the parties
must file Responses thereto, if any, within 30 days thereafter.
n March 27, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff Dan
Frankenstein's Motion for Class Certification.
Host International provides catering services to travelers.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oOutp6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in York County Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT FUND, v. HP INC., et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-07835-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered
an order granting in part, and denying in part Defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss, as follows:
-- Maryland Electrical has standing;
-- York County is no longer a party to this action;
-- The action is not barred by the statute of repose as to
Defendants
HP, Weisler, or Lesjak;
-- The statute of repose shields Defendants Lores and Bailey from
liability for actions or statements prior to April 21, 2016;
-- Maryland Electrical alleges a scheme liability claim under
Section
10(b) and Rule 10b5(a) and (c) against Bailey and HP, but not
against the remaining Defendants;
-- Maryland Electrical's statement liability claim under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) is dismissed as to the Supplies revenue
statements and omissions, the "within range" channel inventory
statements and omissions, and the APJ growth statements and
omissions. Maryland Electrical stated a claim as to Defendants
HP,
Weisler, and Lesjak for the remaining statements and
omissions;
-- Maryland Electrical's statement liability claim under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) is dismissed as to Lores and Bailey;
-- Maryland Electrical adequately alleges scienter and loss
causation; and
-- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Maryland Electrical's Section
20(a)
claim is denied because the Section 10(b) claim survives, in
part.
Maryland Electrical may file an amended pleading, if it so chooses,
by April 17, 2024.
The Court orders the parties to appear for a Case Management
Conference on June 7, 2024. The parties shall submit an updated
Joint Case Management Statement no later than May 31, 2024.
Lead Plaintiff Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund is a
former HP shareholder who alleges, on behalf of a purported class,
that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the value of HP common stock. The alleged scheme centered
on the Supplies business.
HP maintains "Printing" and "Personal Systems" businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aimkj9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL LEISURE: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02520 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
not making its website equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, brings
this Class action over Defendant's alleged failure to design,
construct maintain, and operate its website, https://swimline.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff accuses Defendant of failing to make its website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired consumers of the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff
seeks damages and a permanent injunction under ADA to compel
Defendant to implement a change to its corporate policies,
practices, and procedures, so that its website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Headquartered in Edgewood, NY, International Leisure Products, Inc.
is a manufacturer of swimming pool liners, toys, games, and
maintenance equipment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
JOHNS HOPKINS: Boots Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement Addendum
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA BOTTS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiff ask
the Court to enter an order:
-- preliminarily approving the Second Addendum to class settlement
agreement and release, and
-- directing notice to the 2,607 class members identified by the
Defendant after the fairness hearing of Dec. 13, 2023, the
Second
Group of Additional Students.
The Defendant is a private research university in Baltimore,
Maryland.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fj69TW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Courtney L. Weiner, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 827-9980
E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com
- and -
Kevin Mallon, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 759-3663
E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com
JR GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McLaughlin Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
CAITLIN MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JR GLOBAL EVENTS, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04304 (D.N.J., March 28, 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 McLaughlin was employed by the Defendant as a meeting
planner.
JR GLOBAL EVENTS is an event management agency which strategizes,
design, and implements successful meetings and events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Barker, Esq.
Jeffrey Sarvas, Esq.
BARKER, GELFAND, JAMES & SARVAS
a Professional Corporation
Linwood Greene - Suite 12 210 New Road
Linwood, NJ 08221
Telephone: (609) 601-8677
Email: Adambarker@BarkerLawFirm.net
jsarvas@BarkerLawFirm.net
KENTUCKY: Court Remands Bramblett Suit to Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BRAMBLETT, et al.,
v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00100-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Van
Tatenhove entered an order that:
1. The Parties' motions for summary judgment are denied without
prejudice;
2. The pending motion for leave to file excess pages is denied
as
moot;
3. This matter is remanded to the Franklin Circuit Court; and
4. This matter is stricken from the Court's docket.
In Sept. 2012, a group of inmates incarcerated in Kentucky
Department of Corrections facilities alleged that they had been
improperly denied educational good time credits for having
completed educational or behavior modification programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uDYbq8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KEVIN JOHNSON: Colon Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johana Colon, et al., v.
Kevin G. Johnson, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00888-TPB-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) preliminarily approving a class action settlement agreement
between Plaintiffs and Defendants Kevin G. Johnson, Nathan
S.
Ward, Shaun L. McGruder, Michael L. Schmickle, Leigh A.
Fernandes, Dale L. Hersey, Joshua A. Blacksten, ADG
Management
Holdings, LLC, and GreatBanc Trust Co.;
(2) approving the proposed Settlement Notice and authorizing its
distribution to the Settlement Class;
(3) certifying, on a preliminary basis, the proposed Settlement
Class;
(4) approving the proposed Plan of Allocation;
(5) setting a date for a Fairness Hearing; and
(6) granting other relief as set forth in the proposed
Preliminary
Approval Order.
This case was filed on April 14, 2022. With early discovery, the
Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice to add additional
Defendants and claims. In summary, the Second Amended Complaint
alleges that the Defendants violated Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") in the sale of ADG to the ESOP,
administration of the ESOP, and the sale of ADG by the ESOP upon
its termination.
The Settlement Agreement calls for certification of the following
Class:
"All Participants who were issued a distribution from the Plan,
or
their Beneficiaries or Alternate Payee, excluding Leigh Anne
Fernandes and Dale Hersey."
A Gross Settlement Amount of $19 million will be paid to resolve
Class
Members' claims.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wghwvi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com
bmcdonough@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
mthomson@engstromlee.com
cgokey@engstromlee.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
KNIGHT BARRY: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Johnson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TOBY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHT BARRY TITLE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00406-BHL (D. Wis., April 3, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") of its
customers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information—which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure—was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
Data Breach.
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable
and preventable cyber-attack. As a result of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class
Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit.
KNIGHT BARRY TITLE, INC. provides residential & commercial title
insurance and closing 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
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Lamoille Health
Partners, a Vermont health system serving patients in Lamoille
County, has agreed to settle a lawsuit that was filed in response
to a June 2022 ransomware attack in which the protected health
information of 59,381 patients was exposed and potentially stolen.
Hackers gained access to the Lamoille Health Partners network
between June 12, 2022, and June 13, 2022, and used ransomware to
encrypt files. The attack exposed names, addresses, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and medical
treatment information. The affected individuals were notified about
the breach in August 2022 and individuals who had their Social
Security numbers exposed were offered complimentary identity
protection and credit monitoring services.
A lawsuit -- Marshall v Lamoille Health Partners Inc. -- was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on September
1, 2022, in response to the breach that alleged Lamoille Health
Partners was negligent by failing to implement reasonable and
appropriate cybersecurity measures and follow security best
practices. The lawsuit also alleged there was an unnecessary delay
in notifying the affected individuals and that Lamoille Health
Partners was not compliant with the HIPAA Rules. The lawsuit
claimed the plaintiff, Patricia Marshall, and the class faced an
imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud due to their
sensitive information being in the hands of cybercriminals.
Lamoille Health Partners has not admitted to any wrongdoing and
disagrees with the claims; however, a settlement was proposed to
bring the legal action to an end. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, a $540,000 fund will be created to cover claims from
individuals who were affected by the breach. Class members can
submit claims of up to $5,000 to cover unreimbursed, documented
out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the breach,
including bank fees, credit expenses, travel expenses, costs of
credit monitoring services, and unauthorized charges. In addition,
all class members will be entitled to a pro-rata payment which will
be distributed after attorneys' fees and legal costs have been
deducted and claims have been paid. The payment is anticipated to
be around $50 per class member.
Important Dates:
Deadline for exclusion/objection: May 30, 2024
Deadline for submitting claims: June 20, 2024
Final approval hearing: September 30, 2024 [GN]
LANDS' END: Plata Sues Over Products' False Discount Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PLATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDS' END, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00723 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2024) alleges violation of the
California's False Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sells and markets
clothing, shoes, and accessory products ("Lands' End Products" or
"Products"). Defendant lists purported regular prices and
advertises purported "limited time" discounts from those regular
prices. These include discounts offering "up to X% off" that
allegedly are only valid through a certain date. These discounts
are made available by using a discount code, such as "CLOUDS" or
are automatically applied to the Products sitewide. Defendant also
advertises that its Products have a lower discount price as
compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or
strikethrough font.
Far from being time-limited, however, the Defendant's discounts are
constantly available. As a result, everything about the Defendant's
price and purported discount advertising is false. The regular
prices the Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's
regular prices, because the Defendant's Products are consistently
available for less than that. The purported discounts the Defendant
advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and
are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts
limited in time or expiring soon -- quite the opposite, they are
consistently available, the suit alleges.
Lands' End, Inc. retails men's, women's, and children's apparel and
accessories. The Company offers swimwear, clothing, bedding, totes,
furniture, bath accessories, uniforms, outerwear, and various
related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
Christin Cho, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
christin@dovel.com
MAYO CLINIC: S.M.O. Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
S.M.O. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Mayo Clinic; and MMSI, Inc., d/b/a Medica Health Plan Solutions,
Case No. 0:24-cv-01124 (D. Minn., April 2, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The Plaintiff is a longtime employee of Mayo Clinic and a member of
a health plan fully funded by Mayo and administered by Medica, with
their child a beneficiary of the plan. The Plaintiff brings this
Class action over Defendants' alleged underpayment of benefits
regarding coverage of out-of-network health services. The Plaintiff
claims that Medica does not provide proper notice of out-of-network
reimbursement and fails to provide written notice of adverse
benefits determinations within the required timeframe, in violation
of ERISA.
The Defendants also allegedly used improper methodologies for
determining non-network provider reimbursement rates and illegally
withheld information that would have allowed Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals to make informed choices concerning
their health plans, says the Plaintiff.
Mayo Clinic is a non-profit American health care provider based in
Rochester, MN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Larson, Esq.
JOSEPH A. LARSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
310 4th Avenue South, Suite 5010
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 206-3704
Facsimile: (612) 284-8716
E-mail: jlarson@joelarsonlaw.com
- and -
Dana R. Vogel, Esq.
Christopher M. Sloot, Esq.
McCUNE LAW GROUP, McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI KUSELWECK
BRANDT, APC
2415 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 850
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (520) 210-5558
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: drv@mccunewright.com
cms@mccunewright.com
MCDONALD'S CORP: Shields Balks at Breakfast Combo Meals' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SHIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION; and MCDONALD'S USA,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00424-SGC (N.D. Ala., April 4,
2024) is an action against the Defendants' false and misleading
advertisements of breakfast combo meal with an orange juice.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
deceptively misleads consumers by advertising breakfast combination
meals to include an orange juice on its menu boards offered at a
fixed price, adding a surcharge to customers who order an orange
juice as a part of the breakfast meal ("Orange Juice Surcharge").
The Plaintiff asserts that he thought orange juice was included as
a part of the applicable meal offering, because McDonald's menu
boards advertise a picture of an orange juice alongside one or more
breakfast meals, at a fixed price. The Plaintiff realized that
McDonald's charges extra for the orange juice after remitting
payment. The Plaintiff would not have purchased an orange juice
every time he went to McDonald's had they known about the
surcharge, says the suit.
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION franchises and operates fast food chain. The
Company offers various food products and soft drinks, and non
alcoholic beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes Ave. NE., Suite 100
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Suit Over Defective Engines Tossed in D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law reports that Mercedes-Benz persuaded
a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action against the car
company over allegedly defective engines in electric vehicles.
The U.S District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 1,
2024 tossed the complaint against the company, concluding the
plaintiffs hadn't plausibly alleged any of their claims.
The lawsuit stems from allegations by car owners and lessees that
their Mercedes electric vehicles had engines with a defective
cooling function that resulted in "total failure" of the car's
electric driving system "with little or no warning to the driver."
The six named plaintiffs filed suit alleging unjust enrichment.
[GN]
META PLATFORMS: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Metroplex Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
dated March 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled METROPLEX
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-1455-SMY, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 20, 2022, the suit
seeks redress under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act for the Defendant's false and
misleading statements in its advertising and promotions regarding
the amount of people on the Facebook platform and its statements
about potentially and actually delivering advertisements to
people.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the relevant
time period, Meta has made false and misleading statements
regarding the metrics material to consumers considering purchasing
advertisements from Meta including, but not limited to,
understating the number of duplicate accounts, understating the
number of false accounts, overstating the number of monthly active
users in the United States and Canada, and overstating and falsely
describing the potential reach, estimated audience size, and
achieved reach of advertising campaigns.
Meta Platforms moved to compel arbitration on October 17, 2022,
which Metroplex opposed on November 16, 2022. Meta also moved to
dismiss Metroplex's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on
November 3, 2022 and December 19, 2022.
On March 5, 2024, Judge Staci M. Yandle entered an Order denying
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case and
motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as METROPLEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 24-1440, in the United States Court Of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on March 22, 2024.
Defendant-Appellant META PLATFORMS, INC. is represented by:
Gary Feinerman Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 876-7700
Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
- and -
Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
Susan E. Engel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
Facsimile: (202) 33-1735
- and -
Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
- and -
Michael J. Nester, Esq.
DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
15 North 1st Street, Suite A
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: (618) 212-6500
NATIONAL DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-21281-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 5, 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 Morales was employed by the Defendant as a delivery
driver.
NATIONAL DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC specializes in providing Courier
Services and Logistics Consulting to a wide range of businesses.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad E. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
2844 North University Drive
Coral Springs, Florida 33065
Telephone: (954) 763-5722
Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
Email: chad@levylevylaw.com
NATIONS DIRECT: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC failed to protect
customers' and employees' personal information from a data breach
discovered around December 30, 2023.
The 47-page data breach lawsuit says that consumers' full names,
addresses, Social Security numbers and unique Nations Direct loan
numbers were compromised after an unauthorized actor hacked the
Nevada-based mortgage lender's computer systems.
According to the filing, the cyberattack was a "foreseeable"
incident that Nations Direct could have reasonably prevented by
complying with industry-standard cybersecurity practices and
properly monitoring its network for signs of intrusion.
"It is well known that [personally identifiable information],
including Social Security numbers in particular, is a valuable
commodity and a frequent, intentional target of cyber criminals,"
the suit says. "Organizations that collect such information,
including Nations Direct, are well-aware of the risk of being
targeted by cybercriminals."
The case claims that the defendant's failure to properly secure
mortgagors' and employees' data has exposed victims to a lifetime
risk of identity theft and fraud.
The plaintiff, a former Nations Direct employee who was impacted by
the breach, has been notified that her date of birth, passwords and
Social Security number have since been posted on the dark web, the
complaint shares. Per the case, the plaintiff also had her social
media accounts hacked and has received an "excessive" number of
spam calls and emails as a result of the cyberattack.
Although Nations Direct allegedly learned of the breach in December
2023, it waited almost two months to send notice of the incident to
affected individuals, the filing relays.
The complaint contends that the defendant's notice letter, which it
sent around February 28, 2024, provides a "grossly inadequate"
offer of two years of complimentary identity monitoring services.
Like other victims, the plaintiff must closely monitor her
financial accounts and pay out of pocket for protective measures
"now and for years into the future," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose private information was
compromised as a result of the data breach discovered by Nations
Direct in December 2023 and for which it provided notice in or
about February 2024. [GN]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Plan Participant Class Certified in Sweeney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN SWEENEY, et al., v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01569-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah Morrison
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:
All participants and beneficiaries in the Nationwide Savings
Plan
who were invested in the Guaranteed Fund at any time from
March
26, 2014 through the date of final judgment in this action,
excluding the individual Defendants.
Because this case is appropriate for class treatment under Rule
23(b)(1)(B), the Court need not consider the other potentially
applicable subsections of Rule 23(b).
The Plaintiffs assert that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, and the Benefits Investment
Committee and its members violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA").
Ryan Sweeney and Bryan Marshall are former employees of Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company and current participants in the Nationwide
Savings Plan, a 401(k) employee pension benefit plan.
Nationwide Mutual sponsors and maintains the Nationwide Savings
Plan to provide retirement savings benefits to employees of
Nationwide Mutual and its affiliates.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BRFLtp at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTH CAROLINA: Bid to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY B., by and through
his Guardian ad Litem Robert War, FLORA P., by and through her
Guardian ad Litem Robert War, ISABELLA A., by and through her
Guardian ad Litem Jeffrey C. Holden, STEPH C., by and through his
Guardian ad Litem Jeffrey C. Holden, for themselves and for those
similarly situated, LONDON R., a minor, DISABILITY RIGHTS NORTH
CAROLINA, and NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP, v. KODY
KINSLEY, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services ("DHHS") in his official capacity, Case No.
1:22-cv-01046-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order denying
the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant discriminates against children
with disabilities within the North Carolina child welfare system by
unnecessarily segregating them from their home communities and
routinely isolating them in institutions knowns as psychiatric
residential treatment facilities ("PRTFs"), in violation of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
On March 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their amended class action
complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
On March 20, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim, or,
alternatively, for lack of standing, and a memorandum in
Support.
The Plaintiffs are children with disabilities who are in the
custody of North Carolina's child welfare system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xcT3Bo at no extra
charge.[CC]
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Settlement Deal in Weiner Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WEINER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02597-DJC-DB (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of settlement agreement; and
(2) directing notice to the settlement class.
Ocwen is a provider of residential and commercial mortgage loan
servicing, special servicing, and asset management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I4TVeu at no extra
charge.[CC]
ONEREP LLC: Kellyman Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAR KELLYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONEREP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-004763 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 5, 2024) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.
ONEREP LLC is in the computer software development and applications
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
PADAGIS ISRAEL: Acne Products Contain Benzene, Daugherty Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSEY DAUGHERTY; TUAN NGUYEN; and COLE SCROGGS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PADAGIS
ISRAEL PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED; PADAGIS US LLC; PADAGIS, LLC; and
PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02066-PHK (N.D.
Cal., April 4, 2024) is a class action lawsuit regarding the
Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing,
and sale of Perrigo branded benzoyl peroxide products (the "BPO
Products") that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a
carcinogen that has been linked to leukemia and other blood
cancers.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants knew or
should have known that the BPO Products contained benzene, but
misrepresented, omitted, and concealed this fact to consumers,
including Plaintiffs and Class members, by not including benzene on
the BPO Products' labels or otherwise warning consumers about its
presence.
The Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on the
Defendants' representations that the BPO Products were safe,
unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens that are not listed on
the label. The BPO Products are worthless because they contain
benzene at levels which render the BPO Products adulterated,
misbranded, and illegal to sell under federal law and California
and Missouri state law, say the Plaintiffs.
PERRIGO ISRAEL PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. develops and manufactures
medicines. The Company imports and markets pharmaceuticals,
diagnostic products, cosmetics, toiletries, and cleaning products.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mary Liu, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN,
KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
Email: mliu@awkolaw.com
cduer@awkolaw.com
PETERSON FARMS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Reid Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS REID, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PETERSON FARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00340 (W.D. Mich., April 3, 2024) challenges Defendant's
policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
production workers in Defendant's food production facility and were
required to wear certain sanitary clothing such as a hairnet,
gloves, and a lab coat or sanitary smock. Throughout their
employment, these workers were not paid for all of the time spent
donning and doffing their sanitary clothing, or for associated
travel and wait time. As a result of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees not being paid for all hours worked, Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime
compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each
workweek, says the suit.
Based in Shelby, MI, Peterson Farms, Inc. manufactures, packages,
distributes, and sells food products at its facility in Michigan.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Court Dismisses Shareholders' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on March 18, 2024,
Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a putative
shareholders' class action against a mobile game development
company, its officers and directors, and its underwriters, alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"). In re Playtika Sec. Litig., No.
21-CV-06571-RPK-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024). Plaintiff alleged
that the Company failed to disclose an infrastructure overhaul of
two of its most popular mobile games in its initial public offering
("IPO") registration statement even though the overhaul was in
progress at the time of the Company's IPO. The Court held that
plaintiff failed to adequately allege that omissions rendered the
registration statement misleading, and that Item 105 did not impose
a duty to disclose specific infrastructure projects that allegedly
were omitted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The Company, which launched its IPO on January 15, 2021, develops
free-to-play mobile games. The Company's two most successful games
were casino games that allegedly generated approximately half of
the Company's revenue in 2018, 2019, and 2020 through user
purchases of in-game items such as chips or tokens. The
registration statement allegedly indicated that the Company
generated almost all of its revenue through users' in-game
purchases and that "players' willingness to consistently make
in-app purchases is impacted by [the Company's] ability to deliver
engaging content and personalized user experiences." The Company
further disclosed that "[its] ability to anticipate or respond to
changing technology and evolving industry standards and to develop
and introduce improvements and enhancements to games on a timely
basis is a significant factor affecting [its] ability to remain
competitive." The Company noted that necessary "systems integration
or migration work" could result in disruptions to service. In
November 2021, the Company allegedly released its financial results
for the third quarter of 2021 and disclosed that its revenue had
decreased. The Company allegedly attributed the decline in revenue
in part to lower-than-expected revenue from its two most popular
casino games, possibly a result of "comparatively fewer new
promotions and features as a result of some of the infrastructure
enhancements we're making." After these announcements, the
Company's share price allegedly dropped.
Plaintiff alleged that the Company had already begun implementing
infrastructure changes to its casino games before the registration
statement and IPO and that those infrastructure changes should have
been, but were not, disclosed in the registration statement. The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.
The Court held that plaintiff failed to plausibly state a Section
11 violation against defendants under either of the two theories
alleged. First, the Court held that the registration statement's
existing disclosures adequately covered the risks posed by the
specific infrastructure changes such that plaintiff failed to
allege the Company omitted any material fact. The Court found it
particularly significant that the Company "expressly disclosed that
whether it could maintain a constant cadence of feature deployment
was uncertain," including because of "systems integration or
migration work." While plaintiff argued that this disclosure
concerned only "potential risks" and thus did not cover risks that
had already materialized, the Court found that plaintiff did not
sufficiently allege that the risks associated the infrastructure
changes to the Company's casino games had materialized at the time
of the IPO.
Second, the Court held that Item 105, which requires that a
registration statement include "a discussion of the most
significant factors that make the offering speculative or risky,"
did not obligate the Company to disclose specific infrastructure
changes. In particular, the Court held that the language provided
in the registration statement that the Company "would engage in
systems migration and upgrades that could disrupt the flow of new
content" was sufficiently broad to cover the specific risks posed
by the alleged infrastructure changes and that Item 105 did not
require a more granular disclosure. The Court further held that
Item 105 did not require the Company to disclose why it pursued
specific infrastructure changes because the registration statement
included sufficient disclosures regarding the Company's need to
"constantly" optimize new technologies and enhance and upgrade its
games.
The Court also dismissed the Section 15 claim based on plaintiff's
failure to adequately plead a predicate Section 11 violation. The
Court dismissed the action with prejudice on the basis that
amendment would be futile. [GN]
PRECISION TUNE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Phillips Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION TUNE AUTO CARE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00502 (E.D. Va., March 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its employees.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect its employees' personally identifying information (PII)
from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless
manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by
Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the
suit.
PRECISION TUNE AUTO CARE, INC. is a limited liability company that
operates automotive businesses including Pep Boys, AAMCO, and
Precision Tune Auto Care, which provides car repair and tune up
services to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Telephone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
- and -
Nicholas J.N. Stamatis, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 291-6656
Facsimile: (703) 563-6692
Email: Nick@bbtrial.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Ambrosio Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ELLIOTT AMBROSIO, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 4, 2024, entered in the lawsuit
styled Elliot Ambrosio et. al. v. Progressive Preferred Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00342-SMB, in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona.
The initial breach of contract complaint was filed on March 4,
2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit via
their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against Progressive alleging
that Progressive "systemically" undervalued the cash value of
Progressive's claimants' loss vehicles.
The Plaintiffs' SAC seeks to represent "claimants in Arizona who
received a payment for the loss of a totaled vehicle from the
Defendants, where the Defendants used valuation reports prepared by
Mitchell International, Inc. determine the actual cash value
("ACV") of the loss vehicles." The SAC brought claims for breach of
contract, breach of covenant of faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.
Plaintiff Sierra Trenholm filed a claim with Progressive in May
2021 after she totaled her Kia Optima. WorkCenter Total Loss
("WCTL") estimated the ACV to be $10,938.64.
Plaintiff Elliot Ambrosio filed a claim with Progressive after
totaling his 2011 Chevrolet Malibu in September 2020. WCTL
estimated that the ACV of his vehicle was $4,866.71.
On June 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Susan
Brnovich denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
March 4, 2024. The Court found that the Plaintiffs do not satisfy
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (b) predominance
requirement, making the class inappropriate for certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Ambrosio, et al. v. Progressive
Preferred Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24-1633, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
March 19, 2024.[BN]
PROJECT RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECT RESOURCES GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00872 (D. Colo., April 1, 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 Brown was employed by the Defendant as a damage
investigator.
PROJECT RESOURCES GROUP, INC. provides management consulting
services. The Company offers construction management, plant damage
investigation and recovery, business outsourcing, and consulting
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward W. Wimp, Esq.
Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
Email: ewimp@theleachfirm.com
ahall@theleachfirm.com
QUEBEC: Taxi Drivers Sue Over Permit Losses Due to Uber's Entry
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press of Yahoo! Finance reports that driving a taxi
was not how Jean-Pierre Derival planned to spend his golden years.
But this week, as the 80-year-old prepared to testify at a trial
against the Quebec government's management of the taxi industry, he
was behind the wheel of his cab.
His goal, he said, was to use his taxi owner's permit as a source
of income in retirement. Then, in 2013, ride-hailing company Uber
entered the Quebec market, and his permit, along with cab permits
across the province, slowly began losing their value. And in 2019,
the province passed a law to abolish the permit system altogether,
crushing Derival's retirement dreams.
He's now part of a class-action lawsuit against the government on
the grounds that the province's handling of Uber's entry into the
market and Quebec's taxi reform law allowed Quebec to expropriate
his property -- his permit -- without adequately compensating him.
"It's unfair, your honour, to deprive the members (of the class
action) of their life's work, it's an injustice that I find
shocking, and ultimately, it's illegal," Bruce Johnston, a lawyer
representing the cab drivers, said in his opening arguments as the
month-long trial began at the Montreal courthouse on March 26,
2024.
Before the 2019 taxi reform, each cab in the province required a
permit. The provincial government limited the number of permits in
each region, but allowed them to be resold, creating a secondary
market and leading their value to rise to more than $200,000 in the
Montreal area. Permit holders often rented them out, allowing
others to drive their cabs for a fee.
Buying a permit gave people access to a supply-controlled market
created by the government, Johnston told the court, but also opened
other doors, because permits could be used as collateral for loans,
such as mortgages.
"It was their business, it was their pension fund," he said. "For
many of them, the decision to buy a taxi permit was the biggest
financial decision of their lives, for which they worked and made
sacrifices for decades. It was the cornerstone of their financial
planning."
When Quebec abolished the permit system, it gave holders a total of
$800 million in compensation, but Johnston said that figure fell
far below the market value of the permits before Uber's 2013
arrival, which he estimated at around $1.2 billion.
Derival bought his permit in 1976 for $10,500; he took out loans
from a bank and a friend to buy it. That permit, he said, offered
him employment but also something he could pass on to his
children.
"At least if I died, my children could use it," he told the court,
after describing the series of labour-intensive, low-paying jobs he
had held after immigrating from Haiti in 1971.
The compensation he received from the government -- a total of
$75,000 -- was less than the total income stream he had expected in
retirement by renting his permit.
Max Pierre, another former permit holder who also immigrated from
Haiti, told the court on March 26, 2024 buying a taxi permit was
the only way to find work that paid more than minimum wage. In
1991, he bought a permit for $37,955 -- it came with a car, a taxi
dome light and meter. He would later buy another permit near the
peak of the market for $210,000.
To buy the first permit, he said, "I gave up a lot," adding that he
got help from his sister.
In 2017, he said, he was able to rent his permit and his taxi to
another driver for $500 a week, but with the end of the permit
system, which went into effect in 2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic,
no one was interested in driving for him, and as a result he sold
his car.
"What the government did was an abuse of power," he told the
court.
Éric Cantin, a lawyer for the Quebec government, argued that the
province had the right to make the choices it did.
People can think Uber's arrival in Quebec was a bad thing, that
Uber is a bad corporate citizen, and that the old taxi monopoly
should have been maintained, Cantin told the court, but the
government, he added, made political choices about how it wanted to
regulate the industry.
For years after Uber entered the market, it operated without a
licence. But in 2016, Quebec launched a pilot project allowing the
San Fransisco-based ride-hailing company to operate legally. That
project was challenged in court, but its legality was upheld,
Cantin said, adding that the 2019 taxi industry reform -- which
provided compensation for permit holders -- was never challenged in
court.
"A law can't be indirectly challenged because you're not satisfied
with the money you've received," he said.
While Cantin said taxi driving is difficult and Uber made it
harder, the decision to abolish the permit system cannot be
described as an expropriation because the government never created
its own taxi service and taxi drivers can continue to drive taxis.
The class action, which was authorized in 2018, seeks at least$400
million for members -- the difference between the estimated 2014
market value of the approximately 7,500 permits and the
compensation package Quebec gave to permit holders. The lawsuit is
also seeking $1,000 in punitive damages for each member of the
group.
A separate class-action lawsuit on behalf of Quebec taxi drivers
who say they lost revenue as a result of Uber's arrival in Quebec
has also been authorized, but a trial date has not yet been set.
[GN]
R.T. FARM: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 27, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GONZALEZ
MONDRAGON, et al., v. R.T. FARM LABOR. et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe
entered an order setting status conference as follows:
1. Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Sept. 3, 2024
2. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 27, 2025
3. Class Certification Motion Filing Feb. 27, 2025
Deadline:
4. Class Certification Opposition: April 7, 2025
5. Class Certification Reply: June 13, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cP0yE5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RALEIGH, NC: Edwards Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO J. EDWARDS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF RALEIGH,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00683-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting the following relief:
(1) conditional certification of this action and for court-
authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair
Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA");
(2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
(3) a production of names, last known mailing addresses,
last-known
cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
dates
of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of
the
Order; and
(4) the ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via
first
class mail, email, text message, and a posting at the
Defendant's facilities to all putative plaintiffs of the
conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing
to
be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all
non-responding
putative plaintiffs.
Raleigh is the capital city of North Carolina. It's known for its
universities, including North Carolina State University.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wX4t6c at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
Matthew Marlowe, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Anna M. Davis, Esq.
Alice Tejada, Esq.
Senior Associate City Attorney
6716 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 996-1003
E-mail: Anna.Davis@raleighnc.gov
Alice.Tejada@raleighnc.gov
RAY JONES: Back Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL BACK, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. RAY JONES TRUCKING,
INC., TERESA JONES, GRANT JONES and STEVEN JONES, Case No.
4:22-cv-00005-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a Rule 23 class composed of the following
persons:
"All persons employed as a truck driver by Ray Jones Trucking,
Inc. who worked, according to daily sheets maintained by Ray
Jones
Trucking, Inc., more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks for
which the payday for such workweek(s) fell on or after Jan. 10,
2017."
The Plaintiff further asks that he be appointed as class
representative and that the undersigned be appointed as class
counsel.
The Plaintiff contends that he Plaintiff and the proposed class are
similarly situated with respect to his claims that Defendants
violated the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act by not paying employees
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Defendant's own documents, discovery responses, and
representations under penalty of perjury to the United States
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration all support that
members of the proposed class are similarly situated with respect
to Plaintiff's claim under the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act that
Defendant improperly classified drivers as exempt under the Motor
Carriers Act exemption.
The Defendant does not deny that the Defendant's numerous truck
driver employees worked overtime and that Defendant did not pay
them overtime compensation.
Instead, the Defendant claims it is a trucking company operating in
interstate commerce and that every one of its drivers is also
operating in interstate commerce. Therefore, the Defendant asserts
that the Motor Carrier's Act exemption applies.
However, the application of facts and law common to all drivers
demonstrates that drivers are eligible for overtime compensation
and that the Defendant's exemption assertions are incorrect. Thus,
the drivers' response to Defendants' exemption arguments are based
on common-across-the-class facts and law, and a class action would
be superior than individualized litigation of the drivers' claims.
The Defendant operates a trucking company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZPFrFR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-130
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
REAL BROKERAGE: Agrees to Settle Umpa Class Action for $9.25-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Real Brokerage Inc. (NASDAQ: REAX, "Real" or the "Company")
announced that it has entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the pending class action litigation, Umpa v. NAR,
4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.), on a nationwide basis.
This settlement conclusively addresses all claims asserted against
Real in the Umpa lawsuit, releasing Real, its subsidiaries, and
affiliated agents from these claims. The settlement does not
constitute an admission of liability by Real, nor does it concede
or validate any of the claims asserted in the litigation.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Real has committed to
paying $9.25 million into a qualified settlement fund within 30
days following the court's preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. The Company does not foresee the settlement terms having
a material impact on its future operations.
Additionally, Real has agreed to implement specific changes to its
business practices. These changes include clarifications about the
negotiability of commissions, prohibitions on claims that buyer
agent services are free, and the inclusion of listing broker
compensation offers in communications with clients. Real will also
develop training materials to support these practice changes.
The settlement agreement awaits preliminary and final court
approval and will take effect upon such final approval.
About Real
Real (NASDAQ: REAX) is a real estate experience company working to
make life's most complex transaction simple. The fast-growing
company combines essential real estate, mortgage and closing
services with powerful technology to deliver a single seamless
end-to-end consumer experience, guided by trusted agents. With a
presence in all 50 states throughout the U.S. and Canada, Real
supports more than 16,000 agents who use its digital brokerage
platform and tight-knit professional community to power their own
forward-thinking businesses.
Forward-Looking Information
This press release contains forward-looking information within the
meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking
information is often, but not always, identified by the use of
words such as "seek", "anticipate", "believe", "plan", "estimate",
"expect", "likely" and "intend" and statements that an event or
result "may", "will", "should", "could" or "might" occur or be
achieved and other similar expressions. These statements reflect
management's current beliefs and are based on information currently
available to management as of the date hereof. Forward-looking
information in this press release includes, without limiting the
foregoing, expectations regarding the settlement and settlement
agreement.
Forward-looking information is based on assumptions that may prove
to be incorrect, including but not limited to Real's business
objectives, expected growth, results of operations, performance,
business projects and opportunities and financial results. Real
considers these assumptions to be reasonable in the circumstances.
However, forward-looking information is subject to known and
unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause
actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially
from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking information.
Important factors that could cause such differences include, but
are not limited to, the settlement having an adverse impact on our
operations. These factors should be carefully considered and
readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking
statements. Although the forward-looking statements contained in
this press release are based upon what management believes to be
reasonable assumptions, Real cannot assure readers that actual
results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements.
These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this
press release, and Real assumes no obligation to update or revise
them to reflect new events or circumstances, except as required by
law.
Contacts
Investor inquiries, please contact:
Ravi Jani
Vice President, Investor Relations and
Financial Planning & Analysis
Email: investors@therealbrokerage.com
Tel: (908) 280-2515
For media inquiries, please contact:
Elisabeth Warrick
Senior Director, Marketing, Communications & Brand
Email: press@therealbrokerage.com
Tel: (201) 564-4221 [GN]
RICE DRILLING: XTO's Summary Judgment Bid vs JRP Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC et al.,
v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order as
follows:
-- Ascent and XTO's motion for summary judgment is granted in part
and denied in part as to potential joint venture liability
consistent with the above opinion, and denied on all other
grounds, including as to the effect of the joint operating
agreements and the rule of capture in this case.
-- The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part
and denied in part. This Motion is granted only as to the
following:
On Count I as to the four parcels subject to the Schusters'
November 12, 2012 amended lease -- 14-00372.000; 14-00075.000;
26-
03329.000; and 26-03298.000; and
On Counts II, III, and IV as to the following properties:
Tracts 2, 7, 13, and 44 of the Bennington Units;
Tract 22 of the Marcum East Unit;
Tract 14 of the Heller B Unit; and
Tracts 5 and 21 of the Heller A Unit.
-- The Gulfport's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted.
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to all
issues, including affirmative defenses.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to Stay is granted.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QRBIrP at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAC WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Janson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ERIC JANSON; CAMERON JACKLIN; and JOHN SPRAY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAC
WIRELESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02687 (N.D. Ill., April
3, 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tower
technicians.
SAC WIRELESS, LLC develops and implements network infrastructure
solutions. The Company provides site development, architecture and
engineering, equipment installation, construction, and advisory
consulting services.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: White Seeks to Compel Production of Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as THOMAS ROGER WHITE, JR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Movant v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Respondent, Case No. 9:24-mc-80360 (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff and the prospective class filed with the Court
on March 22, 2024, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), a
motion to compel non-party Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to produce
evidence responsive to the subpoena issued by Plaintiffs in
connection with the litigation of the matter captioned White v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No.
2:17-cv-01775-MCA-JSA.
The Plaintiffs served the subpoena on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
(SEC) by personal service on one of its independent directors in
North Palm Beach, Florida on February 9, 2024, after months-long
negotiations with Samsung Electronics America (SEA) regarding
production of documents sought in the subpoena failed. The five
narrow subpoena requests seek documents central to the legal
dispute between SEA and Plaintiffs.
SEC retained counsel in New Jersey and served non-specific, general
objections on February 23, 2024. SEC's primary objection is the
manner of service. Despite the fact that SEC is a global,
multibillion dollar company that sells millions of televisions
every year to millions of Americans, SEC incorrectly contends it
can only be served through Hague Evidence Convention procedures,
not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Established Supreme Court
precedent holds that Plaintiffs need not require first resort to
the Hague Convention when service under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 45 is proper. Because SEC was properly served and failed
to articulate any substantive objections, waiving them as to
relevance, scope, or burden, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel SEC
to immediately comply with the subpoena.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
H. Melissa Mather, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
8911 N Capital of Texas Hwy #4200 Suite 219
Austin, TX 78759
Telephone: (512) 298-0664
E-mail: mmather@bfalaw.com
SECRETLAB US: Court OKs Bid to Vacate Case Deadlines in Nugent
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN NUGENT, v. SECRETLAB
US, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08944-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Rita Lin entered an order granting motion to vacate case
deadlines.
The discovery dispute is currently ongoing before Judge Kang.
Accordingly, the discovery and class certification deadlines are
vacated.
The parties shall file a joint status report proposing case
deadlines consistent with this Order within 14 days of the issuance
of an order resolving the discovery dispute.
Secretlab offers a wide range of comfortable and high-quality
gaming chairs.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ud80F at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Court Junks Herrick Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA HERRICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03191-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John Cronan entered an order granting Shutterstock's motion
to dismiss, and dismissing Count Three of the Complaint without
prejudice.
Should Herrick decide to amend her Complaint, she must do so within
thirty days of this Opinion and Order. If she fails to file an
amended complaint within thirty days or does not obtain an
extension of time to do so by that date, the Court will dismiss
Count Three with prejudice. Moreover, Shutterstock’s motion to
strike is denied without prejudice to renewal, the Court said.
The Court has already determined that Shutterstock's concerns as to
the individualized nature of the class claims are both overstated
and premature at this stage, and its conclusion remains the same.
Cynthia Herrick proceeds against Shutterstock in this putative
class action, alleging (1) copyright infringement under the
Copyright Act, (2) vicarious and/or contributory copyright
infringement; and (3) falsification of copyright management
information ("CMI") under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
("DMCA").
The putative Rule 23(b)(3) class consists of:
"All persons and entities whose copyrighted work was licensed
by
Shutterstock, who sent Shutterstock a notice to take down
copyrighted works, and from which Shutterstock generated and
retained licensing revenue from a Shutterstock contributor who
did not have authorization to exploit any class members'
copyrighted work, from three years before the date of filing
of
this Complaint to the present ("the Class"). The Class also
includes all persons and entities whose copyrighted work was
licensed by Shutterstock from a Shutterstock contributor
who did not have authorization to exploit any class members'
copyrighted work and unauthorized licensees who continued to
distribute the copyrighted works which contain false copyright
management information."
The putative Rule 23(b)(2) class consists of:
"All persons and entities whose copyrighted work has been made
available for distribution and display by Shutterstock without
a
lawful license or the express authority of the copyright
holder."
In Jan. 2022, Ms. Herrick discovered that her Plover Photo was
being displayed and offered for licensing on Shutterstock's website
by a contributor account named "MTKhaledMahmud."
Ms. Herrick, a wildlife photographer, owns the two copyrighted
photographs at issue in this lawsuit.
Shutterstock is a licensing company. It markets and sells
photography and video licenses—in the form of subscription
packages or individual licenses—through an online platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xcPHcq at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOFAR SOUNDS: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Ticket Booking Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims Sofar Sounds has violated New York law by
failing to disclose a $2 event ticket "booking fee" prior to online
checkout.
The 12-page lawsuit alleges that the company, which operates
entertainment venues for live music events in cities nationwide,
has been "nickel and diming" consumers who buy event tickets on
SofarSounds.com in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law.
Per the suit, the law requires operators of places of entertainment
to disclose the total cost of a ticket, including any additional
fees, before the ticket is selected for purchase. The statute also
precludes such companies from increasing ticket prices during the
checkout procedure, the case says.
The complaint claims that instead of disclosing its $2 per ticket
booking fee at the beginning of the purchase process, as required
by state law, the defendant surprises consumers with the added
charge at checkout, after they have clicked through numerous pages
to choose a location, venue type and specific event to attend.
Once a consumer selects a concert, they are taken to a screen
displaying fee-less ticket prices, the filing relays. After
clicking "add to cart," the customer is routed to the checkout
page, where the booking fee and now-increased total ticket cost are
revealed for the first time, the suit contends.
"This cheap trick has enabled [Sofar Sounds] to swindle substantial
sums of money from its customers," the case charges.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased concert tickets on SofarSounds.com at any time since
August 29, 2022. [GN]
SONDER HOLDINGS: May Face Class Suit for Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitra Sorrells of PhocusWire reports that short-term rental
management company Sonder has received a "deficiency notification"
from Nasdaq because the company has not yet filed its
fourth-quarter and full-year 2023 financial results.
The company announced March 15 that it had "identified accounting
errors related to the valuation and impairment of operating lease
right of use assets and related items for the fiscal years 2022 and
2023."
Following the revelation of errors, Sonder's stock price fell $2.10
per share, or 38.2%, to close at $3.40 per share on March 18.
A New York-based law firm, the Rosen Law Firm, announced it is
preparing a class action investigation on behalf of shareholders
into allegations Sonder may have "issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public."
The Nasdaq notice came on April 2 and said the company is in
violation of its rule requiring Nasdaq-listed companies to "timely
file" all periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Sonder now has 60 calendar days from receipt of that warning to
submit a plan to regain compliance.
The company said in a statement that it "intends to submit a
compliance plan to Nasdaq and take the necessary steps to regain
compliance with Nasdaq's listing rules as soon as practicable."
In February Sonder cut about 17% of its staff, or about 106 roles,
and said it hoped to achieve $11 million in annualized cost savings
as a result of the cuts.
In June 2022, just six months after it became a public company,
Sonder cut about 21% of its corporate employees and 7% of its
front-line staff. [GN]
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lapwood Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE LAPWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00824 (M.D. Fla., April 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
failed to secure its computer network and the highly private
information stored on the computer network resulting in a data
breach perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach").
According to the complaint, on February 9, 2024, SouthState
notified the Securities and Exchange Commission of the incident and
on or about March 29, 2024, SouthState finally notified Class
Members about the widespread Data Breach ("Breach Notice").
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its victims 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 current and
former customers.
As a result of its inadequate cybersecurity, Defendant exposed the
Plaintiff's PII for theft by cybercriminals and sale on the dark
web, says the suit.
SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A. provides banking services. The Bank offers
vehicle loans, certificate of deposits, accounts checking, credit
cards, mortgages, online banking, real estate lending, letters of
credit, treasury management, financial planning, and liquidity
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 612-2206
Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
jacob@jacobsonphillips.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
ST. ELIZABETH: York Bid to Extend Discovery Nixed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH YORK, v. ST.
ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00125-DLB-CJS (E.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Candace Smith entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery and set class
certification date is denied.
2. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend time until Sept.
16,
2023, to file reply to support the motion to extend discovery
and set class certification date is granted.
3. The Plaintiff's motion to enlarge discovery limitations to
allow
twenty-five depositions and sixty interrogatories per side
(R.
51) is denied as moot.
4. The Plaintiff's motion to file second amended complaint,
also
construed as a motion to revise scheduling order, is denied.
5. To the extent the Plaintiff's motion to file second amended
complaint is filed in lieu of a notice of voluntary dismissal
of
the COVID-19 and Negligence per se claims, it is granted to
that
extent, and those claims are eliminated from the first
amended
complaint.
6. The parties having filed a proposed Agreed Order (R. 96),
this
matter is scheduled for a telephonic Status Conference to
further discuss the substance of the Agreed Order on Friday,
April 5, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. EDT.
In the motion for class certification, the proposed class is
defined as follows:
"The Plaintiff and all current and former patients of St.
Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., who were private payers or
whose
bills were paid in full or in part by a private insurance
payor,
whose bills were inflated, by the addition of variable charge
so
as to match a selected reimbursement rated for
Diagnosis-Related
Groups ("DRG") through "All-Inclusive Billing" (excluding
members of the Court and its staff, and Counsel for
Plaintiffs
and their staffs, Counsel for Defendant and its staff, and
Board members, Officers, and Employees of Defendant)."
On Sept. 22, 2021, Sarah York filed this lawsuit in Kenton Circuit
Court against St. Elizabeth and twenty-four of St. Elizabeth's
board members and officers.
York asserted six causes of action: (1) civil and criminal
conspiracy, (2) civil liability for criminal conduct under Kentucky
Revised Statute ("KRS), (3) breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence, (4) violation of KRS section 273.215, (5) violation of
the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and (6) fraud.
St. Elizabeth is a mid-size for-profit teaching hospital.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fJZWgJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces ADA Class Suit Over Milk Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
Maisha Ahmed of The Highlander reports that Starbucks has recently
been under fire for rampant abuses of power. The corporation has
specifically been targeting a historically heavily marginalized
group: the lactose-intolerant. Three Californians are suing the
company for $5 million due to surcharging their non-dairy milk
substitutes. They claim the practice of surcharging plant milk
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
It is about time Starbucks faces some well-deserved backlash for
these practices. This is by far the worst thing the company has
done. Union-busting and cheating workers are nothing compared to
this. The company has faced many complaints regarding unfair
practices to their workers as employees plead for higher wages,
consistent scheduling and accessibility to the benefits Starbucks
always flaunts. Starbucks is a trustworthy company, so their
statements of denial should be accepted without question.
After all, when people choose to work for a company that
undervalues them, it cannot be the company's fault. The workers
made their decision to work there and must deal with the
consequences. Nothing is forcing them to work there besides the
need for money to survive.
Their utilization of surcharges is what is truly unethical.
Lactose-intolerant people face immense challenges finding eateries
that cater to their needs. They have so few options besides regular
milk. They are limited to soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, coconut
milk, hemp milk, cashew milk, oat milk, potato milk, pea milk,
hazelnut milk, flax milk, tiger nut milk, walnut milk, quinoa milk
or macadamia milk. This creates worries about whether or not an
establishment will have menu options for them.
At a local Starbucks, one customer explained, "Having to pay 80
cents for oat milk in my latte means I can't make rent some months.
It's definitely the milk that's the problem, for sure." Another
customer mentioned that their lactose intolerance makes them feel
more outcast than any other aspect of their identity, including
their nut allergy!
These extreme violations of ADA requirements are a targeted move
against lactose-sensitive Americans. The lactose-intolerant is an
already heavily marginalized group, and Starbucks makes their
realities even more dangerous with these acts of financial
aggression.
*This is a satirical piece and is not intended to communicate any
true or factual information about the writer's opinion except
through humor and/or exaggeration. Any resemblance to persons,
living or dead, is entirely coincidental or is intended purely as
satire, parody or spoof of such persons and is not intended to
communicate any true or factual information about that person. [GN]
SUFFOLK COUNTY, CA: Court Sets Class Cert Oral Argument for May 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAQUIN ORELLANA CASTANEDA
and GERMAN HERNANDEZ ARGUETA, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, STEVEN BELLONE,
County Executive, County of Suffolk, in his Official Capacity,
SUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, VINCENT F. DEMARCO Sheriff,
Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, in his Official Capacity, OTHER
INDIVIDUALS IN CHARGE TO BE IDENTIFIED and ERROL TOULON, JR.
Sheriff, Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, in his Official Capacity,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04267-WFK-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge William
Kuntz, II entered an order setting oral argument on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification , for May 23, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VmBvCH at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Faces Stockholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sunnova Energy International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on February 16,
2024, a purported stockholder class action was filed against the
company and certain of its individual executives in the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.
The plaintiff, who seeks to certify a class of persons who
purchased company stock between February 25, 2020 and December 7,
2023, alleges that certain statements made during the class period
about our business, operations and compliance policies were false
and misleading, specifically that the company failed to disclose we
engaged in improper business practices with respect to
disadvantaged homeowners and communities.
Goosehead is an independent insurance agency based out of Westlake,
Texas.
SYMETRA LIFE: Davis's Wins Bid to Seal Documents
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS, v.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order
granting Davis's motion to seal and Granting Symetra's motion to
seal.
The Court accepts Davis's representation that "no alternatives [to
sealing] are adequate because the information, descriptions of
information, or documents, are needed to adequately convey the
Plaintiff's argument." The Court understands the parties agree on
the scope of the redactions as reflected in the attachments to
Symetra's response.
The Court finds Symetra has satisfied the requirements of Local
Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B) and has shown that compelling reasons justify
the sealing of the documents because the public release of these
documents would harm Symetra's business interests if revealed. The
Court accepts Symetra's representation that the parties met and
conferred in compliance with Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A).
Accordingly, Symetra's motion is granted.
On April 11, 2022, the Court entered a stipulated protective order,
which defined as confidential material "any confidential research,
development, trade secret, or commercial information, or any other
personal information of any Party or a Party's customer, provided
that
the Party or third-party has made efforts to maintain
confidentiality that are reasonable under the circumstances." The
parties agree the documents that they ask the Court to seal are
subject to the protective order.
Symetra is a financial services company offering annuities, life
insurance and employee benefits.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38TADO at no extra
charge.[CC]
T&T FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Porter
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. T&T FARMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, and THOMAS
HALLECK, JR., an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-DRL-MGG (N.D.
Ind.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order enlarging
time of seven days in which to respond to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification up to and including April 9, 2024.
T&T is a DOT registered motor carrier.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 28, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xj20vK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
- and-
Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER
1101 5th Ave 310
San Rafael, CA 94901
E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dina M. Cox, Esq.
Janelle P. Kilies, Esq.
LEWIS WAGNER, LLP
1411 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 102
Indianapolis, IN 46201
Telephone: (317) 237-0500
Facsimile: (317) 630-2790
E-mail: dcox@lewiswagner.com
jkilies@lewiswagner.com
TAMKO BUILDING: Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH
MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, AND SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO
BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-BGS (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment;
-- directing the Melnicks' claims to remain;
-- dismissing in part and remaining in part Ms. Louthan's claims;
and
-- dismissing in part and remaining in part Summerfield Gardens'
Claims.
Because Summerfield Gardens' unjust enrichment claim is not based
solely on fraudulent conduct but is also based on the premise that
the Defendant unjustly retained a benefit, that is the sales
proceeds for its sale of the alleged defective shingles, the
Defendant's argument for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment
claim fails.
Summerfield Gardens' claims for failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the ICFA
can only proceed as to the "bad batch" statement. Those claims are
dismissed as to any other alleged misrepresentations or omissions.
Summerfield Gardens’ strict liability, negligence, and unjust
enrichment claims remain.
The Plaintiffs – a married couple, an individual, and a
corporation – assert three sets of claims against the Defendant,
arising out of alleged defects in the Defendant's roofing
shingles.
Martin and Beth Melnick purchased TAMKO Heritage 50 AR shingles for
their former house in West Hartford, Connecticut in September
2002.
The Melnicks noticed several roof leaks beginning in 2013. The
shingles have grown algae, cracked, and degranulated, and water
leaked into the home. The Melnicks testified that they spent
several thousand
dollars to repair damage inside the house.
The Defendant manufactures roofing shingles.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QCiUyy at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAMKO BUILDING: Melnick Loses Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH
MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, AND SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO
BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-BGS (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court says that "the Plaintiffs cannot meet the typicality and
adequacy requirements under Rule 23(a), and the Plaintiffs cannot
satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule
23(b)(3)."
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for class certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) because the Plaintiffs are effectively seeking
monetary damages rather than injunctive or declaratory relief. The
Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for an issue class under Rule
23(c)(4) because the Plaintiffs fail to adequately address the
requirements and do not demonstrate that an issue class would
advance judicial economy.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Rule
23(b)(3):
"All individuals and entities that purchased and had installed
on
homes, residences, buildings or other structures physically
located
in Connecticut, Ohio and Illinois TAMKO Heritage shingles; or
that
own homes, residences, buildings or other structures physically
located in Connecticut, Ohio and Illinois, on which TAMKO
Heritage
shingles are or were installed."
The Class period is limited to Heritage shingles that were
purchased between Jan. 1, 2000 and Nov. 30, 2004.
Excluded from the Class are (i) TAMKO and its affiliates,
subsidiaries, employees, and current and former officers,
directors, agents, and representatives; and (ii) members of this
Court and its staff.
The Plaintiffs also seeks to certify the following 23(b)(2) class:
"All individuals and entities that own homes, residences,
buildings
or other structures physically located in Connecticut, Ohio or
Illinois on which TAMKO Heritage shingles purchased between
Jan. 1, 2000 and Nov. 20, 2004 are currently installed."
Excluded from the class are (i) TAMKO and its affiliates,
subsidiaries, employees, and current and former officers,
directors, agents, and representatives; and (ii) members of this
Court and its staff.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's roofing shingles were
defective and failed prior to their expected or warrantied service
life.
The Defendant manufactures asphalt roofing shingles.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lfHKTH at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAPESTRY INC: Class Discovery in Nguyen-Wilhite Extended to June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nguyen-Wilhite v.
Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines
by 74 days, which would reset the:
-- close of discovery on class certification June 28, 2024
issues to:
-- the deadline for anticipated cross-motions July 26, 2024
regarding class certification to:
with oppositions due on: Aug. 23, 2024
replies due by: Sept. 13, 2024
The parties conferred regarding this request and the Defendant does
not oppose the requested extension of deadlines.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violates the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") by taking adverse employment actions against
consumers based upon consumer reports without first providing them
with notice and a copy of the report as required by FCRA section
1681b(b)(3).
The Plaintiff's theory of the case is that candidates are
"adjudicated" as ineligible for employment with Tapestry based upon
the results of consumer reports, and as a result are immediately
removed from hiring consideration, before any notice is sent.
Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1XV3is at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Francis Mailman Soumilas P.C.
600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
TEAM DISCOVERY: Jackson Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACACSHA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. TEAM DISCOVERY, LLC, LAURENCE TRIBLE, and TREVOR
TRIMBLE, Case No. 24-CV-399 (E.D. Wis., April 2, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Wisconsin law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a caregiver at their
adult family homes in Wisconsin. During the past three years, the
Defendants allegedly maintained common policies and practices that
violated the FLSA and Wisconsin law, including failing to pay
overtime wages, failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay
agreed-upon wages, and deducting wages for faulty workmanship
without prior written consent, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Milwaukee, WI, Team Discovery, LLC operates adult family
homes that are primarily engaged in the care of sick, aged, or
mentally ill individuals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
5150 North Port Washington Road Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
TEAM HEALTH: Bid to Strike Plaquemine Class Action Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF PLAQUEMINE, RISK
MANAGEMENT, INC., v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., AMERITEAM
SERVICES, LLC, HCFS HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00111-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton Corker
entered an order denying Defendants' motion to strike.
While the Defendants raise important issues regarding class
allegations, those are best addressed in the context of a motion to
certify not on a motion to dismiss, the Court said.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated under Fed.R.Civ.P 23(a), (b)(1)-(3), as well as
Rule 23(c)(4) in the alternative, as representative of a class
defined as follows:
a. RICO Class: All payors that compensated Team Health or an
entity
billing on its behalf for medical treatment in the United
States
or its territories during the four years prior to the filing
of
the Complaint in this action.
b. Unjust Enrichment Class: All payors that compensated Team
Health
or an entity billing on its behalf for medical treatment in
the
United States or its territories during the three years prior
to
the filing of the Complaint in this action.
c. Declaratory Judgment Class: All payors that compensated Team
Health or an entity billing on its behalf for medical
treatment
in the United States or its territories at any time prior to
the
filing of the Complaint in this action.
d. United States governmental programs including Medicare,
Medicaid, and Tricare are excluded as class members.
The Plaintiffs allege that "when local medical staff complete their
work with a patient, they submit medical records to HCFS. HCFS then
engages in upcoding and overbilling." The Plaintiff contends this
is the essence of Defendants' fraud.
Team Health provides emergency room staffing and administrative
services to hospitals through a network of subsidiaries,
affiliates, and nominally independent entities and contractors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7s0ZmI at no extra
charge.[CC]
TENET FINTECH: Settles Boxtel Class Action Suit for $1.2-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Fintech Group Inc. (CSE: PKK) (OTC PINK: PKKFF) ("Tenet" or
the "Company"), is pleased to announce the settlement of a presumed
class action lawsuit brought against the Company and two of its
executives on November 19, 2021 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, originally captioned Bram Van
Boxtel v. Tenet Fintech Group Inc., et al., now captioned Alejandro
Handal and Donald Dominique v. Tenet Fintech Group Inc., et al.
(the "Lawsuit"). Please see the Company's Management Discussion and
Analysis for the period ended September 30, 2023 under "Legal
Proceedings" for further information regarding the Lawsuit.
The terms of the settlement which are set out in a binding
memorandum of understanding signed on April 8, 2024, do not include
any admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part of the Company
or any defendant. In exchange for a full and final release of the
Company and each defendant from the plaintiffs, the Company has
agreed to pay the aggregate amount of USD$1,200,000, to be paid in
five installments throughout the balance of 2024 with the last such
installment by December 31, 2024. The Company has agreed to settle
the Lawsuit to avoid further costly litigation.
The Company believes the settlement to be the best available option
for the Company to allow it to move forward without the further
expense and distraction of costly litigation in the United States
while it focuses on its growth and development. This would include
resuming the closing of additional tranches of the Company's
pending private placement financing, which had been temporarily
paused while the settlement negotiations were being finalized. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including, the
approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. If the conditions are not met, the parties
will return to their respective litigation positions prior to the
settlement.
About Tenet Fintech Group Inc.:
Tenet Fintech Group Inc. is the parent company of a group of
innovative financial technology (Fintech) and artificial
intelligence (AI) companies. All references to Tenet in this news
release, unless explicitly specified, include Tenet and all its
subsidiaries. Tenet's subsidiaries offer various analytics and
AI-based products and services to businesses, capital markets
professionals, government agencies and financial institutions
either through or leveraging data gathered by the Cubeler Business
Hub, a global ecosystem where analytics and AI are used to create
opportunities and facilitate B2B transactions among its members.
Please visit our website at: https://www.tenetfintech.com/. [GN]
TERRAN ORBITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terran Orbital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending January 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2024, that the motion to dismiss
the securities class suit remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
In February 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court"), Case No. 1:23-cv-01394.
The litigation was instituted by Jeffrey Mullen on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated.
In July 2023, an amended complaint was filed by Jeffrey Mullen,
Robert Irwin, Justin Carnahan and Thomas Bennett, each on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, and the members of Legacy Terran
Orbital’s Board of Directors as defendants.
The amended class action complaint (as amended, the
“Complaint”) asserts claims for violations of Section 11(A) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section 158 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, and breach of fiduciary duties, resulting
from the Company's alleged failure to timely transfer shares of
common stock to current and former employee shareholders after the
consummation of the Tailwind Two Merger and alleges materially
false and misleading statements made in the Company's Form S-4
Registration Statement and Proxy Prospectus primarily relating to
the process for exchanging shares in connection with the Tailwind
Two Merger.
The Complaint seeks an award of damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and
an award of such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court.
The Company intends to defend this action vigorously and filed a
motion to dismiss with the Court on December 18, 2023.
On February 2, 2024, the Company filed a response brief to the
plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending with the court.
Terran Orbital Corporation, together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of satellite products primarily
serving the aerospace and defense industries. It provides
end-to-end satellite solutions by combining satellite design,
production, launch planning, mission operations, and on-orbit
support to meet the needs of its military, civil, and commercial
customers.
TERRAN ORBITAL: Faces Jones Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------
Terran Orbital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending January 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2024, that the Company faces Jones'
class suit in Delaware Court of Chancery.
On March 6, 2024, Andrew Jones filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company and its Board of Directors in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
The complaint objects to the Company's implementation of the Rights
Agreement, specifically a provision in the Rights Agreement which
aggregates share ownership in situations where parties are "acting
in concert."
The plaintiff alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and seeks to have
the acting in concert provision enjoined and declared
unenforceable.
Terran Orbital Corporation, together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of satellite products primarily
serving the aerospace and defense industries. It provides
end-to-end satellite solutions by combining satellite design,
production, launch planning, mission operations, and on-orbit
support to meet the needs of its military, civil, and commercial
customers.
TETRA TECH: BHPR Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bayview Hunters Point
Residents et al v. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-01417 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 18, 2019), the Hon. Judge
James Donato entered an order that dispositive motions and a class
certification motion, including three separate "partial summary
judgment" motions filed by Tetra Tech., are administratively
terminated pending the status conference, and all remaining
briefing deadlines are stayed.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on ways to streamline
and sequence the motions.
For the parties' guidance, the Court typically does not accept more
than one Rule 56 motion from any party or party group. A joint
status conference statement is due by May 9, 2024.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]
TETRA TECH: Class Cert Bid Terminated Pending Status Conference
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abbey, et al., v. Tetra
Tech EC, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07510 (N.D. Cal., Filed
Nov. 14, 2019), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that
dispositive motions and a class certification motion, including
three separate "partial summary judgment" motions filed by Tetra
Tech., are administratively terminated pending the status
conference, and all remaining briefing deadlines are stayed.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on ways to streamline
and sequence the motions.
For the parties' guidance, the Court typically does not accept more
than one Rule 56 motion from any party or party group. A joint
status conference statement is due by May 9, 2024.
The nature of suit states Racketeering (RICO) Act.[CC]
TETRA TECH: CPHP Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CPHP Development, LLC, et
al., v. Tetra Tech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01485 (N.D.
Cal., Filed Feb. 27, 2020), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an
order the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that dispositive
motions and a class certification motion, including three separate
"partial summary judgment" motions filed by Tetra Tech., are
administratively terminated pending the status conference, and all
remaining briefing deadlines are stayed.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on ways to streamline
and sequence the motions.
For the parties' guidance, the Court typically does not accept more
than one Rule 56 motion from any party or party group. A joint
status conference statement is due by May 9, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act.[CC]
TETRA TECH: FPH Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Five Point Holdings, LLC
et al v. Tetra Tech, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01481 (N.D.
Cal., Filed Feb. 27, 2020), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an
order that dispositive motions and a class certification motion,
including three separate "partial summary judgment" motions filed
by Tetra Tech., are administratively terminated pending the status
conference, and all remaining briefing deadlines are stayed.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on ways to streamline
and sequence the motions.
For the parties' guidance, the Court typically does not accept more
than one Rule 56 motion from any party or party group. A joint
status conference statement is due by May 9, 2024.[CC]
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.
TETRA TECH: Pennington Motions Terminated Pending Status Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington et al v. Tetra
Tech, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an order that dispositive motions and a
class certification motion, including three separate "partial
summary judgment" motions filed by Tetra Tech., are
administratively terminated pending the status conference, and all
remaining briefing deadlines are stayed.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on ways to streamline
and sequence the motions.
For the parties' guidance, the Court typically does not accept more
than one Rule 56 motion from any party or party group. A joint
status conference statement is due by May 9, 2024.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]
TRACY LOGISTICS: Shanley Sues over Wage and Hour Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS SHANLEY, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACY LOGISTICS LLC; STOCKTON
LOGISTICS LLC; FRESNO LOGISTICS LLC; SACRAMENTO LOGISTICS, LLC; C&S
WHOLESALE GROCERS, LLC FORMERLY C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS INC.; C&S
LOGISTICS OF SACRAMENTO/TRACY LLC; C&S LOGISTICS OF FRESNO LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-at-00415
(E.D. Cal., April 3, 2024) arises out of Defendants' systematic
mistreatment of their employees, in violation of California's wage
and hour laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from on or around May 25,
2022 through on or around December 14, 2022. Throughout Plaintiff's
employment, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay him and members
of the Class all of their earned wages and compensation. In
addition, Defendants also failed to authorize and permit him and
members of the Class to take all rest periods to which they were
entitled by the applicable laws, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Stockton, CA, Tracy Logistics LLC operates distribution
center warehouses throughout the state of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com
- and -
Justin Hewgill, Esq.
HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC
1620 5th Avenue, Suite 325
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 432-2520
Facsimile: (619) 377-6026
E-mail: contact@hcl-lawfirm.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, v.
TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Pettit
entered an order extending deadline to produce sampling, to file
motion for class certification, and to file any discovery motions.
On March 27, 2024, the Court held a discovery conference with
counsel to discuss the Parties' concerns with completing discovery
related to filing a motion for class certification.
The deadline for the Defendants to produce sampling as stipulated
by the Parties, currently due for Feb. 29, 2024, is May 10, 2024.
The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification, currently set for April 26, 2024, is July 19, 2024.
The deadline for Parties to bring to the attention of the Court
any discovery disputes related to class certification is June 21,
2024.
Transdev provides passenger transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QOtt7p at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRICIDA INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Amended to April 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI, et al., v.
TRICIDA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order resetting the
following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Class Certification Filing Deadline April 30, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification Motion July 1, 2024
Reply in Support of Class Certification Aug. 15, 2024
Motion
Class Certification Hearing Sept. 12, 2024 at
2:00
p.m.
Tricida is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical and drug discovery
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQUWE4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ULTIMATE CARE: Court Conditionally Certifies Cruz Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYRA CRUZ and RAUL
HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, v. ULTIMATE CARE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-07520-AMD-PK
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Peggy Kuo entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Section 216(b), to conditionally
certify this action as a collective action:
1. Approves conditional certification of the Plaintiffs' FLSA
collective action on behalf of all home health aides employed
by
the Defendant who worked two or more 24-hour shifts in one or
more weeks at any time within the three years preceding the
filing of a consent to sue, and worked through meal and/or
sleep
periods but were not paid for the time;
2. Requires the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs, within 14
days
of this Order, with a complete list in electronic spreadsheet
form of the first and last names, full addresses, telephone
numbers, employee numbers, and NYSDOH HHA Registry numbers
(if
any) of all HHAs who worked for it since Dec. 12, 2019;
3. Approves the dissemination of the Revised Notice, Consent to
Sue
Form, and Text Message and WhatsApp Notice, as amended in
accordance with Section 2 of this Order, to HHAs who worked
for
the Defendant on or after Dec. 12, 2019;
4. Approves the dissemination of the Defendant's reminder notice
to
those putative collective members that have not responded
within
30 days of the dissemination of the Revised Notice;
5. Requires the Defendant to provide the partial Social Security
numbers and dates of birth for those putative collective
members
whose Revised Notice is returned as undeliverable; and
6. Permits all individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs 60
days
from the entry of this Order to opt in to this action.
The Plaintiffs brought this action, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, against Ultimate Care, Inc.
seeking
relief based on Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify a collective comprised
of:
"All current or former home health aides employed by Ultimate
Care,
Inc. who worked two or more 24-hour shifts in one or more weeks
at
any time within the three years preceding the filing of a
consent
to sue, and worked through meal and/or sleep periods but were
not
paid for the time.
The Plaintiffs assert that they have satisfied their burden by
submitting their own declarations and the declarations of 131
opt-in plaintiffs corroborating their allegations that they "were
all victims of Ultimate Care's policy or plan that denied them
overtime wages for hours worked during meal and sleep periods."
The Defendant is a licensed home care services agency that provides
home healthcare services to elderly, ill, and disabled
individuals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hba96x at no extra
charge.[CC]
ULYSSES OLIVER: Hampton Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HAMPTON and
CORTNEY ROLLEY, on behalf of themselves individually, and all
others similarly-situated, v. ULYSSES OLIVER, JR., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00742-MHT-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Myron Thompson
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs Christopher Hampton and Cortney Rolley's motion for
partial summary judgment as
follows.
(1) The motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs Hampton's and
Rolley's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against
the Defendants Ulysses Oliver, Jr., Leon Troy Williams,
Willie
M. Burks, and Bryanna Nicole Mosley, for violation of the
Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment,
to
the extent that the court finds these defendants liable for
the
violation.
(2) The motion is granted as to the plaintiffs Hampton's and
Rolley's claims against defendant Oliver for battery and for
assault to the extent that the court finds defendant Oliver
liable for these torts.
(3) The motion is granted as to the plaintiffs Hampton's and
Rolley's claims against Defendants Williams and Mosley for
negligence to the extent that the court finds them liable
for
negligence.
(4) The motion is otherwise denied.
The Plaintiffs contend that a correctional officer severely beat
them while other officers stood by and did nothing.
The plaintiffs assert that the Defendants violated their Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and conspired to cover up
that
violation. They also bring state-law claims against the Defendants
for battery, assault, outrage, and negligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BsLB5J at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIFIED LIFE: USF Loses Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, v. UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00868-BT (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Rutherford
entered an order denying USF's motion for summary judgment, and
granting Unified's affirmative motion.
The Court determines that USF owes a duty under the Reinsurance
Treaty to indemnify Unified for USF's proportionate share of the
Butler settlement and associated costs and fees. The Court further
determines that USF breached the Reinsurance Treaty by denying
coverage to Unified.
Because Unified prevails on its breach of contract claim and is
entitled to damages, it is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
under Chapter 38. The Court orders Unified to file any motion for
such attorney's fees within 30 days from the entry of this Order.
In sum, the Court determines that there is no genuine dispute that
Unified gave USF "prompt" notice of the Butlers' claims, as
required by the terms of the Reinsurance Treaty.
Further, even if Unified did provide late notice, USF was not
prejudiced by such notice. As such, the Court determines that USF
breached the Reinsurance Treaty when it failed to pay its
proportion of the class settlement and associated costs and fees.
Unified is a provider of Medicare Supplement insurance plans and
other insurance products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TvimPM at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Subsidiary Bids to Combine Data Breach Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Olsen, writing for HealthcareDrive, reports that twenty-four
cases have racked up so far against the UnitedHealth subsidiary
following a cyberattack against the technology firm in late
February.
Dive Brief:
-- Change Healthcare wants to consolidate 24 class-action
lawsuits it faces in the wake of a cyberattack that's caused
disruptions across the industry, according to a court filing.
-- The UnitedHealth Group subsidiary asked a judicial panel to
combine the suits and centralize them in the federal U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee -- where Change is
headquartered -- arguing the cases share factual and legal claims
and are in early stages of litigation.
-- Consolidating would preserve court resources and avoid
duplicative work and inconsistent rulings, Change said in the
filing.
Dive Insight:
Lawsuits are piling up against Change as the technology company
works to bring all of its systems back online following a
cyberattack in late February.
Two dozen class-action lawsuits related to the cyberattack have
been filed as of April 2, according to the court filing. Thirteen
were filed by consumers citing concerns about data theft, while 11
came from providers who said they struggled to receive payments
while Change's systems have been offline.
The technology firm pushed back against the suits, arguing the
cases are based on the "incorrect and unfounded theory" that
Change's security wasn't adequate, and plaintiffs must have been
harmed by the attack.
Lawsuits could proceed in at least seven districts across the
country if the cases aren't centralized.
Change suggested the Middle District of Tennessee for a
consolidated case, arguing the technology company, which was
acquired by healthcare conglomerate UnitedHealth in 2022, was at
the center of all the lawsuits, even those that named other
entities like UnitedHealth or health services arm Optum.
Most of the suits filed so far have already been filed in
Tennessee, and the judge who would likely be assigned is
"well-equipped" to handle the case, the filing said.
Data breach class actions "exploded" in 2023, according to a
February report from law firm Duane Morris, as the healthcare
industry faces increased breach threats. The HHS' Office for Civil
Rights tracked a 256% increase in large breaches over the past five
years.
A major data breach last year at a medical transcription services
vendor, Perry Johnson & Associates, led to a number of lawsuits
against the company and affected health systems. The lawsuits were
recently consolidated in the Eastern District of New York.
UnitedHealth did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]
VALENTINO USA: Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO BENITEZ, as
Administrator of the Estate of Josefina Benitez, ZION BRERETON,
ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI and ANDREYA CRAWFORD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VALENTINO U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-JGLC-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jessica Clarke entered an order:
-- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment;
-- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment; and
-- Denying the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.
The only remaining claims and counterclaims involving Plaintiff
Learmont – that the Defendant failed to grant her reasonable
accommodation request and that she engaged in misconduct as an
employee – appear to have no connection to the wage and hour
claims of the other the Plaintiffs in this action. As such, the
Court, by separate Order, will direct the parties to show cause as
to why the claims involving Plaintiff Learmont should not be
severed from this
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, at a minimum, why the
claims involving Plaintiff Learmont should not be part of a
separate trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
The parties filed several documents under seal pursuant to a
proposed protective order that the Court has yet to enter. Pursuant
to Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil
Cases, the parties are ORDERED to file a letter-motion by April 12,
2024, seeking leave to file any documents under seal or with
redactions.
The first category of damages is based on Valentino’s claim that
it is entitled to recover compensation paid to Learmont during the
period it alleges that she was a faithless servant. Because
Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that Learmont
was a faithless servant, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant
has been harmed in this way. The second and third categories of
damages arise out of Defendant’s misappropriation claim, which
Defendant has likewise failed to prove as a matter of law. Without
any other basis for damages, and without reaching the other
elements of this claim, the Court cannot determine whether
Valentino has suffered actual harm from any alleged breach of
fiduciary duty.
The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York City Human Rights Law,
and Family and Medical Leave Act.
Valentino is a global fashion brand that designs, manufactures and
markets luxury designer clothing and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pHDGKF at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERU INC: Continues to Defend Ewing Class Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period
ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Ewing class suit in the federal district court for
the Southern District of Florida.
On December 5, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in
federal district court for the Southern District of Florida (Ewing
v. Veru Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-23960) against the Company
and Mitchell Steiner, its Chairman, CEO and President, and Michele
Greco, its CFO (the "Ewing Lawsuit").
The First Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on September 15,
2023 by purported stockholders Dr. Myo Thant and Karen Brounstein,
alleges that certain public statements about sabizabulin as a
treatment for COVID-19 between March 1, 2021 and March 2, 2023
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks monetary
damages.
The Defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Veru is a late clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing novel medicines for the treatment of metabolic
diseases,
oncology, and viral-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome.
WELLS FARGO: Hummels Appeal Final Approval of Sorace Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jennifer Lynn Hummel and Shawn David Hummel filed an
appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and/or Opinion Order
dated February 15, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled VINCENT
SORACE, JOSEPH YERTY, TAMMY YERTY, JAMES ZARONSKY, LINDA ZARONSKY,
VIKTOR STEVENSON, ASHLEY YATES, and KIMBERLY SOLOMON-ROBINSON,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-04318-GJP, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought to seek monetary relief in the form of minimum statutory
damages, which is expressly permitted "regardless of any injury
that may have resulted," through the Uniform Commercial Code,
independently and in pari materia with the Motor Vehicle Sales
Finance Act, due to the Defendant's systematic failure to comply
with the strict requirements relating to Post-Repossession Consumer
Disclosure Notices.
According to the complaint, the Notices of Repossession at issue
stated that the repossessed vehicle would be sold at a "private
sale." This material statement regarding intended disposition
(public or private sale) of these vehicles was systematically not
true. All the repossessed vehicles of these named Plaintiffs were
sold at the Manheim Auction, which is a public auction. Wells Fargo
systematically failed to inform the Public Auction Class Members
that their vehicles were being sold at a public sale and the date
and time of that sale as required by law, says the complaint.
The case was transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pa. with the assigned Case No. 200700334 to
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 2, 2020.
After Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint and Wells
Fargo moved to dismiss it, the parties jointly requested a stay so
that they could pursue settlement negotiations. After 18 months of
negotiations, including two in-person mediations before retired
United States Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, with a proposed
settlement class consisting of persons who, in relevant part,
entered "a retail installment sales contract in Pennsylvania for
the financing of a motor vehicle purchased primarily for personal,
family or household use and whose retail installment sales contract
was assigned or sold to Wells Fargo."
Under the Settlement Agreement, Wells Fargo agrees to pay $15
million into a settlement fund, which will be used to: (1) make
refund payments, totaling approximately $6.87 million, to those
class members whose vehicles were repossessed and sold and who
subsequently made payments toward their disputed deficiency
balances; (2) pay out distributions on a per account basis to the
22,340 class members, who hold 17,235 unique loans; (3) pay
incentive awards to the class representatives; (4) pay settlement
administrative costs; and (5) pay attorneys' fees and expenses.
The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on September 15,
2023. The Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement, plan of allocation, award for attorneys' fees, expenses,
and awards to the representative Plaintiffs. Of the over 22,000
class members, only two, Shawn Hummel and his wife Jennifer,
objected to the settlement.
On February 15, 2024, after reviewing all relevant submissions and
holding a hearing, the Court overruled the Hummels' objections and
granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
The appellate case is captioned as Vincent Sorace, et al v. Wells
Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 24-1498, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 19, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNIFER LYNN HUMMEL and JENNIFER LYNN HUMMEL
are represented by:
Renee M. Kuruce, Esq.
ROBLETO LAW
401 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
Telephone: (412) 925-8194
- and -
Aurelius P. Robleto, Esq.
ROBLETO KURUCE
6101 Penn Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Telephone: (412) 925-8194
Plaintiffs-Appellees VINCENT SORACE, et al., individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, are represented
by:
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (412) 716-5800
- and -
Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
SAXTON & STUMP
280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Telephone: (717) 556-1080
Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK NA is represented by:
Karla L. Johnson, Esq.
Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-7927
[*] Rise in U.S. Royalty Class Actions Poses Risk in Oil Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McGuireWoods reports that the recent rise in royalty class action
lawsuits brought by the plaintiffs' bar, that generally coincides
with the ebb in crude oil prices, is a growing risk for oil and gas
companies. Class action certifications in royalty lawsuits were
less common before the COVID-19 pandemic, but since 2019 there has
been an uptick in royalty class actions, specifically those related
to (1) when a valuation of the royalties should occur ("at the
well" or further downstream) and (2) post-production charges, costs
and deductions.
From 2019 to 2021, at least 30 royalty class actions were filed.
These cases continue to percolate through the courts with more
decisions on the horizon, and it is likely that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will be the next to publish a
royalty class action decision.
With this increase, recent certification decisions have largely
favored plaintiffs, while previous royalty class actions were more
favorable for defendants. Accordingly, lessees should focus on a
plaintiff's failure to sufficiently assess the various lease forms,
or any inaccuracy in that analysis, to defeat such an effort.
If the plaintiffs have sufficiently and accurately completed a
lease language analysis for the various lease forms at issue, an
attack on the predominance and commonality elements is unlikely to
succeed. Consequently, if a plaintiff has met its burden on
assessing various lease forms, defendants should turn to other
arguments to defeat certification via the commonality element: (1)
location of wells, (2) distance to market, (3) quality of gas
produced, (4) unclaimed deductions/costs, (5) marketing
arrangements/changes, (6) markets and market prices, and (7)
royalty payment practices.
One case that illustrates these points well is Zehentbauer Family
Land, LP v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., in which the Sixth Circuit
dealt with a determination of a succeeding class claim and a
failing class claim. 935 F.3d 496, 505 (6th Cir. 2019). First, the
Court, in dicta, found that certification of one subclass would not
have been affirmed had plaintiffs not stipulated to proceeding
solely on a post-production-costs theory at the appellate level.
The Court found that the plaintiffs' claims relied on showing that
the defendants' royalty payments were based on sale prices that
fell below what an unaffiliated company would have paid for the oil
and gas at the wellhead. This would have failed the test of
predominance "because the inquiry to determine these market prices
is highly individualized because the market prices depend on the
quality of the oil and gas sold at each well, the quantity of the
oil and gas so sold, and the proximity of the well to processing
facilities and downstream markets."
But the Court affirmed class certification on the plaintiffs' other
theory regarding post-production costs. The plaintiffs had
succeeded in showing that the lease at issue did not have any
material differences in its language and identifying two subclasses
that had "materially identical oil and gas royalty provisions."
Because the defendants had not argued that differences existed in
those leases, the commonality and predominance elements were met.
Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit made clear that individualized
issues may still be found, but certain avenues of argument in that
vein will be foreclosed if the plaintiffs do enough diligence in
reviewing the leases at issue.
Industry participants can protect themselves against this wave of
royalty litigations by preempting this type of litigation with the
utmost diligence and review of their leases and the royalty
language included. Companies should willingly and openly discuss
these issues with their land, accounting and marketing departments
to ensure that their pricing structures work -- particularly what
deductions are taken under which leases -- and draft consistent
royalty clauses in leases and addendums. Moreover, industry actors
should work with their in-house and outside counsel to identify the
differences between the states in which they have leaseholds and
ensure that their leases comply and will not be the subject of a
class action. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***