/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240423.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 82
Headlines
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Opioid Drugs Suit in Quebec to Proceed
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Awarded $3.9K for Atty's Fees
ACADIA LAPLACE: Plaintiffs' Expert Remote Appearance Bid OK'd
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Dec. 30, 2025
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: $24MM Class Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
APEX HUMAN: Okokuro Seeks to Stay Consideration of Conditional Cert
APPLE INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclass
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert. Bid in Miller Extended to July 10
ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Court Redefines Class in Eaton
ASR GROUP: Controls Granulated Sugar Prices, Humphreys Alleges
AT&T INC: Casey Sues Over Failure to Adequately Safeguard PII
AT&T INC: Hernandez Files Suit in N.D. Texas
AT&T INC: Hodge Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
AT&T MOBILITY: Gibbs Law Files Class Action on Massive Data Breach
AUSTRALIA: Face Class Action Over Unpaid Super Entitlements
BANK OF AMERICA: Bolshakov Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Oral Argument Continued to May 28
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Certifies Fourth NSF Fee Class Action
BARRICK ENTERPRISES: Stansbury's Bid for Conditional Cert. Granted
BARRY H. GOLSEN: Witmer Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BLUE CROSS: Court Narrows Claims in Wollenberg Suit
BNY MELLON: Summary Judgment Bid vs Walden Partly OK'd
BRINGER CORPORATION: Chang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUZZFEED INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal IP Address Tracking
CANADA: Settles Class Suit Over Federal Pension Transfer Costs
CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Ruling
CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Faces Steahle Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Ponce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CENTRAL GARDEN: Class Cert. Opposition Filing Amended to July 16
CENTURY WOODS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Tri-City Suit
CERMAQ CANADA: Settles Price Fixing Class Action
CGK HOLDINGS INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHALK COUTURE: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fraker Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Sklar Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Weller Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Maharaj
CHECKR INC: Bahr Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHICAGO CUBS: Settles Unsolicited Text Messages Suit for $1.225MM
CITIZENS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of August 2017 Order
CITY UNIVERSITY: Initial Conference in Harriram Suit Set for May 16
CITYHOUSE INVESTMENT: Alcie Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CJ LOGISTICS: Oct. 1 Trial in Ledbetter Suit Vacated
CLEAN SKIN: Garcia Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
CLEAR LINK: Class Cert. Bid in Bronstin Suit Due Jan. 27, 2025
CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: O'Dea Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
COINBASE INC: Ontario Superior Court Dismisses Cryptocurrency Suit
COMCAST CABLE: Harper Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
CONSOL ENERGY: Bid for Class Certification Due April 30, 2025
CORRECTCARE DATA: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
COTIVITI INC: Parties in Pichler Must File Bid for Scheduling Order
COVANTA HOLDING: Order Striking Motions Entered in Brashevitzky
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert. Reply Due March 4, 2025
CV SCIENCES: Colette Suit Stayed
D2 LLC: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
D2C LLC: Joint Bid For Extension of Time Filed
D2C LLC: Martinez Allowed to File Sealed Version of Class Cert Bid
DAA DRAEXLMAIER: Figueroa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DANCE AMERICA INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Consolidated Securities Class Suits Pending
DAPPER LABS: Bid for Class Certification in Friel Suit Due May 2
DAZN US LLC: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
DELTA AIR: Discovery Deadline Extension in Goodyear Granted in Part
DELTA DENTAL: Bids to Certify Class Suit Over Reimbursement Rates
DESIGNER BRANDS: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DETROIT PIZZA: Bid for Conditional Class Cert Due August 2
DEVON ENERGY: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
DIGNITY HEALTH: Boeggeman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DISTINCTIVE LOADERS: Sauceda Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DOLAR SHOP: Parties Must Submit Proposed Pretrial Order by June 3
DOLLS KILL: Echeverria-Corzan Sues Over Misleading Advertising
DV8 DANCE COMPLEX: Ruiz Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
EDUSTAFF LLC: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
ELLA + MILA INC: Competello Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Parties Must File Status Report by April 23
EQT CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing in Ross Due July 11
ESH RESTAURANT: Paguay Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
EXPERIAN INFO: Pena Seeks to Modify Class Cert Bids Deadlines
EXPERIAN: Dawodu Suit Removed to C.D. California
F.P.H. SALES CORP: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FCA US: Suit Seeks to Certify Residential Property Occupant Class
FEDERAL BUREAU: Martin Class Cert Bid Denied as Moot
FLO HEALTH: High Court Certifies Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
FLORIDA PREPAID: Lavina Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
FOCUS FINANCIAL: Sued Over $7-Bil. Sale to Private Equity Firm
FOOD STORY: Cirilo Sues Unpaid Overtime Wages
FROST BANK: Criswell Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
FTG CIRCUITS: Cardenas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Angelle Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Archambeau Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEMI CAPITAL: MC Lawyers Investigate Suit Over Investors Losses
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Shift Assemblies
GENESIS FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Compel Ford to Arbitrate Claims
GENPACT COLLECTIONS: Robinson Suit Removed to C.D. California
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Recommends Partial OK of Class Cert Bid
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Ziegler Gets Final Nod
HDR GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Market Manipulation
HEALTH FIRST: Court Extends Class Certification Deadlines
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Seeks Leave to Seal Documents
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Suit Over Unusable Third-Party Cartridges
HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS: Deutsch Sues Over Decline in Securities Value
HISAMITSU AMERICA: Class Cert Bid in Hrapoff Extended to June 21
HOME DEPOT: Berger Sues Over False-Reference Pricing
HOME DEPOT: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Nixed w/o Prejudice
HOME DEPOT: Carbajal Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Reference Prices
HOME DEPOT: Parties in Matthews Suit Must Submit Pre-Trial Order
HONEYWELL INT'L: Barragan Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
HOT SPRINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Real Estate Management
HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response
HUGGINS METAL: Smith Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
HUMPHRY SLOCOMBE: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IFIT HEALTH: Class Action Settlement in Balfour Gets Initial Nod
ILLINOIS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Lepper Suit
INSURANCE CLAIMS: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTERNATIONAL LEISURE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
ISMILE DENTISTRY: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JACOB RIEGER: FLSA Collective Class Conditionally Certified
JANCO FS 3: Ayala Suit Removed to N.D. California
JEWISH NATIONAL: Glazer Suit Removed to C.D. California
JUMIO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
JVR COOLING: Cuateco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
KA WAH TRADING: Arbona Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Google Info Sharing
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY: Alper Files Suit in S.D. New York
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY: Davis Files Suit in D. Arizona
KIA AMERICA: Doucette Files Suit in C.D. California
KLC SAN DIEGO: Mitchell Files Suit in S.D. California
LENS.COM INC: Fitzpatrick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Resets Class Cert Hearing
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA: Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
LOUISIANA: Faces Class Suit Over Constitutional Rights' Violations
MACY'S INC: City of Pontiac Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Potential Class Action Over Defective Engines
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in NCS Set for June 4
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in OHACI Set for June 4
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in PMC Set for June 4
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in TCI Suit Set for June 4
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in VCII Set for June 4
MEDICAL EYE SERVICES: Eufusia Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MEDICALODGES INC: DeLeon Conditional Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
MEDTRONIC PLC: Bid to Dismiss Local 464A's Claims Granted in Part
MEIJER GREAT LAKES: Durham Sues Over Misleading Advertising
MEMPHIS,TN: Appellate Court Hears 12K Untested Rape Kits Class Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Dismisses Snowdy Suit w/o Prejudice
MICROSOFT CORP: Bid to Intervene in Basbanes Suit Tossed
MICROSOFT CORP: California Plaintiffs' Bid to Intervene Tossed
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Khalid Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
MILLENNIAL CAPITAL: Wyrick Balks at Illegal Lease Termination Fees
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Seeks to File Reply in Support of Objections
MUSEUM OF SEX: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ruiz Due Oct. 25
NATALE GROUP: Faces Tsolomitis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Chappelle Suit Removed to C.D. California
NATIONAL VISION: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Long Suit Removed to N.D. California
NCB MANAGEMENT: Trafford Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Indiana
NEMANOUUR MEHRDAD EDWARD: Elam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NEW YORK CITY: Court Dismisses Bronx Fund's 2nd Amended Complaint
NEW YORK, NY: Campbell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW YORK: Faces Zielinski Suit Over Denial of Religious Exercise
ODE A LA ROSE: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONSITE EMPLOYEE: Parties Must Refile Case Management Report
OPEN AI INC: California Plaintiffs' Bid to Intervene in AG Tossed
OPEN AI INC: California Plaintiffs' Bid to Intervene in Alter Nixed
ORSINI PHARMACEUTICAL: Fails to Protect Health Info, Eckhart Says
PACIFIC CCI: Matus Sues Over Minimum and Overtime Wages
PACIFIC COAST: Woods Suit Removed to E.D. California
PHARMSCRIPT LLC: Dethloff-Sprague Sues Over Unpaid Wages
PLATINUM CHOICE: Duncan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kuhk Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
PRIME HYDRATION: Energy Drinks' Caffeine Ads "False," Vera Claims
PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Can Seal Class Cert Opposition
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
QUINSTREET PL INC: Castello Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
R.D.H.H. INC: Cabrera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
R3 EDUCATION: Dudurkaewa Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
RBS CITIZENS: Ct. Tosses Bid to Reconsider Feb. 28 Order in Reinig
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Dismisses Krakauer Suit w/o Prejudice
RENEW LLC: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Court OKs Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
RHODE ISLAND: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Debritto Suit
RICHARD ACKERMAN: Fulcher Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
RIPTIDE REMODELING: Anguisaca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Seeks to Consolidate Colvin and Gentry Suits
SANDRA MOYER: Home Point's Partial Bid to Dismiss Granted
SFERRA FINE LINENS: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SONDER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Thompson Files Suit in M.D. Florida
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Patients' Data Breach
SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Class Suit Arbitration
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Discovery in Nguyen-Wilhite Due June 28
TUFT & NEEDLE: Chebul Sues Over False Advertising
TUPPER BRANDS: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Florida
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in N.Y.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by April 23
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration
UNITED WHOLESALE: Escue Sues Over Corrupted Mortgage Brokers
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Carlton Suit Transferred to C.D. California
US BANCORP: Buhrke Trust Allowed to File 2nd Amended Complaint
V12 SOFTWARE: Sinitski Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
VELO3D INC: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VINFAST AUTO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements
WALMART INC: Agrees to Settle Overcharging Class Suit for $45MM
WAWA INC: Court Reinstates Data Privacy Class Suit Fee Award
WAYNE BANK: Werkmeister Data Breach Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Partly Grants Jonathan R.'s Bid for Sanctions
WILLIAM WARREN GROUP: Williams Files Suit in C.D. California
WYNDHAM HOTELS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
XENIAL INC: Mendenhall Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
[*] Credit Card Class Action Settlement Harms Consumers/Merchants
[^] Registration Ongoing for May 6 Class Action Conference
*********
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Opioid Drugs Suit in Quebec to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that the
Montreal-based law firms Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin LLP ("FFMP")
and Trudel Johnston & Lesperance ("TJL") announced that, by
judgment released on April 10, 2024, the proposed class action in
Bourassa v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. et al. has been authorized to
proceed against 16 pharmaceutical companies for their role in
manufacturing selling, marketing and/or distributing opioid drugs
in Quebec.
Mark E. Meland, a partner of FFMP states: "As a result of this
important judgment, there now exists a vehicle for victims, whose
lives have been devastated by the use of prescription opioids, to
seek and obtain rightful compensation for the harms caused to them
by the pharmaceutical companies who produced and supplied these
dangerous drugs".
Andre Lesperance, a partner of TJL adds: "It is a credit to the
Quebec judicial system that this is the first Canadian class action
taken against opioid manufacturers that has been authorized on an
industry-wide basis in order to provide access to justice to opioid
victims".
Class counsel shall continue to aggressively pursue these
proceedings and seek justice for class members who have suffered
serious damages as a result of using prescription medications
belonging to the class of drugs known as opioids, including those
with the active ingredients, oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone,
fentanyl, morphine and codeine.
The following persons are members of the authorized class and are
covered by the present class action:
-- All persons in Quebec who have been prescribed and consumed
anyone or more of the opioids medications identified in Schedule I
attached hereto, manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or sold by
the Defendants between 1996 and the present day ("Class Period")
and who have been diagnosed by a physician as suffering or having
suffered from Opioid Use Disorder.
-- The Class excludes any person whose claim, or any portion
thereof, is in relation to the drugs OxyContin and OxyNEO, as well
as in relation to opioid drugs that were solely and exclusively
available for use in a hospital setting and not prescribed for use
in the home.
-- The Class also includes the direct heirs of any deceased
person who during his or her lifetime met the above description,
subject to the same exclusions.
The judgment authorizing the Quebec opioid class action will be
posted on the websites of class counsel in the coming days, at:
https://ffmp.ca/ and https://tjl.quebec/en/ [GN]
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Awarded $3.9K for Atty's Fees
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, V. ACADIA
HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Donna Phillips Currault entered an order
granting in part and denying part the Defendants' motion for
sanctions and awarding the Defendants $9,192.78.
The Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel must reimburse the
Defendants $3,932.78 for the attorneys' fees incurred in re-opening
Amy Hamm's deposition. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered
to pay $2,250.00 in relation to the improper failure to appear for
the December depositions and $3,010.00 for the fees incurred by
Defendants in bringing this motion.
On May 22, 2020, the Plaintiff Amy Hamm brought suit on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals who have
worked for Defendants Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., Red River
Hospital, LLC, and Ochsner-Acadia, LLC, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law seeking payment for all hours worked,
including overtime and meal periods.
On July 13, 2022, the Court conditionally certified the collective
action consisting of all current and former hourly, non-exempt
employees directly involved with patient care at any facility
owned/operated by Defendants during the three year period before
and through resolution this case.
Acadia is an American provider of behavioral healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iBdEYy at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACADIA LAPLACE: Plaintiffs' Expert Remote Appearance Bid OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM and JOYE WILSON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC and OCHSNER-ACADIA, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan
entered an order granting the unopposed motion for remote
appearance of the Plaintiffs' Expert.
The Plaintiffs' expert witness, Jeffrey S. Petersen, is allowed to
appear by video or telephonic conference at the April 24, 2024
hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auTQy8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Dec. 30, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No.
4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order setting:
1. The last day to complete private mediation shall be continued
from July 12, 2024 to Oct. 25, 2024.
2. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
shall be continued from June 27, 2024 to Dec. 30, 2025.
3. The last day to file Amazon's opposition to any motion for
class
certification shall be continued from Aug. 8, 2024 to Feb.
10,
2025.
4. The class certification hearing shall be continued from
Sept.
24, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. to Mar. 25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
On March 4, 2024, Mr. Krivis’s office informed the Parties that
due to a serious health issue, Mr. Krivis would be unable to
proceed with the scheduled mediation. On October 18, 2023, Amazon
substituted in new counsel.
On Nov. 11, 2023, Plaintiff associated in additional counsel
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TBUynS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: BHamburger@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
MCooney@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: $24MM Class Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business, reports that A
$24 million agreement to settle a class action against certain
American International Group (AIG) firms has been granted
preliminary approval.
The initial go-ahead was provided by a California federal court,
Law360 reported. The lawsuit that's being settled relates to
alleged hidden fees in travel insurance policies. The settlement
sum was arrived at last December following "lengthy negotiations"
involving mediators.
Citing the motion for approval, rating agency AM Best noted earlier
this year that $23,997,500 is planned to be paid into a common fund
to compensate settlement-notice class members from California as
well as those who purchased coverage through third-party online
travel sites.
"The settlement would pay for damages and attorneys' fees over
allegations that policies from Travel Guard Group, the marketing
name for travel insurance plans offered by AIG Travel and National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., included
undisclosed travel assistance services fees," AM Best reported at
the time.
It was also previously noted that, in addition to paying the
abovementioned amount, the relevant firms would have to inform all
future Travel Guard Plans policyholders that the price for a plan
includes an additional fee for non-insurance travel assistance
services.
The class action was accusing the AIG companies of fraud and
violations of unfair competition and false advertising laws in
California.[GN]
APEX HUMAN: Okokuro Seeks to Stay Consideration of Conditional Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OYAKIMIGBIA OKOKURO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APEX HUMAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02615-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to stay
consideration of her motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Conditional Certification.
The Parties have been in discussions regarding the potential
resolution of this matter.
Okokuro therefore requests the Court place the motion on hold to
conserve judicial resources.
Apex is a home health care agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MLRn1f at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
APPLE INC: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et al., v. APPLE
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order certifying the following class and
subclass under Rule 23(b)(3):
Local Device Class
"Every Illinois citizen whose Apple Device put a photograph
of
that citizen into a People album at any time between Sept.
13,
2016 and the present."
iCloud Subclass
"Every Illinois citizen who had an Apple Device with a
People
album tagged with that citizen's name or other identifier,
and
had an iCloud account enabled for photo storage, at any time
between Sept. 13, 2016 and the present."
The Plaintiff also asks theg the Court to appoint Plaintiffs John
Doe (on behalf of Jane Doe), Richard Robinson, Yolanda Brown,
Jonathan LeBlond, Patricia Orris, and Angela Stevens as class
representatives of the Local Device Class; appoint Plaintiff
Robinson as class representative of the iCloud Subclass; and
appoint Schlichter Bogard LLP and Montroy Law Offices, LLC as class
counsel under Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by selling electronic
devices, including iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers, that
surreptitiously scan user' photographs for faces, collecting
biometric scans of facial geometry. The Plaintiffs further allege
that Defendant retains sole ownership and control over its
proprietary biometric-data collection software, which Defendant
pre-installs on its devices, is required for Defendant’s devices
to operate, and which device users cannot disable.
The Plaintiffs are Illinois citizens who have used Apple devices to
take or store photographs of themselves or others using the Photos
app installed on such devices.
Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fapMrD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Troy A. Doles, Esq.
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
tdoles@uselaws.com
aschlichter@uselaws.com
abraitberg@uselaws.com
- and -
Christian G. Montroy, Esq.
MONTROY LAW OFFICES, LLC
2416 North Center
Maryville, IL 62062
Telephone: (618) 223-8200
Facsimile: (618) 223-8355
E-mail: cmontroy@montroylaw.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert. Bid in Miller Extended to July 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE MILLER, KAARON
WARREN, AND JOE DIGIACINTO, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-03540-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order extending deadlines for
class certification briefing:
Event New Deadline
Date for Plaintiffs to identify class June 3, 2024
certification experts:
Class certification motion: July 10, 2024
Defendants' opposition to class Sept. 17, 2024
certification and expert disclosures
opposing class certification:
Plaintiff's reply in support of class Oct. 17, 2024
Certification:
Defendant's Daubert Motions regarding Sept. 17, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
Hearing on Class Certification Motion: Dec. 3, 2024 at
10:00 a.m.
Last Date to Complete ADR Oct. 31, 2024
Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice
cocktails, and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZEZG3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Leticia C. Butler, Esq.
Olivia K. Miner, Esq.
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
E-mail: lbutler@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
ominer@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
- and -
Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
669 River Drive, Suite 201
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
Telephone: (201) 857-6778
E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com
ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Court Redefines Class in Eaton
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CHRISTOPHER EATON,
et al.,, v. ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-03412-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus,
Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's motion as to the
modification of the class definition.
The Court redefines the class as follows:
"All persons or entities (including their predecessors and
successors-in-interest) Who have received, or who are entitled
to
receive, royalty payments from natural gas or oil wells
located
in Ohio, who were paid royalties by Ascent at any time since
Oct. 1, 2014, and who fit into one or more of the following
subclasses."
Subclass (a):
"All persons or entities who have had deductions for
"gathering"
and "compression" expenses taken from royalty payments by
Ascent."
Subclass (b):
"All persons or entities who have had deductions for
"processing"
expenses taken from royalty payments by Ascent."
Subclass (c):
"All persons or entities who have had deductions for
"transportation" expenses taken from royalty payments by
Ascent."
Subclass (d):
"All persons or entities for which Ascent has classified the
lessor as having a "market enhancement clause" lease who have
had
deductions for "processing" expenses taken from royalty
payments
by Ascent."
Subclass (e):
"All persons or entities for which Ascent has classified the
Lessor as having a "market enhancement clause" lease who have
had
deductions for "transportation" expenses taken from royalty
payments by Ascent."
Exclusions:
Excluded from the Class and each Subclass are Ascent, any of
its affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors,
employees, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and
any entity in which Ascent has a controlling interest, as well
as
that entity's officers, directors, employees, legal
representatives, successors, and assigns, in addition to the
judicial officers and their immediate family members and court
staff assigned to this lawsuit. Also excluded are those
persons
or entities whose royalties are paid per an overriding royalty
interest, or those with working interests, or those whose
leases
contain governing arbitration clauses.
The case involves two consolidated lawsuits brought by Brian and
Cynthia Eaton, and Cunningham Property Management Trust, both of
whom are landowners and mineral rights owners who allowed Ascent to
produce oil and natural gas from their properties pursuant to an
oil and gas lease.
The Plaintiffs as well as the class assert Ascent systematically
underpaid them royalties on their leases, the suit says.
Ascent operates as an oil exploration and production company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MqVKYe at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASR GROUP: Controls Granulated Sugar Prices, Humphreys Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI HUMPHREYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; CARGILL, INC.; MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a
UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD
WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80451 (S.D. Fla., April 11,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the antitrust laws of the United States and the consumer protection
laws of various states.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to
artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of
granulated sugar throughout the Class Period. The Defendants have
implemented their agreement by sharing accurate, competitively
sensitive, non-public information with one another, including
through Commodity. Commodity provided this reciprocal information
to the Defendants rapidly, often within hours of having received
it. The Defendants then used the information they received from
Commodity when deciding how much to charge for their products, says
the suit.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a global producer and seller of
granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.
American Sugar Refining, Inc. is a sugar producer based in West
Palm Beach, Florida.
Domino Foods, Inc. is a marketing and sales subsidiary of ASR Group
in Florida.
Cargill, Inc. is an American global food corporation based in
Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Michigan Sugar Company is a cooperative of sugar beet owners,
headquartered in Bay City, Michigan.
United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, formerly known as
United Sugars Corporation, is a marketing cooperative based in
Edina, Minnesota.
Commodity Information, Inc. is corporation based in Orem, Utah.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Prieto, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
Dayron Silverio, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Email: pprieto@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
dsilverio@podhurst.com
- and -
Raphael Janove, Esq.
JANOVE PLLC
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd, 20th Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 267-0100
Email: raphael@janove.law
AT&T INC: Casey Sues Over Failure to Adequately Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Casey, and Raquel Agee, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00803-B
(N.D. Tex., April 3, 2024), is brought against AT&T for its failure
to properly and adequately safeguard the personally identifying
information ("PII") of tens of millions of current and former AT&T
customers.
As a requirement of providing services, AT&T collects critical PII
from consumers, including, but not limited to, their names, email
addresses, mailing addresses, birth dates, and Social Security
Numbers. On March 30, 2024, AT&T posted a notice on its website
stating that "a number of AT&T passcodes have been compromised."
The notice further stated that "we will be communicating with
current and former account holders with compromised sensitive
personal information" but provided no specifics about what
"sensitive personal information" was involved (the "Data Breach").
AT&T confirmed that a "data set" consisting of data relating to 7.6
million current AT&T customers and approximately 65.4 million
former account holders had been released on the dark web
approximately two weeks prior. AT&T further acknowledged that this
"data set" included critical PII such as names, Social Security
numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and
birth dates.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant responsible for its failure
to protect and keep secure the PII of Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Class Members. As a result of Defendant's willful failure
to prevent the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members are more
susceptible to identity theft and have experienced, will continue
to experience, and face an increased risk of financial harms, in
that they are at substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and
other harm, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been a wireless customer of AT&T for at least
fifteen years.
AT&T is a telecommunications provider headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Cell: (214) 208-3327
Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
Danielle M. Weiss, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-0600
Email: dweiss@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Phone: 800-551-8649
Fax: 501-286-4659
Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
AT&T INC: Hernandez Files Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc. The case
is styled as Elaine Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00840-E
(N.D. Tex., April 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
C. Shawn Cleveland
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-1210
Fax: (214) 210-1201
Email: scleveland@bakerlaw.com
AT&T INC: Hodge Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Mobility, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Terri Lynn Hodge, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, AT&T, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01475-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 6, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Michael Berger, Esq.
Linda Pham Lam, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Fax: (510) 350-9701
Email: lpl@classlawgroup.com
- and -
James Cameron Tribble, Esq.
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: (770) 227-6375
Fax: (770) 590-8958
Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
Roy@barneslawgroup.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Gibbs Law Files Class Action on Massive Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gibbs Law Group has filed a class action lawsuit against AT&T
Mobility LLC and AT&T, Inc. for a massive data breach affecting
over 70 million current and former customers. The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of all individuals who had sensitive personal information
compromised in the breach, including Social Security numbers and
account passcodes. The lawsuit charges AT&T with failing to use
adequate safeguards that would have detected and prevented the
breach, failing to notify victims of the breach in a timely manner,
and failing to exercise sufficient control over its third-party
partners' data. Attorneys at Gibbs Law Group are reviewing
potential claims on behalf of additional victims who were affected
by the AT&T data breach.
Although the breach was first uncovered in 2021, AT&T failed to
acknowledge the breach had occurred until the data was made freely
available on the dark web in March of 2024. Despite AT&T being the
largest provider of telephone services in the country, the wireless
company apparently still cannot identify exactly how, when, or
where the massive breach occurred, according to its own website.
AT&T breach victims are reporting deep concerns about this breach
because the type of information likely exposed, including addresses
and Social Security numbers, is difficult for a person to change,
unlike information such as credit card numbers. This personal data
can also be sold for high values on the black market. According to
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), hackers may wait to use
stolen data to commit identity fraud over a year after it is
obtained, and fraudulent use of data may continue for years after a
breach.
This is not the first time AT&T has experienced a massive data
breach. In 2023, it reported that 9 million of its customers'
information had been taken when one of its third-party vendors was
breached. And in 2014, AT&T settled an FCC investigation into
privacy violations for $25 million after around 280,000 customers'
names and full or partial SSNs were leaked.
"We are hearing from AT&T's victims across the country who are
struggling to protect their sensitive information," said Linda Lam,
partner at Gibbs Law Group. "Although AT&T has provided minimal
information to victims about the breach, Gibbs Law Group will
continue to investigate who was affected and will work to hold the
company accountable."
About Gibbs Law Group
Gibbs Law Group is a nationwide leader in class action lawsuits
seeking to hold corporations accountable for large-scale data
breaches. It has prosecuted some of the largest privacy cases in
the country, and the firm's attorneys have received numerous awards
for their privacy and data breach work, including "Cybersecurity &
Privacy MVP," "Top Cybersecurity and Privacy Attorneys Under 40,"
and "Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar."
The firm achieved a historic $1.5 billion settlement from Equifax
in 2019, on behalf of 147 million consumers whose Social Security
numbers and other private data were exposed in a breach. Described
by the court as "the largest and most comprehensive recovery in a
data breach in U.S. history by several orders of magnitude," the
settlement also required Equifax to spend over $1 billion in data
security technology and to make comprehensive security reforms.
Previously, the firm negotiated a $115 million settlement in the
Anthem data breach, the largest data breach settlement at the time,
after approximately 80 million personal records were compromised in
a massive data breach of the health insurance giant. [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Face Class Action Over Unpaid Super Entitlements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Investment Magazine reports that Gordon Legal has commenced a class
action against the Emergency Services Superannuation Board
(ESSSuper) for unpaid super entitlements.
In an update on the class action law firm's website, it argued that
ESSSuper failed to include shift penalty allowances when
determining the super to be paid to some Transport Superannuation
Fund members.
The class action covers people who are retired and people who are
still working, and will represent a mix of transport workers who
are still actively working and those who have already retired and
are eligible to join the legal action.
The group proceeding is partly funded by Omni Bridgeway, with the
balance funded by Gordon Legal on a "No- win, No-Fee" basis.
If the group proceeding is successful, the funding agreements
provide for the Funder to be reimbursed the legal costs it has
paid, and paid a funding commission of between 15 per cent and 25
per cent of the total Resolution Sum. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Bolshakov Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE BOLSHAKOV, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-10714-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will
move the Court for an order:
(1) conditionally certifying this action as a collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf
of
all Mortgage Loan Officers working for defendant Bank of
America, N.A. in the State of New York from Dec. 8, 2023
through the date the Court orders notice to be sent;
(2) authorizing an "opt-in" notice of this action to be
sent to the Employees;
(3) approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice;
(4) compelling the Defendant to produce relevant information
identifying the Employees; and
(5) tolling the statute of limitations on the claims of
potential
opt-in plaintiffs from Dec. 8, 2023 through the date that
the
notice is sent to the Employees.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iHns9A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Orin Kurtz, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
150 East 52nd Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 905-0509
Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com
- and -
Thomas Wiggin, Esq.
THOMAS WIGGIN P.C.
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1304
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (917) 847-7609
E-mail: thomas@wigginpc.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Oral Argument Continued to May 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON, et al., v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 5:23-cv-00255-JS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered an order
continuing the oral argument on class certification and any
dispositive motions to May 28, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom
14B.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Ignob at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Certifies Fourth NSF Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that an
Ontario court has certified a fourth class action against one of
the big banks for charging duplicative insufficient funds fees on
pre-authorized debit transactions.
The Superior Court of Justice certified a proposed class action
against Bank of Nova Scotia, following similar decisions involving
parallel cases against Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal and
Toronto-Dominion Bank.
The lawsuits are grounded in allegations that the banks repeatedly
charged NSF fees on failed automatic debit transactions when the
intended recipient of a rejected transaction attempted to process
it again.
The plaintiff alleged the duplicative fees violate consumer
protection legislation in Ontario and the banks' contracts with
clients, and that they unjustly enriched the banks at the expense
of their customers.
"[T]he plaintiff pleads that the burden of the duplicative NSF fees
falls disproportionately on low-income Canadians, who are more
likely to maintain low bank account balances," the court noted.
The plaintiff in the case is seeking damages representing the
excess fees paid and punitive damages, along with interest and
costs.
The allegations have not been proven.
While the bank consented to the case being certified as a class
action, the court nevertheless went through its analysis to
establish that it meets the test to be certified.
"The only way this action can achieve the goals of behaviour
modification, access to justice, and judicial economy is if it is
certified; this litigation only works as a class proceeding," the
court said in its ruling.
The court certified the case as a class action on behalf of all
Scotiabank customers that paid duplicate NSF fees of rejected
pre-authorized debits between June 21, 2020 and April 30, 2024.
[GN]
BARRICK ENTERPRISES: Stansbury's Bid for Conditional Cert. Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvette Kane of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and for
Conditional Certification of a Collective Class in the lawsuit
titled MELISSA STANSBURY, Plaintiff v. BARRICK ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and TODD BARRICK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00342-YK (M.D.
Pa.).
Before the Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiff Melissa Stansbury's
Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and for Conditional
Certification of a Collective Class, and (2) Defendants Barrick
Enterprises, Inc. and Todd Barrick's Motion For Leave to File a
Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. For reasons discussed
in this Memorandum, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion in part
and deny it, in part, conditionally certifying the proposed
collective class and permitting the issuance of notice pending a
conference between the parties to discuss the content and form of
the notice. The Court will deny the Defendants' motion for leave to
file a surreply.
The Defendants own and operate seven Domino's franchise stores in
Pennsylvania. Defendant Todd Barrick is the President and sole
owner of Defendant Barrick Enterprises, Inc. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants from October 2020 to February 2021 as a
delivery driver at their store in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants employ delivery drivers to deliver pizza and other food.
The Defendants require delivery drivers to use their own insured
vehicle and delivery drivers must keep their vehicles in safe,
legally operable condition.
On March 8, 2022, the Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly situated
current and former delivery drivers, filed suit against the
Defendants. She alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, by using a flawed
system to reimburse their delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their personal vehicles.
This case is brought as a collective action under the FLSA.
On May 12, 2022, the Defendants waived service of the Plaintiff's
complaint. Thereafter, on July 11, 2022, the parties filed a
Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise
Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Later that day, the Court issued
an Order approving the stipulation. On Aug. 8, 2022, the parties
filed a joint motion to stay litigation through Dec. 8, 2022, in
order to facilitate mediation and continued settlement discussions.
On Aug. 10, 2022, the Court issued an Order granting the parties'
motion and staying the action through Dec. 8, 2022.
On Dec. 2, 2022, the Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
After the issuance of a case management Order, later amended, the
parties filed a Proposed Confidentiality and Protective Order
("Protective Order"). On May 22, 2023, the Court issued an Order
approving the Protective Order. Subsequently, the parties filed a
joint Motion for Time to Complete Discovery and Briefing
Deadlines.
On May 31, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting the parties'
motion and directing: (1) that pre-conditional certification
discovery be completed by July 17, 2023; and (2) that the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a FLSA
collective be filed by Aug. 4, 2023.
On Aug. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Notice
to Potential Plaintiffs and For Conditional Certification under the
FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Plaintiff alleges
that she and other similarly situated current and former delivery
drivers were "illegally denied lawful minimum wage rates" due to
improper reimbursement by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants' delivery drivers were
improperly reimbursed due to a low mileage reimbursement rate ("as
little as $.31/mile") and no reimbursement for "out-of-pocket"
automobile expenses. Two individuals, Andrew Frazier and Tina Hall
have elected to be opt-in plaintiffs as of the date of this
Memorandum.
On Aug. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal, related to Plaintiff's Motion for Notice to
Potential Plaintiffs and for Conditional Certification.
After reviewing the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Documents
Under Seal, the Court directed her to show cause as to why her
Exhibits "E–L" should be sealed under the standard articulated in
In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability
Litigation, 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019). On Oct. 9, 2023, the
parties filed a joint response to the Court's Order.
On Oct. 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition
to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. They
attached Exhibit E to their filing, noting that it had been
redacted pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(d). However, the Defendants
redacted Exhibit E in its entirety, without explaining the need for
such a comprehensive redaction. After reviewing the Defendants'
Memorandum, the Court directed them to show cause as to why their
Exhibit E should be sealed under the standard in Avandia.
On Dec. 14, 2023, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order
addressing the sealing of the Plaintiff and the Defendants'
exhibits. The Court's Order directed the Clerk of Court to unseal
seven of the Plaintiff's exhibits and permitted her and the
Defendants to redact two particular exhibits. In the Memorandum,
the Court noted that redactions for Docket Numbers 37-1 and 50-7
were appropriate to balance the privacy rights of parties and
nonparties with the presumption of public access to judicial
records.
Because the Plaintiff's employee earnings report is "central" to
the dispute as to the sufficiency of her compensation by the
Defendants, the Court found that only a redaction of the
Plaintiff's date of birth was appropriate. The Court further noted
that the redaction of her date of birth from Docket Number 50-7 is
in line with the Local Rules of this Court and that keeping her
payment records available for public view allows a balance between
her privacy interests and the common law presumption of access.
On Dec. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a redacted version of Docket
Number 37-1, and the Defendants filed a redacted version of Docket
Number 50-7. Upon review of those submissions, it appears that,
rather than redacting the exhibits in accordance with the Court's
direction in its Dec. 14, 2023 Memorandum and Order, the parties
have instead redacted Docket Numbers 37-1 and 50-7 in their
entirety. The Court will direct the parties to file redacted
version of Docket Numbers 37-1 and 50-7 in accordance with the
directions in the Court's Dec. 14, 2023 Memorandum and Order,
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Memorandum and
accompanying Order.
On Feb. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority in support of her motion for conditional certification.
On Feb. 28, 2024, the Defendants filed a Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority. The Defendants'
motion to strike was not accompanied by a brief.
The Court's review of the docket in this matter reveals that the
Defendants did not file a brief in support of the motion within the
fourteen-day period, which expired on March 13, 2024. Therefore,
the Court will deem the Defendants' motion to strike withdrawn.
In their Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, the Defendants argue
that the Plaintiff's reply brief makes two new arguments that they
need to address via surreply brief. They claim that (1) the
Plaintiff presents a new argument concerning the applicable
standard for conditional certification and (2) the Plaintiff's
proposed lookback period is an argument of first impression.
Upon review of the Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply
and the associated briefing, the Court concludes that the two
referenced arguments are not new and have been addressed in prior
filings. Therefore, the Court will deny the Defendants' motion to
file a surreply brief.
For the purposes of the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify
a Collective Class and Notice Request, the Court considers only the
first step of the collective action analysis wherein the Plaintiff
must make a "modest factual showing" that she and the proposed
collective class members are similarly situated.
For the present purpose of conditional certification, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to warrant
notice based on a three-year statute of limitations and will
consider the Defendants' arguments regarding willfulness at the
final certification stage.
Because the Court has found that the Plaintiff has satisfied the
"modest factual showing" required for conditional certification,
the Court will grant the Plaintiff's motion in part. The Court's
decision to conditionally certify a collective action under the
FLSA does not end the inquiry.
Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's proposed notice forms and the
associated briefing, the Court finds that her request for names,
addresses, and email addresses of potential collective class
members is limited in scope and purpose. While the Court must be
wary of practices that could compromise the integrity of the notice
process, the Court has authorized the service of notice via email
in FLSA actions.
However, the Court will not allow for the disclosure of telephone
numbers because notices will be sent via email in addition to
first-class United States mail.
As noted, the Defendants request the opportunity to meet and confer
with the Plaintiff regarding the content and form of notice. The
Court will grant the Defendants' request. With the Plaintiff's
proposed notice as the foundation for discussions, the Court will
direct the parties to meet and confer to finalize the content and
form of notice in accordance with this Memorandum. Accordingly, the
Court will deny the Plaintiff's motion as to her proposed notice,
pending the parties' resolution of the content and form of notice.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion in part,
insofar as it will conditionally certify the proposed collective
class, and denies the motion in part as to her proposed notice,
pending a conference between the parties to discuss the content and
form of the notice. The Court denies the Defendants' motion for
leave to file a surreply.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated March 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3z8nff from PacerMonitor.com.
BARRY H. GOLSEN: Witmer Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Witmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BARRY H. GOLSEN, STEVEN L. PACKEBUSH, MARK T. BEHRMAN,
JONATHAN S. BOBB, KANNA KITAMURA, RICHARD SANDERS, JR., RICHARD W.
ROEDEL, LYNN F. WHITE, DIANA M. PENINGER, LSB INDUSTRIES, INC., and
COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2024-0351- (Del.
Chancery Ct., April 3, 2024), is brought for breach of fiduciary
duty against the members of LSB's board of directors.
The use of a 4.9% trigger in a stockholder rights plan, or "poison
pill," has been approved in Delaware law for a very narrow and
particular purpose: to protect valuable net operating loss ("NOL")
carryforwards, which can be used to offset future tax liability
and, in the absence of a pill protecting them, are subject to
limitation and eventual loss under relevant provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC"). The arcane tax provisions are
implicated by the trading in Company shares of 5% or greater
holders and determine when (and how much of) the NOL asset
disappears in certain circumstances. Thus, the typical NOL pill is
triggered at an ownership level in excess of 4.9%.
On July 6, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into a
Section 382 Rights Agreement (the "NOL Pill"), purportedly to
preserve the Company's NOLs. The NOL Pill expired by its own terms
on July 6, 2023. In the days following the expiration of the NOL
Pill, an activist investor began snapping up LSB shares. In
response, the Board approved renewal of the NOL Pill (the "Amended
NOL Pill") on August 16, 2023, for which it is currently soliciting
stockholder approval through a proxy statement filed with the SEC
on April 2, 2024 (the "Proxy"). Shockingly, the Company made no
mention of this activist in either the SEC filing disclosing
adoption of the Amended NOL Pill or the Proxy.
Instead, the Company's Proxy and other disclosures claim that the
expansive terms of the Amended NOL Pill are necessary to preserve
LSB's tax attributes. Not so. In particular, the Amended NOL Pill
contains a sprawling definition extending an individual's
"Beneficial Ownership" to shares economically owned by others that
are merely subject to any agreement, arrangement, or understanding
("AAU") with the individual "for the purpose of acquiring, holding,
voting, or disposing of any securities of the Company or
cooperating in obtaining, changing, or influencing control of the
Company."
Board's entrenching conduct must stop. LSB cannot solicit a
stockholder vote on the Amended NOL Pill on the basis of false and
misleading disclosures. And the Amended NOL Pill's definition of
ownership, which bears no relation to any threat to the Company's
NOL carryforwards, is a breach of duty that does not survive Unocal
Scrutiny, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an LSB stockholder and has held LSB stock at all
times relevant.
Barry H. Golsen is a designee of the Golsen Holders7 to the Board
pursuant to the Board Representation and Standstill Agreement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
Edward Timlin, Esq.
Shiva Mohan, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
Pleasantville, NY 10570
Phone: (212) 231-1500
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RMLAW, P.C.
1055 Westlake Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
BLUE CROSS: Court Narrows Claims in Wollenberg Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAE WOLLENBERG, ET AL.,
v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC. Case No.
5:23-cv-04029-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered
an order denying the Plaintiffs motion to remand without prejudice,
and granting in part and denying in part Blue Cross's motion to
dismiss.
The Plaintiffs do not allege that Blue Cross has breached new
policies, meaning that they have yet to suffer an injury-in-fact
because of their new policies. Without such an injury-in-fact, the
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek a declaratory judgment clarifying
the meaning of the new policies.
The Plaintiffs are teachers with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas
health insurance policies. They received colorectal cancer
screenings. Such screenings were newly recommended "for adults aged
45 to 49 years." But Blue Cross did not pay for them in full,
because it "delayed the implementation of coverage to the next
benefit period." In other words, the screenings occurred after they
had been recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,
but before they were implemented by Blue Cross.
The Plaintiffs sued in state court, on behalf of themselves and a
putative class. They argued that Blue Cross "breached its contracts
with the Plaintiffs and putative class members" when "it failed to
cover the services at 100% of the allowable charge." They also
sought a declaratory judgment that Blue Cross "must cover
preventive services at 100% for contracting providers."
Blue Cross removed the state-court suit to federal court, asserting
that a federal court would have jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.
The Defendant is a health insurer in the state of Kansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nErGLB at no extra
charge.[CC]
BNY MELLON: Summary Judgment Bid vs Walden Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE
WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON,
N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.),the Hon. Judge Cynthia
Reed Eddy entered an order granting in part, deferring in part and
denying in part BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment as
follows:
-- BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the
Plaintiffs' Stephen and Leslie Waldens' breach of contract
claim
that BNY Mellon breached the Agreements by investing in
securities
of BNY Corp. and granted as to the Waldens' breach of contract
claim that BNY Mellon breached the Agreements by failing to
make
individualized assessments of the Waldens' financial needs.
-- The Court will defer ruling on BNY Mellon's motion in part on
the
issue of disgorgement of fees. Considering the position taken
by
the Waldens that they base their theory of damages for their
breach of contract claim and their UTPCPL claims on the
disgorgement of fees paid by the Waldens and putative class
members to BNY Mellon, supplemental briefing is required for
the
Court to determine the pending motion for summary judgment
and/or
motion for class certification.
-- BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment is denied in all other
respects.
Bank of New York Mellon is an American banking and financial
services corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPq6db at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRINGER CORPORATION: Chang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Chang, and other similarly situated individual v. Bringer
Corporation, and Eduardo De Castro, individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-21252-KMM (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024), is brought to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under
United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the
Act").
The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week, but he was not
paid for all his overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff
clocked in and out, and Defendants were in complete control of
Plaintiff's schedule. The Defendants could track the hours worked
by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals and knew the
number of hours that Plaintiff was working. Therefore, Defendant
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of
time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in
excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt, full-time employee.
Bringer Corporation is an international shipping and transportation
logistics company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BUZZFEED INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal IP Address Tracking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Buzzfeed, Inc. faces
a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the popular news and
entertainment website has violated a California privacy law by
utilizing at least three different web trackers to collect
visitors' internet protocol (IP) addresses without notice or
consent.
The 28-page Buzzfeed lawsuit accuses the website of violating the
California Invasion of Privacy Act by installing onto Buzzfeed.com
visitors' web browsers the Sharethrough, IQM and Dotomi trackers,
which capture certain identifying information, including IP
addresses. The web trackers are described in the lawsuit as
"designed to analyze Website data and marketing campaigns, conduct
targeted advertising, and boost [Buzzfeed's] revenue," all through
their secret collection of consumers' data, the case claims.
Each of these trackers amounts to a "pen register" under the
California Invasion of Privacy Act given that it captures a
visitor's dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information,
the filing contends. In particular, the privacy law prohibits the
installation of a "pen register or a trap and trace device without
first obtaining a court order," the case says.
"In plain English, a 'pen register' is a 'device or process' that
records outgoing information, while a 'trap and trace device' is a
'device or process' that records incoming information."
Per the suit, a user's IP address enables their device to
communicate with another device, and the identifier contains
geographical data through which their state, city and zip code can
be determined. Like a telephone number, the case says, an IP
address provides marketers with a level of specificity that greatly
enhances their targeted advertising capabilities.
The lawsuit accuses Buzzfeed of having utilized the code of the
aforementioned trackers in its website since at least June 2019, if
not earlier.
"At no time prior to the installation and use of the Trackers on
Plaintiff's and Class Members' browsers, or prior to the use of the
Trackers, did Defendant procure Plaintiff's and Class Members'
consent for such conduct," the complaint alleges. "Nor did
Defendant obtain a court order to install or use the Trackers."
The lawsuit looks to cover all California residents who accessed
Buzzfeed.com in the state and had their IP address collected by any
of the Sharethrough, IQM or Dotomi trackers. [GN]
CANADA: Settles Class Suit Over Federal Pension Transfer Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Alliance of Canada announced that a settlement has
been reached in a class action lawsuit involving employees who were
required to pay higher transfer amounts when transferring their
pensionable service time from the Ontario public service into the
Federal public service pension plan. This class action was
supported from the outset by PSAC.
This settlement impacts PSAC members who began working with the
Canada Revenue Agency prior to November 1, 2012 and who experienced
increased transfer costs when transferring their pensionable
service from either the OPSEU Pension Plan or the Ontario Public
Service Pension Plan into the Federal Public Service Superannuation
Plan as part of the Ontario Sales Tax Administration Reform.
A notice approved by the Ontario Superior Court describing the next
steps in the process for impacted employees is available below. If
you are affected by this class action, you should be contacted
individually by the Government of Canada Pension Centre with the
materials linked below.
If you do not receive materials from the Pension Centre by May 15,
2024, and believe that you are a member of this class action,
please contact pensiontransferclassaction@ravenlaw.com. [GN]
CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANDE NQADOLO and PAMELA
MANGALI individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CARE AT HOME, LLC, SUZANNE KARP and DANIEL KARP, Case No.
3:22-cv-00612-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion for reconsideration of the Court's
Ruling on motions for conditional and class certifications.
The Court's discussion in the Ruling elided the allegations of
misconduct of improper exclusions of sleeping period and meal times
into interruption to sleep. The Court also conflated the subject of
"questions of law or fact" with "claims."
The Court conflated the misconducts of exclusion of 3 hours of meal
times and 8 hours of sleep time with the misconduct of failure to
count and pay for interruption to sleep.
The Plaintiffs clearly allege improper exclusion of 8 hours of
sleeping period and improper exclusion of 3 hours of meal times.
Furthermore, the Court overlooked the factual admissions and
business record which are in the record of this case and which
prove the alleged misconducts of improper exclusions of meal times
and sleeping period.
In addition, the Court should certify a conditional collective of
individuals who share a similar issue of law or fact with the
Plaintiffs concerning Plaintiffs' individual theory of liability
for interruption to sleep.
Care at Home provides home care and caregiving services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxgUyz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Telephone: (860) 249-7180
Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com
CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Faces Steahle Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN STEAHLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARGROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01447 (E.D. Pa., April 8, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant, most recently, as a Senior
Branch Manager in the St. Louis Missouri area.
Cargroup Holdings, LLC, doing business as WeBuyAnyCarUSA.com and
WeBuyAnyCar.com, is a company that engages in used automobile buy
and sell business in the U.S., including Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie L. Solomon, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
220 Grant Street, Suite 401
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 760-7802
Email: ssolomon@hkm.com
- and -
S. Cody Reinberg, Esq.
7382 Pershing Ave., 1W
St. Louis, MO 63130
Telephone: (314) 391-9557
Email: creinberg@hkm.com
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Ponce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central California
Baking Company. The case is styled as Gabriel Ponce, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central
California Baking Company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004094 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Central California Baking Co. is located in Exeter, California and
is a supplier of Bakery Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
CENTRAL GARDEN: Class Cert. Opposition Filing Amended to July 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al., v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file an opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to allow
additional time for the Defendants to complete expert discovery.
Event Current Amended
Deadline Deadline
Class certification opposition May 17, 2024 July 16,
2024
and Defendants' class
certification expert disclosures
due:
Class certification reply due: June 21, 2024 Aug. 20,
2024
Class certification hearing: July 18, 2024 Sept. 19,
2024
Central Garden is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality
branded products for the pet and lawn and garden supplies markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z0SzUR at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTURY WOODS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Tri-City Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tri-City Electric Company
of Iowa v. Century Woods IL TC, LP et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-04136-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfbNxJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
CERMAQ CANADA: Settles Price Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A report says that Fasken acted for Cermaq Canada Ltd., Cermaq
Group AS, Cermaq Norway AQ and Cermaq US LLC in a proposed price
fixing class action filed in the Federal Court of Canada.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants participated in a
price-fixing conspiracy to increase the price of farmed Atlantic
salmon, which allegedly caused loss and damage to direct, indirect
and umbrella purchasers of salmon, or products containing salmon,
in Canada during the class period. The plaintiffs asserted a claim
under section 36 of the Competition Act for breaches of the Act's
conspiracy provisions. The plaintiffs were seeking damages up to
$500 million CAD.
The parties exchanged certification submissions and reached a
Canada-wide settlement for $5,250,000 CAD before the certification
hearing in June 2023. The proposed Settlement Agreement was
approved in a decision indexed at Breckon v. Cermaq Canada Ltd.,
2024 FC 225. [GN]
CGK HOLDINGS INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGK Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CGK Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02458 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CGK Holdings, Inc. is a Domestic For-Profit Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
CHALK COUTURE: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chalk Couture
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Chalk Couture
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02601 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chalk Couture -- http://chalkcouture.com/-- is a direct sales
company focused on creating beautiful high-end DIY home decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fraker Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Fraker, Erica Reyes, Brittany Meadows, and David Custis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC. and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, Case 3:24-cv-00384 (M.D. Tenn., April 3, 2024), is
brought against Defendants for their negligent failure to protect
Plaintiffs' and Class members' confidential health and personal
identifying information from ALPHV/Blackcat, a well-known group of
cybercriminals.
On February 21, 2024, Blackcat infiltrated Defendants' information
technology networks and then stole for ransom the confidential
personal identifying information ("PII") and personal health
information ("PHI") of millions of patients across the United
States ("Data Breach"). The stolen information includes names,
phone numbers, addresses, Social Security Numbers, medical and
dental records, insurance records, and claims and payment
information, among other things. Blackcat also encrypted portions
of Defendants' network, essentially locking them out. In response
to the security breach, Defendants immediately took their network
systems offline. According to a statement from Change Healthcare,
the systems would "remain offline until they can be turned back on
safely."
The Data Breach and shutdown crippled the U.S. healthcare system
and has negatively impacted patients, hospital systems, physicians,
clinical social workers, and both private and government-owned
pharmacies. Medical providers could not verify insurance coverage
for patient treatment and procedures or receive reimbursement for
services rendered. According to an estimate from First Health
Advisory, a digital risk assurance firm, the Data Breach "is
costing some providers over $100 million a day." The U.S.
government has warned that Blackhat has hit at least 70
organizations since December 2023, a majority of them healthcare
organizations. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per
se, and unjust enrichment against Defendants and seek all available
monetary relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are victims of the Data Breach.
Change Healthcare is a healthcare technology company that works
across the U.S. health system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Spragens, Esq.
SPRAGENS LAW PLC
311 22nd Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 983-8900
Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
Email: john@spragenslaw.com
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
David M. Berger, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, California 94607
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Fax: (510) 350-9701
Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com
dmb@classlawgroup.com
rlm@classlawgroup.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Sklar Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare
Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Sklar, DC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00387 (D. Ariz., April 4, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
1 Old Country Rd., Ste. 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut St., Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
Robert Bruce Grayson K Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
4445 Lake Forest Dr., Ste. 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Fax: (513) 345-8294
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: tnaylor@gs-legal.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Weller Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare
Inc. The case is styled as James Weller, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00392 (D. Ariz., April 4, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT, LLP (NY OFFICE)
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Fax: (212) 223-6334
Email: arolon@scott-scott.com
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and -
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
James Gerard Stranch, IV
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq., Esq.
Robert Bruce Grayson K. Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (931) 349-4237
Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Maharaj
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVANAN MAHARAJ,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00064-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Torres
entered an order granting ex parte application for an order
modifying the Court's Sept. 29, 2023 Scheduling Order:
-- Plaintiff(s) shall serve on all parties a list of experts whom
that party expects to call at trial on or before April 29,
2024.
-- Defendant shall serve on all parties a list of experts whom
that
party expects to call at trial on or before April 29, 2024.
-- On or before May 29, 2024, any party may supplement its
designation in response to any other party's designation, so
long
as that party has not previously retained an expert to testify
on
that subject.
Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PbNi7f at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHECKR INC: Bahr Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Checkr, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Nicholas Bahr, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Checkr, Inc., Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC24613696 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 4, 2024).
The case type is stated "Business Tort."
Checkr -- https://checkr.com/ -- is a startup that provides either
online access or an API that returns automatically generated
background checks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
100 Pine Street Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92111
Phone: (415) 534-1911
Fax: (888) 422-5191
Email: jimt@potterhandy.com
CHICAGO CUBS: Settles Unsolicited Text Messages Suit for $1.225MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the Chicago Cubs agreed to a $1.225
million settlement to resolve claims it sent unlawful telemarketing
Cubs texts to consumers.
The settlement benefits individuals who received at least two text
messages from the Chicago Cubs within a 12-month period promoting
the team's goods for sale at least 30 days after it received a
"stop" reply since May 2, 2019.
According to the class action lawsuit, the Cubs marketing team sent
repeated telemarketing texts to consumers despite their requests to
stop. These messages allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).
The Chicago Cubs are one of Chicago's Major League Baseball (MLB)
team.
The team has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.225
million to resolve the Cubs texts class action lawsuit.
Under the settlement terms, class members can receive a share of
the net settlement fund. Class counsel estimates each class member
will receive about $300, on average, though the actual amount could
vary depending on how many Cubs texts were received.
Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically
receive a settlement payment. Class members can update their
address or select a payment method on the settlement website. Those
who do not select a method of payment will receive a paper check at
the address where they received their notice, or an electronic
payment if they received their notice via email.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 14, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June
17, 2024.
No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received at least two text messages from the
Chicago Cubs within a 12-month period promoting its goods for sales
at least 30 days after receipt of a "stop" reply since May 2, 2019
Potential Award
$300 (estimated)
Proof of Purchas N/A [GN]
CITIZENS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of August 2017 Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX REINIG, et al., v.
CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), reconsidering and reversing the
Court's Aug. 22, 2017 Order granting summary judgment to the
Defendant as to Plaintiffs "Recapture" claims brought pursuant to
the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law and the Massachusetts
Overtime Law, based on the March 28, 2024 decision issued by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court in Sutton v. Jordan's Furniture, Inc.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rC1nbU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
CITY UNIVERSITY: Initial Conference in Harriram Suit Set for May 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA HARRIRAM, v. CITY
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09712-RA-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order that an
initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be
held on May 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York.
The Court further entered an order that each party confer with all
other parties to make sure that all parties, or their attorneys,
have a copy of this Order and can attend the conference.
If any party needs to change the date of the conference, that party
must make the request, by letter, as soon as the need for a
different date is known.
City University is a public research university.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wbzaz2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CITYHOUSE INVESTMENT: Alcie Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marie Alcie, and other similarly situated individuals v. Cityhouse
Investment Inc, and Mauricio Diaz, individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-21260-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024), is brought to
recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under United
States Laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or
the "Act").
During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had a regular
schedule. Plaintiff worked five days weekly (8.5 hours daily), or
42.5 hours weekly. The Defendants deducted 30 minutes of lunchtime
daily (2.5 hours weekly), although Plaintiff could not take
bonafide lunchtime periods. Thus, Plaintiff worked a total of 42.5
hours weekly. The Plaintiff was paid for only 40 hours weekly.
Defendants improperly deducted 2.5 lunchtime hours from Plaintiff's
wages. Those 2.5 lunchtime hours constitute 2.5 unpaid overtime
hours. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly but was not paid
for overtime, as required by law.
The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track
the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her
regular rate for every hour that she worked over 40 in violation of
the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired as a property manager.
Cityhouse is a construction company specializing in residential
design and remodeling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
CJ LOGISTICS: Oct. 1 Trial in Ledbetter Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ledbetter v. CJ
Logistics America, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00967 (C.D. Cal.,
Filed June 9, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an
order granting stipulation to vacate trial and trial-related dates
and deadlines, and to schedule further status conference by Judge
Kenly Kiya Kato.
-- The Oct. 1, 2024, trial date and all trial-related dates and
deadlines set in this action are vacated.
-- The Plaintiffs' April 17, 2024, deadline to file a motion for
class certification and all other pending law and
motion-related
dates and deadlines are vacated.
-- The court sets a further status conference re: settlement for
May
23, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.
The nature of suit states Labor Management Relations.[CC]
CLEAN SKIN: Garcia Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
John Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLEAN SKIN, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-004448 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 1, 2024), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of
the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease
sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for
"text message solicitations the called party does not consent to
receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that
persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's
caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls.
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff,
brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not
configured for two-way communication when it made Telephonic Sales
Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone when it made Telephonic
Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Clean Skin Club ("Clean Skin Club Text Message Sales Calls") and
violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients'
caller identification services a telephone number that was not
capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
Clean Skin, LLC, is registered as a Florida Limited Liability
Company, which sells various goods to persons throughout the
country through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
CLEAR LINK: Class Cert. Bid in Bronstin Suit Due Jan. 27, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHER BRONSTIN v. CLEAR
LINK INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01742-CJC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac Carney entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- All discovery, including discovery motions, June 26,
2025
shall be completed by:
-- The parties shall have until Aug. 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: Oct. 27,
2025
-- The case is set for a jury trial: Nov. 4, 2025
-- The parties shall have until July 10,
2025
to conduct settlement proceedings:
-- The Plaintiff shall have until Jan. 27,
2025
to file and have heard any class
certification motion:
Clearlink provide home and auto insurance coverage.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dl1vin at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: O'Dea Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucinda O'Dea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02750
(N.D. Ill., April 5, 2024), is brought regarding Defendants' the
false, misleading, and deceptive marketing, advertising,
distribution, and sale of acne treatment products under various
brands that contain the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide ("BPO")
(the "Products"). BPO degrades over time into benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers.
These Products are not designed to contain benzene, and the use of
benzene in the manufacturing process is not "unavoidable." Thus,
the presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated
and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal
and state law. As a result, the Products are unsafe and illegal to
sell under federal law, and therefore worthless.
Although Defendants lists both active and inactive ingredients on
the Products' labels, benzene is not among those ingredients
listed. Thus, Defendants misrepresents that the Products do not
contain benzene, or otherwise Defendants fails to disclose that the
Products contain benzene. The Plaintiff and other Class Members
would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid
substantially less for the Products, had Defendants disclosed that
the Products contained or risked containing benzene, or otherwise
not misrepresented that the Products did not contain or were not at
risk of containing benzene.
The Defendants failed to detect or prevent the benzene in its
Products, and Plaintiff and consumers were harmed as a result of
Defendants' failure. The Defendants represent that the Products are
safe for their intended use. But the Products actually contain
benzene at the time of purchase, and prospective consumers are
unaware of this fact because the chemical is not included on the
Products' ingredients list or packaging. Further, Plaintiff and
Class Members reasonably relied on Defendants' representations that
the Products were safe, unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens
that are not listed on the label.
The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased and used the Product and
were therefore exposed to or risked being exposed to the harmful
presence of benzene in the Products. The Product is worthless
because it contains or risked containing benzene, a known human
carcinogen that is an avoidable ingredient in the Product and their
manufacturing process. Indeed, the presence of benzene renders the
Product adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to sell. The
Defendants failed to test for, detect, or prevent the benzene
contamination in its Product, and Plaintiff and consumers were
harmed as a result of Defendants' failure, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Clinique 2.5% BPO cream in Chicago,
Illinois within the past two years.
Clinique is an American company founded in 1973. Clinique boasts
its products as Dermatologist-tested, 100% fragrance-free, and
allergy-tested.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: 313-303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (630) 796-0903
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Luis Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861.
Email: lcardona@milberg.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
COINBASE INC: Ontario Superior Court Dismisses Cryptocurrency Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino of Canadian Lawyer Magazine reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice had dismissed on jurisdictional grounds a
motion brought in a class action lawsuit related to the
cryptocurrency platform Coinbase.
The defendants sought to dismiss the case, citing lack of
jurisdiction, and argued for a permanent stay based on the
principle of forum non conveniens. The plaintiff, who initiated the
class action, alleged mishandling by Coinbase concerning the
platform's management of digital assets and cryptocurrency
contracts.
The plaintiff's interaction with Coinbase began in 2017 through a
user agreement with Coinbase UK Ltd., which later involved other
Coinbase entities, including Coinbase Europe and Coinbase Inc. The
agreements governed the sale and purchase of digital assets,
stipulating that disputes would be subject to the laws of Ireland
and England.
However, by 2023, the relationship had shifted to Coinbase Canada
Inc., aligning with regulatory changes and a strategic
restructuring within Coinbase to localize operations in Canada.
This transition prompted the plaintiff to file a claim asserting
that the cryptocurrency sold on the Coinbase platform constituted
securities. He claimed these were issued without adhering to
necessary disclosure requirements mandated by securities
legislation across Canada, posing significant risks to investors.
The court's jurisdictional analysis was multi-faceted, considering
whether Coinbase's operational changes and the plaintiff's
agreements with various Coinbase entities established a sufficient
legal basis for the Ontario court to hear the case. The court found
that, while Coinbase Canada had a discernible business presence in
Ontario, other Coinbase entities did not meet the threshold to be
considered as conducting business in the province for
jurisdictional purposes.
Ultimately, the court ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear the
action against Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., and Coinbase Global.
The court also ordered a permanent stay of the action against
Coinbase Canada on the basis of forum non conveniens. [GN]
COMCAST CABLE: Harper Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shandrelle Harper, Daniel Frank, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable
Communications LLC d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00072 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 5, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01441-JMY to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/--
incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest
American multinational telecommunications and media
conglomerate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
COPELAND STAIR VALZ AND LOVELL
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 727-0307
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr., Esq.
BARNWELL WHALEY PATTERSON AND HELMS (CHA)
PO Drawer H
211 King Street, Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29402
Phone: (843) 577-7700
Fax: (843) 577-7708
- and -
Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
PO Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 799-2000
Fax: (803) 256-7500
CONSOL ENERGY: Bid for Class Certification Due April 30, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MOORE on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and FRANK R. FEREZA, JR.,
v. CONSOL ENERGY INC. and CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01991-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman
IV entered a case management order as follows:
-- Any consented-to amended pleadings or May 2, 2024
joinder of parties shall be filed by:
-- Lacking consent, any party may file a May 2, 2024
Motion to Amend Pleadings and/or any
Motion to Join Parties by:
-- Discovery shall commence: April 2, 2024
-- Fact discovery shall close on: Jan. 30, 2025
-- Expert discovery shall close on: April 2, 2025
-- All discovery shall close on: April 2, 2025
-- Any motion for class certification April 30, 2025
is due by:
-- Brief in opposition is due by: May 30, 2025
-- Any reply brief is due by: June 16, 2025
Consol is an American energy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zkXnay at no extra
charge.[CC]
CORRECTCARE DATA: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re CorrectCare Data Breach Litigation,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00319-DCR (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny Reeves
entered an order as follows:
-- 1. Denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for
preliminary approval of class action settlement; and
-- 2. Within 21 days, the parties are directed to tender a status
report or a renewed motion for preliminary approval of
settlement which is consistent with this Memorandum Opinion
and
Order and addresses the Court's concerns.
The Plaintiffs Virginia Hiley, Christopher Knight, Kyle Marks, and
Marlena Yates, and Defendant CorrectCare Integrated Health, LLC
have entered into a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement.
The plaintiffs have filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement, to approve the form and method for
giving notice of
the Settlement to the Settlement Class, and to schedule a final
approval hearing.
On July 6, 2022, CorrectCare discovered that two of its file
directories located on a web server inadvertently had been exposed
to the public internet (the "Data Breach").
CorrectCare subsequently sent notice to around 600,000 individuals
whose personal identifiable information and personal health
information was exposed in the Data Breach.
On Dec. 7, 2022, Plaintiff Virginia Hiley filed suit against
CorrectCare, individually and purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated individuals.
Hiley, Knight, Marks, and Yates were permitted to file a
Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 24, 2023. Each alleges
that he or she provided private information to CorrectCare as a
condition of receiving medical services while serving a sentence in
a correctional facility that utilized CorrectCare's services.
CorrectCare is a third-party administrator that facilitates access
to medical providers and manages medical claims payment for
correctional facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=beMH1L at no extra
charge.[CC]
COTIVITI INC: Parties in Pichler Must File Bid for Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pichler v. Cotiviti, Inc.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00884 (D. Utah, Filed Dec. 6, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order directing the parties to
file a new motion for a scheduling order within 30 days of the
court's ruling on the motion to certify class.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Cotiviti is a solutions and analytics company.[CC]
COVANTA HOLDING: Order Striking Motions Entered in Brashevitzky
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RABBI AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY
and MARIA ALEJANDRA DURAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. COVANTA HOLDING CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge David Leibowitz
entered an order that the following motions are stricken:
1. Unopposed Motion to Seal.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, with leave to re-file.
3. Defendants' Motion to Strike or Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert
Declarations, with leave to re-file.
The Court further orders that all responses and replies filed with
respect to the stricken motions above be terminated. The refiled
motions and any related refiled responses and relies shall all be
refiled within 14 days from the date of this Order.
With respect to the refiling of the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class, the parties have represented that the refiled motion will
contain two redacted exhibits; otherwise, the refiled Motion to
Certify Class will be unredacted. There will be no refiled Motion
to Seal with respect to any Motion to Certify Class.
Covanta is a private energy-from-waste and industrial waste
management services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FbeqH5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert. Reply Due March 4, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB
MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD
U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF
CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; C&W FACILITY SERVICES,
INC., a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an
order directing the parties to adhere to the following class
certification schedule:
Event Deadline
Deadline to amend pleadings: April 30, 2024
Mediation completion deadline: Feb. 7, 2025
Class certification motion due: Oct. 1, 2024
Class certification opposition due: Dec. 17, 2024
Class certification reply due: March 4, 2025
Class certification expert Sept. 6, 2024
disclosures due:
Cushman is a global commercial real estate services firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FhM0vi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
Clare E. Moran, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
cmoran@maternlawgroup.com
- and -
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Telephone: (310) 312-0299;
Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
bass@law-rm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John R. Giovannone, Esq.
Linda Wang, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-6300
E-mail: jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com
lwang@cdflaborlaw.com
- and -
Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP
4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
Telephone: (213) 452-0510
Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
CV SCIENCES: Colette Suit Stayed
---------------------------------
CV Sciences Inc. disclosed in its form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the Central District of
California court stayed the Colette class suit pursuant to its
original order.
On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a
putative class action complaint in the Central District of
California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products
violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the "Colette
Complaint").
On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Colette Complaint.
Instead of opposing the Company's motion, plaintiffs elected to
file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020.
On March 10, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this
proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended
complaint.
The court's order stated that the portion of the proceeding that is
stayed will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (the "FDA") completes its rulemaking regarding the
marketing, including labelling, of CBD ingestible products.
However, on January 26, 2023, the FDA announced that it does not
intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of cannabidiol
products in dietary supplements or conventional foods.
As a result, on February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a status report
with the court asking to have the stay lifted.
The Company filed a written opposition.
The court has taken no action since Plaintiffs filed that status
report, and the case remains stayed pursuant to the court's
original order.
CV Sciences, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets and sells herbal
supplements and hemp-based cannabidiol (CBD). The company's
PlusCBD(TM) branded products are sold at select retail locations
in a variety of market sectors including nutraceutical, beauty
care
and specialty foods. In addition, subject to available capital,
the company is pursuing drug candidates which use CBD as a primary
active ingredient.
D2 LLC: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICIO MARTINEZ,
GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ, and FRANCISCO GIRON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. D2, LLC d/b/a UNIVISION NOW,
Case No. 1:23-cv-21394-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying this case as a class action;
(2) appointing the named plaintiffs as class representatives;
(3) appointing Matthew R. Wilson of Meyer Wilson Co., LPA and
Brian
Levin of Levin Law, P.A. as class counsel; and
(4) directing the parties to submit a proposed class notice plan
and form within 14 days.
The case arises from the Defendant violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
The proposed Class definition consists of persons in the United
States who (1) subscribed to Univision NOW, (2) requested or
obtained prerecorded video materials on Univision NOW's website,
(3) used Facebook while the Pixel was active on Univision’s
website, and (4)
had their viewing information disclosed to Meta.
Univision is an online, Spanish-language video-streaming service
that offers prerecorded videos to its subscribers at the website
www.UnivisionNOW.com.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pvMuuY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Jared W. Connors, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd
Columbus, OH 43201
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
jconnors@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Brian Levin Brian Levin, Esq.
Brandon Thomas Grzandziel, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, PA
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 402-9050
Facsimile: (305) 676-4443
E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
brandon@levinlawpa.com
D2C LLC: Joint Bid For Extension of Time Filed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICIO MARTINEZ,
GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ, and FRANCISCO GIRON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. D2C, LLC d/b/a UNIVISION NOW,
Case No. 1:23-cv-21394-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order granting the requested extensions, through and
including Tuesday, April 23, 2024, for Univision to respond to the
Motion, and through and including Tuesday, May 7, 2024, for the
Plaintiffs to file their reply.
Univision is a streaming service that provides access to live and
on-demand content in the entertainment and media industry.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eFR8l1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Levin, Esq.
Kaki J. Johnson, Esq.
Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 402-9050
Facsimile: (305) 676-4443
E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
kaki@levinlawpa.com
brandon@levinlawpa.com
sarah@levinlawpa.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Jared W. Connors, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
jconnors@meyerwilson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Yvette Ostolaza, Esq.
Ian M. Ross, Esq.
Carmen M. Ortega, Esq.
Dianne O. Fischer, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 391-5100
Facsimile: (305) 391-5101
E-mail: yvette.ostolaza@sidley.com
deedee.fischer@sidley.com
iross@sidley.com
carmen.ortega@sidley.com
D2C LLC: Martinez Allowed to File Sealed Version of Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. D2C, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-21394 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Robert N/. Scola, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to seal.
-- The Plaintiffs may file a sealed version of its motion for
class
certification but shall be extremely conservative in
determining
what needs to be sealed.
Univision is an online, Spanish-language video-streaming service
that offers prerecorded videos to its subscribers at the website
www.UnivisionNOW.com.[CC]
DAA DRAEXLMAIER: Figueroa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAA Draexlmaier
Automotive of America, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Zuammy
Figueroa, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DAA Draexlmaier Automotive of America, LLC, Case No.
24CV070369 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 4, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
DAA Draexlmaier Automotive of America, LLC --
https://us.draexlmaier.com/ -- manufactures and markets automobile
interiors and central electrical and electronic components.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
DANCE AMERICA INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dance America, Inc.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dance America, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02605 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dance America -- https://www.dance-america.com/ -- is the
one-stop-shop for all Ballroom Dancewear needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Consolidated Securities Class Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danimer Scientific Inc. disclosed in its form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the consolidated
securities class suits remain pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On May 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Darryl Keith
Rosencrants in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on May 18, 2021, a class action complaint was
filed by Carlos Caballeros in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, on May 18, 2021, a class action
complaint was filed by Dennis H. Wilkins also in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, and on May 19,
2021, a class action complaint was filed by Elizabeth and John
Skistimas in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
Each plaintiff or plaintiffs brought the action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against the Company.
The alleged class varies in each case but covers all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
our securities between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021 ("Class
Period").
Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and are pursuing
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The complaints are substantially similar and are each premised upon
various allegations that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding, among
other things, our business, operations and compliance policies.
Plaintiffs seek the following remedies: (i) determining that the
lawsuits may be maintained as class actions under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying a class
representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages allegedly
sustained by plaintiffs and the class members by reason of the acts
alleged in the complaints, and (iv) awarding pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.
On July 29, 2021, the Georgia court transferred the Georgia cases
to New York, and all four class actions have been consolidated into
a single lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York.
On January 19, 2022, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
("Amended Complaint") was filed in the Eastern District of New
York, naming as defendants the Company, its directors and certain
of its officers as well as certain former directors (collectively,
"Defendants").
The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of
(i) purchasers of shares of the Company during the Class Period,
(ii) all holders of the Company’s Class A common stock entitled
to vote on the merger transaction between the Company and Meredian
Holdings Group, Inc. consummated on December 28, 2020 and (iii)
purchasers of Company securities pursuant to the Company’s
Registration Statement on Form S-4 that was declared effective on
December 16, 2020 or the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-1 that was declared effective on February 16, 2021. The Amended
Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10(b)-5(a)-(c) promulgated
thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). Plaintiffs seek the
following remedies: (a) a determination that the lawsuit is a
proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and certifying Plaintiffs as class representative,
(b) awarding compensatory and punitive damages allegedly sustained
by the class members by reason of the acts set forth in the Amended
Complaint and (c) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
experts’ fees and other costs. On September 30, 2023, the court
issued an Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, and denying
Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. On October 27, 2023, the
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which remains pending.
Danimer Scientific, Inc. (formerly Live Oak Acquisition Corp.),
together with its subsidiaries is a performance polymer company
specializing in bioplastic replacements for traditional
petroleum-based plastics. On December 29, 2020, Live Oak
consummated a business combination with Meredian Holdings Group,
Inc., with Legacy Danimer surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Live Oak. In connection with the Business
Combination, Live Oak changed its name to Danimer Scientific, Inc.
DAPPER LABS: Bid for Class Certification in Friel Suit Due May 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEEUN FRIEL, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAPPER LABS,
INC. AND ROHAM GHAREGOZLOU, Case No. 1:21-cv-05837-VM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero entered an order
1. Initial disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) to be
completed within 14 days of the date of the parties'
conference
pursuant to Rule 26(f), specifically by not later than April
12,
2023.
2. All fact discovery is to be completed by not later than June
17,
2024.
3. Plaintiffs’ Expert reports due July 17, 2024.
4. Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts to be completed by August
17,
2024.
5. Defendants' Expert reports due Sept. 17, 2024.
6. Depositions of Defendants' Experts to be completed by October
21, 2024.
7. Motion for class certification due May 2, 2024.
Dapper is a consumer-focused flow blockchain product made for fun
and games and supports digital collectibles.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QOIbIB at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAZN US LLC: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Flores, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. DAZN US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful disclosure of
its customers' personally identifiable information and to seek
redress for all those who have been harmed by Defendant's
misconduct and for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA"), which prohibits the disclosure of consumers' video
viewing history without their informed, written consent.
Like other video streaming services such as Netflix, Defendant
offers a paid subscription that permits users to pay to have access
to its provided video content. Critically, Defendant utilizes a
wide array of extremely sophisticated tracking technology that
collects its subscribers' personally identifiable information
("PII"), including information which identifies a person as having
viewed specific videos on Defendant's streaming service. Defendant
knowingly discloses this information to third party analytic and
advertising providers so that they can target specific users with
tailored advertisements based on their viewing history.
However, Defendant discloses its subscribers' PII without their
consent, and in doing so, Defendant has violated the VPPA and
Plaintiff's and the other Class members' statutory rights.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and
equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's
practices of knowingly disclosing its subscribers' PII to
third-parties in violation of the VPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has had a paid subscription to Defendant's DAZN
streaming service within the past two years.
The Defendant is the operator of DAZN, a globally popular video
streaming service dedicated to providing prerecorded and live
boxing content to its subscribers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002 Ex. 3
Fax: 312-275-7895
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
DELTA AIR: Discovery Deadline Extension in Goodyear Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the request for an extension of the discovery
deadline.
The extended discovery deadline shall be 180 days from the filing
of an answer. Any motions to amend the pleadings must be filed by
May 3, 2024, unless the filing party has obtained prior permission
of the Court to file later.
The Parties are directed to move for a second scheduling order
setting deadlines for Motions for summary judgment and the filing
of a pretrial order after any issues related to class certification
are resolved.
Within 14 days from the entry of this Order, counsel for the
parties are directed to confer and determine whether any party will
likely be requested to disclose or produce substantial information
from electronic or computer-based media.
Delta Air is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qf9KHc at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELTA DENTAL: Bids to Certify Class Suit Over Reimbursement Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Ganski of Ada News reports that a group of dentists is asking
a judge to certify their case against Delta Dental as a class
action lawsuit, alleging the company suppressed reimbursement
rates.
It's the latest in an ongoing battle between dentists and the Delta
Dental Plans and the Delta Dental Plans Association. In 2019, the
ADA filed a class action lawsuit , alleging that Delta violated the
antitrust laws by agreeing to reduce reimbursements to
participating dentists through territorial restrictions, fix prices
for specific dental goods and services and restrict competition
from other competitors.
Numerous individual dentists also filed class action complaints
against Delta, and the allegations in the various complaints were
later combined into a single consolidated complaint. Judge Elaine
Bucklo, of the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois,
is presiding over the consolidated pretrial proceedings in the
litigation.
In February, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to
certify the case as a class action on the grounds that roughly
240,000 dental providers have been substantially harmed by the
alleged conspiracy and that evidence common to the proposed class
confirms the existence of the conspiracy to suppress reimbursement
rates.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to certify a class of all
dental providers who provided dental goods or services to a Delta
Dental insured and were reimbursed directly by a one of the Delta
defendants and who were subject to a Delta Dental participating
provider agreement (excluding HMO and public entitlement plans) in
the United States from Oct. 11, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2022. The
plaintiffs are seeking appropriate money damages to be awarded to
class members as well as an injunction making Delta change its
practices.
The Delta defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, but Judge Bucklo issued an opinion denying Delta's
motion in September 2020. The parties then embarked on several
years of intensive discovery, exchanging voluminous documentation
and taking nearly 200 depositions.
In December 2023, in response to a subpoena requiring the ADA to
produce one or more of its employees to appear for a deposition,
two members of the ADA's senior staff provided deposition testimony
on behalf of the ADA.
The court's ruling on whether to certify the case as a class action
will be an important milestone in the litigation, according to the
ADA's legal division. Under the court's current scheduling order,
Delta's response to the plaintiffs' class certification motion is
due on June 18, followed by additional discovery and further
briefing to be completed by Dec. 19. At the conclusion of the
briefing, the court will set a date for a hearing on the motion for
class certification. Following the court's ruling on the issue of
class certification, the court will set a schedule for further
pre-trial proceedings.
ADA News will continue to update members when there are
developments in the case. [GN]
DESIGNER BRANDS: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Designer Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Designer Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02415-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Designer Brands Inc. -- https://www.designerbrands.com/ -- is an
American company that sells designer and name brand shoes and
fashion accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
DETROIT PIZZA: Bid for Conditional Class Cert Due August 2
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN GEORGES and JEREL
POOL, individually and on behalf, v. DETROIT PIZZA NYC LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11164-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman
entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order:
-- Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be
filed
no later than April 24, 2024.
-- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than March 25,
2025.
-- All expert discovery, including disclosures, reports, rebuttal
reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions
shall
be completed by May 9, 2025.
-- All discovery shall be completed no later than March 25, 2025.
-- Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than May
16, 2025.
-- Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification due by Aug. 2,
2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fhXQzn at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEVON ENERGY: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madeline A. Wright, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon
Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. 2:22-cv-00213-KHR (D.
Wyo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to:
-- certify the Settlement Class,
-- preliminarily approve the Class Action Settlement,
-- approve the form and manner of notice to the Settlement Class,
-- appoint a Settlement Administrator,
-- appoint an Escrow Agent, and
-- set a date for a final fairness hearing.
The Plaintiff provides the grounds for the relief requested in this
Motion in the accompanying brief in support.
Devon is an energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qJcDXn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is 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
Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
– and –
Rick Erb, Esq.
RICHARD A. ERB, JR., PC
Gillette, WY 82717
Telephone: (307) 682-0215
Facsimile: (307) 682-1339 fax
E-mail: rick@rickerb.com
DIGNITY HEALTH: Boeggeman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health, et
al. The case is styled as Charlana Boeggeman, Benjamin Ricks,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dignity Health, Case No. CGC24613725 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 5, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (failure to
authorize and permit third rest periods; failure to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements; violations of the Unfair
Competition Law)."
Dignity Health -- https://www.dignityhealth.org/ -- provides
compassionate, high-quality, affordable health care services
throughout Arizona, California and Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C. St. Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92101-5394
Phone: 619-595-3001
Fax: 619-595-3000
Email: msinger@ckslaw.com
DISTINCTIVE LOADERS: Sauceda Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jeovany Isahi Isaula Sauceda and, all others
similarly situated v. DISTINCTIVE LOADERS, LLC, JOSE C LITENSKI and
CHRISSIE LITENSKI, Case No. 2024-036713-CC-24 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-21214-KMW.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for a federal overtime wage violation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, #605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone: (305) 865-6766
Fax: (305) 865-7167
Email: zabogado@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles S. Caulkins, Esq.
John Y. Doty, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
201 E. Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4800
Email: ccaulkins@fisherphillips.com
jdoty@fisherphillips.com
DOLAR SHOP: Parties Must Submit Proposed Pretrial Order by June 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lin, et al., v. THE DOLAR
SHOP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02474
(E.D.N.Y., Filed May 16, 2016), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner
entered a class certification order as follows:
-- In light of the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the last date to take the first step in
dispositive
motion practice is May 3, 2024.
-- In the absence of the initiation of dispositive motions, the
parties shall file their proposed joint pretrial order by June
3,
2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Dolar Shop is a restaurants company.[CC]
DOLLS KILL: Echeverria-Corzan Sues Over Misleading Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonni Echeverria-Corzan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DOLLS KILL, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02040
(N.D. Cal., April 3, 2024), is brought under California's False
Advertising Law which prohibits businesses from making statements
they know or should know to be untrue or misleading, resulting in
the Defendants false advertising.
On its website, Defendant lists purported regular prices and
advertises purported time-limited discounts from those listed
regular prices. These include limited-time discounts offering "up
to X% off" and "X% off." The discounts are made available by using
a discount code, such as "XXTRA25." Defendant uses countdown clocks
to represent that its sales are on the verge of ending. Defendant
also advertises that its Products have a lower discount price as
compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or
strikethrough font.
Far from being time-limited, however, Defendant's discounts are
regularly available. As a result, everything about Defendant's
price and purported discount advertising is false. The regular
prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular
prices, because Defendant's Products are routinely available for
less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are
not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not
a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited-time or
expiring after the countdown clock runs out—quite the opposite,
they are consistently available using a discount code.
When the Plaintiff made her purchase, Defendant advertised that a
sale was going on, and so Defendant represented that the Products
the Plaintiff purchased were being offered at a steep discount from
their purported regular prices that Defendant advertised. And based
on Defendant's representations, the Plaintiff believed that she was
purchasing Products whose regular price and market value were the
purported regular prices that Defendant advertised, that she was
receiving a substantial discount, and that the opportunity to get
that discount was time-limited. These reasonable beliefs are what
caused the Plaintiff to buy from Defendant when she did.
In truth, however, the representations the Plaintiff relied on were
not true. The purported regular prices were not the true regular
prices that Defendant sells the products for, the purported
discounts were not the true discounts, and the discounts were
ongoing--not time--limited. Had Defendant been truthful, the
Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the
Products, or would have paid less for them, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff bought items from Defendant from its website,
www.dollskill.com.
Dolls Kill, Inc. sells and markets clothing and accessories
products online through the Dolls Kill brand and website,
www.dollskill.com.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, ca 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
DV8 DANCE COMPLEX: Ruiz Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DV8 Dance Complex,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Roberta Ruiz, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated vs. DV8 Dance Complex, LLC,
Angela Landis, also known as Angela Gayle Landis; Derek Landis,
also known as Derek Todd Landis; Melanie Tyler-Horne, also known as
Melanie Lyn Tyler-Horne, also known as Melanie Tyler, also known as
Melanie Horne; individually and in their official capacity as
owners, managing members, Case No. 24-3024-442 (Tex. Dist. Ct.,
April 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil.
Dv8 Dance Complex, featuring Dv8 The Company --
https://dv8dancecomplex.com/ -- is the ultimate in pre-professional
dance training for all ages.[BN]
EDUSTAFF LLC: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDUSTAFF, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00326 (W.D. Mich., March 29,
2024) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief
based on Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals for overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act.
Plaintiff Williams began his employment at Lincoln Park Public
Schools in October 2010. He primarily reported to work at a
facility owned and operated by LPPS at 1701 Champaign Rd, Lincoln
Park, Michigan. In 2016, Edustaff was engaged by LPPS to provide
employee staff to provide work at LPPS facilities. Edustaff hired
Plaintiff Williams in 2016.
The Plaintiff worked for Edustaff as an intervention specialist at
LPPS. His duties includes providing school security for students at
LPPS. He also worked as a mentor for at-risk students at LPPS. He
worked over 40 hours per week in his combined roles but he was not
paid overtime for hours worked over 40 hours, says the Plaintiff.
Edustaff, LLC is a staffing agency that provides substitute
teachers, food service workers, custodial staff, and
paraprofessionals to school districts throughout Michigan and ten
other states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert. M. Howard, Esq.
Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
CUNNINGHAM DALMAN, P.C.
940 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Suite 253
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 458-6814
ELLA + MILA INC: Competello Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ella + Mila, Inc. The
case is styled as Susan Competello, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Ella + Mila, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02547 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ella+Mila -- https://www.ellamila.com/ -- is a webshop that sells
nail polish, nail care, lip scrub, makeup gifts, body scrub,
moisturizing cream, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bennitta Lisa Joseph, Esq.
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
JON L. NORINSBERG, ESQ., PLLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 791-5396
Fax: (212) 406-6890
Email: bennittaj@gmail.com
jon@norinsberglaw.com
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Parties Must File Status Report by April 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palm Tran, Inc. --
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan v. Emergent
BioSolutions Inc., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00955 (D. Md., Filed
April 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge entered an order directing the
parties to file a status report by April 23, 2024, regarding
settlement discussions and whether the Court should rule on the
unopposed motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states contract -- Stockholders' suits.
Emergent is an American multinational specialty biopharmaceutical
company.[CC]
EQT CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing in Ross Due July 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and
FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT CORPORATION
COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and
VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D.
Pa.), the Court entered a stipulated scheduling order:
-- Class certification and the current phase July 11, 2024
Merits discovery shall close on:
The Court says that class certification and the current phase of
merits discovery shall be served or noticed so that the responding
party has the full amount of time permitted by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to respond by this date.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqU2m5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott M. Hare, Esq.
Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq.
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP
11 Stanwix St., Suite 1400
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
- and -
Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
The Defendants are represented by:
James L. ROckney, Esq.
Justin H. Werner, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
2225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
ESH RESTAURANT: Paguay Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE PAGUAY, on behalf of
himself and the class, v. ESH RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, et al, Case No.
1:23-cv-08434-JPO-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker
entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and staying action pending arbitration.
The Plaintiff's counsel should promptly file the Plaintiff's claims
in the appropriate arbitration forum and the parties shall file a
joint update on the status of the arbitration by Monday, July 1,
2024. Although the Order disposes of the Motion to Compel
Arbitration, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to
leave that motion open until the Motion to Dismiss is addressed or
the Honorable J. Paul Oetken otherwise directs that the motion be
terminated.
This putative class and collective action brought by Plaintiff Jose
Paguay involves claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid overtime and wages and
seeks class-wide injunctive relief pertaining to an arbitration
agreement signed by Plaintiff and other putative class members.
On Jan.27, 2023, the Plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement
with the Restaurant.
The Plaintiff brought this action on September 25, 2023. He alleges
that throughout his employment at the Restaurant, he was required
to clock out for lunch but work through his lunch break, resulting
in the deprivation of overtime and regular wages in violation of
the FLSA and NYLL.
From Jan. 10, 2023 to Feb. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff was employed at
a Restaurant owned and operated by the Defendants.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w1lSDj at no extra
charge.[CC]
EXPERIAN INFO: Pena Seeks to Modify Class Cert Bids Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in
Interest to JOSE PENA, Individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order modifying the deadlines entered with respect to the
Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification in the Court's
March 12, 2024 Order, and in support states as follows:
1. Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 8, 2023 Order, the deadline for
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was set for
March
1, 2024, the deadline for Experian's opposition was set for
four
weeks later on March 29, 2024, and the Plaintiff's reply
deadline was set four weeks after that, on April 26, 2024.
2. The Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class Certification as
contemplated by the original schedule, on March 1, 2024.
3. The Plaintiff and Experian submitted a Stipulation for
Extension
of time to file opposition and reply briefs to the Motion on
March 6, 2024, seeking a deadline for Experian's opposition
brief of April 10, 2024 and a reply deadline four weeks later
on
May 10, 2024.
4. The Court granted the parties' stipulation, modifying the
deadlines to set a deadline for Experian's opposition brief
of
June 7, 2024, Plaintiff's reply deadline one week later on
June
14, 2024, and a hearing date of July, 12, 2024.
5. The Plaintiff therefore moves for an order extending the
reply
deadline by two weeks from June 14, 2024 to June 28, 2024,
and
moving the hearing on the Motion from July 12, 2014 to Aug.
2,
2024 or another later date ordered by the Court.
6. The parties have conferred and Experian does not oppose the
requested relief.
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KWyfUo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erika Angelos Heath, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
369 Pine Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (628) 246-1352
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com FRANCIS
EXPERIAN: Dawodu Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Toyin Dawodu, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EXPERIAN, A COMP., TRANSUNION, A
COMP., EQUIFAX INC., A COMP., CREDIT ONE BANK, A CORP., FIRST
NATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, A CORP., FIRST PREMIER BANK, A CORP.,
LENDING CLUB, A COMP., FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD, A ORG., APPLIED
BANK, A CORP., CAPITAL ONE, A CORP., CCS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, A
CORP., US BANK, A CORP., STATE FARM, A CORP., CREDIT MANAGEMENT LP,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, SPECTRUM.COM, AND DOES 1-50, Case No.
CVRI2400894 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California County of Riverside, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on April 1, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00686.
The Complaint in the State Court Action was filed with the Clerk of
the State of California for the County of Riverside on February 16,
2024. This Notice is being filed with this Court within thirty (30)
days after Experian received a copy of Plaintiff's initial pleading
setting forth the claims for relief upon which Plaintiff's action
is based.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandon L. Winchel, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612.4408
Phone: +1.949.851.3939
Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539
Email: bwinchel@jonesday.com
F.P.H. SALES CORP: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F.P.H. Sales Corp.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. F.P.H. Sales Corp., Case No.
1:24-cv-02565 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fountain Pen Hospital -- https://www.fountainpenhospital.com/ --
has been the source for fine writing instruments for over 65
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FCA US: Suit Seeks to Certify Residential Property Occupant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA CLAYTON, and HAZELL
STROBLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v
FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12995-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
1. The Plaintiffs bring common law claims under Michigan state
law
against the Defendant for Nuisance (Count I) and Negligence
(Count II).
2. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a proposed class defined
as
follows:
"All owner-occupants and renters of residential property
located, in whole or in part, within one mile (1.0) of the
Defendant's Facility, located at 2101 Connor Street/4000 St.
Jean Street, Detroit, Michigan from March 1, 2021 to the
present."
3. Plaintiffs' proposed class action satisfies the requirements
of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). Class certification is thus
appropriate, and class litigation would undoubtedly be the
superior method for determining the Defendant's common law
liability.
4. Throughout this litigation, there have been multiple
conferences
between the Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Defendant's Counsel
regarding the Plaintiffs' request for class certification,
and
concurrence was not obtained.
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a0OJvN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
lsheets@lsccounsel.com
mrobb@lsccounsel.com
FEDERAL BUREAU: Martin Class Cert Bid Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA MARTIN, v. FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00618-APM
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as moot.
The Plaintiff's due process claim "fails because she did not
exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit." The court
therefore
dismisses this action for failure to exhaust.
The Plaintiff Linda Martin brings this putative class action
against the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and its
Director Christopher Ray in his official capacity, asserting a due
process claim under the Fifth Amendment. The Plaintiff alleges that
the notice she received from the FBI initiating forfeiture
proceedings for her seized property was constitutionally inadequate
because it failed to include the factual and legal justifications
for the seizure and forfeiture.
In early 2020, Ms. Martin rented a safe deposit box from U.S.
Private Vaults ("USPV"), a private company that offered biometric
security features and 24‐hour service. The Plaintiff stored in
the box $40,200 in cash that she and her husband had saved for a
down payment on a house.
On March 17, 2021, the FBI obtained a search warrant to seize
USPV's facilities and instrumentalities, including its "nest" of
safe deposit boxes.
On June 10, 2021, the FBI sent the Plaintiff a Notice of Seizure of
Property and Initiation of Administrative Forfeiture Proceedings.
FBI is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United
States.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iODPlh
at no extra charge.[CC]
FLO HEALTH: High Court Certifies Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristel Kriel, Danielle Barchyn, Jason Mohrbutter, K.C., Cael
Hibbert, Kennedy Pinette of MLTaikins report that in Lam v. Flo
Health Inc., 2024 BCSC 391, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
certified a proposed class action lawsuit against Flo Health Inc.
for an alleged privacy breach involving users of the Flo Health &
Period Tracker application. We have previously written about the
use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).
Background
The Flo Health & Period Tracker is an interactive, AI-based
application that assists with tracking all phases of the
reproductive cycle. The application requires users to input
personal and health information and to consent to a privacy policy
for its use.
Flo Health's original privacy policy informed users that certain
personal information would be shared with third-party analytics
vendors in an anonymous format. In 2019, the company updated its
privacy policy and formed partnerships with third-party analytics
providers, giving them access to any information obtained from the
application for advertising and product promotion purposes. In
response, the plaintiff filed a proposed class action on behalf of
nearly one million Canadian users, alleging breaches of privacy
law, breach of confidence and negligence.
Court findings
The Court examined the requirements for a class proceeding under
Section 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act. In the process, they
found that the class members' claims involved common issues under
the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
(PIPEDA), particularly around the requirement for meaningful
consent before sharing personal information with third parties. The
Court recognized a shared concern over the violation of privacy
legislation in the handling and sharing of personal information
with third parties and related damages claims. The Court also noted
the growing importance of privacy protection, stating:
The ever-increasing modern capacity to capture, store and retrieve
information in our digital age has led to a corresponding need for
the legal capacity to protect privacy. Privacy legislation has been
recognized as being accorded quasi-constitutional status. In a
similar manner, privacy torts - such as intrusion upon seclusion
and breach of confidence - continue to evolve, and their proper
scope in our modern world must continue to be addressed by our
courts.
The Court concluded that the plaintiff met the requirement for
certification. The Court certified the claim as a class proceeding
for 1,045,586 Canadian residents (excluding Quebec) who used the
application from June 1, 2016 to February 23, 2019.
Key takeaways
The class action certification against Flo Health establishes that
organizations must carefully manage their personal information. The
decision highlights the need for clear privacy policies,
particularly when sharing data with third parties and emphasizes
the importance of obtaining meaningful consent. The case serves as
an important reminder for businesses to prioritize user privacy to
avoid similar legal repercussions.
How we can assist you
As experienced privacy and class action lawyers, we're equipped to
guide businesses through these complex issues. From advising on
best practices for data handling and security to representing
companies in class action lawsuits, we're here to help you navigate
and stay ahead of potential legal pitfalls. We believe in a
proactive defense and strive to ensure that you're not only
compliant with the law but also protected against unforeseen
liabilities.
If you're interested in learning more about data protection and
class action defence, the lawyers in our Class Action and Privacy,
Data Protection & Cybersecurity groups have wide-ranging experience
helping a variety of organizations in these areas. Contact us to
learn more.
Note: This article is of a general nature only and is not
exhaustive of all possible legal rights or remedies. In addition,
laws may change over time and should be interpreted only in the
context of particular circumstances such that these materials are
not intended to be relied upon or taken as legal advice or opinion.
Readers should consult a legal professional for specific advice in
any particular situation.
In Lam v. Flo Health Inc., 2024 BCSC 391, the Supreme Court of
British Columbia certified a proposed class action lawsuit against
Flo Health Inc. for an alleged privacy breach involving users of
the Flo Health & Period Tracker application. We have previously
written about the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).
Background
The Flo Health & Period Tracker is an interactive, AI-based
application that assists with tracking all phases of the
reproductive cycle. The application requires users to input
personal and health information and to consent to a privacy policy
for its use.
Flo Health's original privacy policy informed users that certain
personal information would be shared with third-party analytics
vendors in an anonymous format. In 2019, the company updated its
privacy policy and formed partnerships with third-party analytics
providers, giving them access to any information obtained from the
application for advertising and product promotion purposes. In
response, the plaintiff filed a proposed class action on behalf of
nearly one million Canadian users, alleging breaches of privacy
law, breach of confidence and negligence.
Court findings
The Court examined the requirements for a class proceeding under
Section 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act. In the process, they
found that the class members' claims involved common issues under
the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
(PIPEDA), particularly around the requirement for meaningful
consent before sharing personal information with third parties. The
Court recognized a shared concern over the violation of privacy
legislation in the handling and sharing of personal information
with third parties and related damages claims. The Court also noted
the growing importance of privacy protection, stating:
The ever-increasing modern capacity to capture, store and retrieve
information in our digital age has led to a corresponding need for
the legal capacity to protect privacy. Privacy legislation has been
recognized as being accorded quasi-constitutional status. In a
similar manner, privacy torts - such as intrusion upon seclusion
and breach of confidence - continue to evolve, and their proper
scope in our modern world must continue to be addressed by our
courts.
The Court concluded that the plaintiff met the requirement for
certification. The Court certified the claim as a class proceeding
for 1,045,586 Canadian residents (excluding Quebec) who used the
application from June 1, 2016 to February 23, 2019.
Key takeaways
The class action certification against Flo Health establishes that
organizations must carefully manage their personal information. The
decision highlights the need for clear privacy policies,
particularly when sharing data with third parties and emphasizes
the importance of obtaining meaningful consent. The case serves as
an important reminder for businesses to prioritize user privacy to
avoid similar legal repercussions.
How we can assist you
As experienced privacy and class action lawyers, we're equipped to
guide businesses through these complex issues. From advising on
best practices for data handling and security to representing
companies in class action lawsuits, we're here to help you navigate
and stay ahead of potential legal pitfalls. We believe in a
proactive defense and strive to ensure that you're not only
compliant with the law but also protected against unforeseen
liabilities.
If you're interested in learning more about data protection and
class action defence, the lawyers in our Class Action and Privacy,
Data Protection & Cybersecurity groups have wide-ranging experience
helping a variety of organizations in these areas. Contact us to
learn more.
Note: This article is of a general nature only and is not
exhaustive of all possible legal rights or remedies. In addition,
laws may change over time and should be interpreted only in the
context of particular circumstances such that these materials are
not intended to be relied upon or taken as legal advice or opinion.
Readers should consult a legal professional for specific advice in
any particular situation. [GN]
FLORIDA PREPAID: Lavina Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA LAVINA and ANDREA
DARLOW, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
v. JOHN D. ROOD, in his capacity as Chairman of the Florida Prepaid
College Board; ADRIA D. STARKEY, in her capacity as Vice Chair of
the Florida Prepaid College Board; MARK AGUSTIN, in his capacity as
a member of the Florida Prepaid College Board; SLATER BAYLISS, in
his capacity as a member of the Florida Prepaid College Board;
KATHY HEBDA, in her capacity as a member of the Florida Prepaid
College Board; RADFORD LOVETT, in his capacity as a member of the
Florida Prepaid College Board; TROY MILLER, in his capacity as a
member of the Florida Prepaid College Board; and KEVIN THOMPSON, in
his capacity as Executive Director of the Florida Prepaid College
Board, Case No. 0:24-cv-60001-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
(1) Certifying this action as a class action under Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and/or (c)(4) for the
following "Class" or "Class Members:"
"All Purchasers of a Florida Prepaid College Plan purchased
prior to and through the 2006-2007 enrollment period who
have
not fully used their available Plan benefits as of the date
of
the filing of the original complaint in this matter until
entry
of a judgment."
(2) Appointing Plaintiffs Lavina and Darlow as the Class
Representatives; and
(3) Appointing undersigned counsel as class counsel, under Rule
23(g).
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to interpret and assess two overall
common questions, specifically whether (1) the Tuition Differential
Fee ("TDF") and the TDF exemption added by Chapter 2007-225, Laws
of Florida ("TDF law"), and Defendants' related unilateral changes
to the original Plan Contracts of Plaintiffs and Class Members
–– as applied by Defendants to Plaintiffs and Class Members
–– violate the Contract or Takings Clauses of the United States
Constitution or both; and (2) whether Plaintiffs and Class Members
are entitled to prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to
curb such violations.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members all entered uniform nonnegotiable
contracts of adhesion ("Plan Contracts") for a "tuition plan"
benefit that allows families to prepay and “lock in” according
to Defendants the cost of college tuition into a Prepaid Fund for
safekeeping with the further benefit that if the student attends a
private or out-of-state school ("Non-Florida State School") then
the equivalent benefit will be transferred to that school.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZxJzlT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
mfistos@zpllp.com
kgonzalez@zpllp.com
- and -
Alec Schultz, Esq.
HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 630-8304
E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com
FOCUS FINANCIAL: Sued Over $7-Bil. Sale to Private Equity Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law reports that Focus Financial
Partners Inc. ex-investors are suing the former Focus CEO for
allegedly engineering Focus' $7 billion sale to a private equity
firm to favor the company's officers, controlling shareholder, and
advisers.
The proposed class action by the Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement
System and Teamsters Union Pension Fun was unsealed on April 9,
2024 in Delaware's Chancery Court.
In addition to suing the ex-CEO and ex-COO for fiduciary duty
breach, the funds are suing Stone Point Capital LLC, saying Stone
Point was a controlling shareholder that also breached its
fiduciary duty; Goldman Sachs, alleging Goldman was a financial
adviser. [GN]
FOOD STORY: Cirilo Sues Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------
Agustin Cirilo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FOOD STORY NATURAL MARKET II INC. (D/B/A FOOD STORY
NATURAL MARKET), JAEYOUNG HUR, and DANNY AHN, Case No.
1:24-cv-02589 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2024), is brought for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor (the "NYLL"),
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff Cirilo to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required
by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a produce clerk at
the grocery store.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a supermarket and grocery
retailer, located in Brooklyn, New York under the name "Food Story
Natural Market."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
FROST BANK: Criswell Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Lanita Criswell and Lasheena Neal, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FROST BANK, Case No. 5:24-cv-00327
(W.D. Tex., April 1, 2024), is brought against Defendant arising
from Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging its
customers Overdraft Fees ("OD Fees") on transactions that did not
overdraw an account.
The plain language of Frost Bank's adhesion contracts specifically
promises that Frost Bank will only charge OD Fees on items when
such items cause the account to have a negative balance. Overdraft
fees represent one of the biggest profit centers for banks,
stemming from practices susceptible to high levels of abuse which
pose the largest burden on consumers. For example, investigations
undertaken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB")
revealed that some banks intentionally create confusion for their
accountholders regarding the terms of their overdraft policies,
intentionally obscure how fees are charged for overdraft and
insufficient funds transactions, and design their accountholder
application and onboarding process to allow the banks to capitalize
on this confusion.
The Defendant immediately reduces consumers' checking accounts for
the amount of the purchase, sets aside funds in a checking account
to cover that transaction, and as a result, the consumer's
displayed "available balance" reflects that subtracted amount. As a
result, customers' accounts will always have sufficient available
funds available to cover these transactions because Defendant has
already sequestered these funds for payment.
However, Defendant still assesses crippling $35 OD Fees on many of
these transactions and mispresents its practices in its Account
Contract. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for
debit card transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same
transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a
negative balance. These types of transactions are APPSN
transactions.
These practices breach contractual promises made in Defendant's
Account Contract--a contract which fundamentally misconstrues and
misleads consumers about the true nature of Defendant's processes
and practices. These practices also exploit contractual discretion
to gouge consumers. In plain, clear, and simple language,
Defendant's Account Contract promises that Defendant will only
charge OD Fees on transactions that have insufficient funds to
"cover" that transaction.
The Defendant is therefore not authorized by the Account Contract
to charge OD Fees on transactions that have not overdrawn an
account, but Defendant has done so and continues to do so in
violation of the Account Contract. The Plaintiffs and other Frost
Bank customers have been injured by Frost Bank's practices. On
behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs seek
damages and restitution for Frost Bank's breach of contract, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have a Frost Bank checking account.
Frost is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Phone: (407) 720-4057
Email: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com
joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
FTG CIRCUITS: Cardenas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Cardenas, an individual and other similarly saturated v.
FTG CIRCUITS INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08633 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the
Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code ("PAGA");
failure to pay minimum wage; failure to compensate for all hours
worked; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to pay rest
period compensation; failure to pay meal period compensation;
failure furnish accurate wage and hour statements; failure to pay
wages upon discharge; statutory penalties; failure to indemnify and
illegal deductions from wages; and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to keep track of
Plaintiffs and other employees' actual hours worked. Employees' pay
was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records"
section of Wage Orders. Plaintiff further alleges that meal breaks
and rest breaks were based on business necessities, and often
short, late, interrupted, or nonexistent. The Defendants failed to
provide Plaintiffs full final pay upon separation. The Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants
controlled or affected the working conditions, wages, working
hours, scope and conditions of employment of Plaintiff during
Plaintiffs employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked,
missed, short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and/or rest
breaks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general employee
for 17-years, until December l, 2023.
FTG CIRCUITS INC. is a manufacturing business providing solutions
for aerospace and defense electronic products and sub-systems
operating out of Los Angeles County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Angelle Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GardaWorld CashLINK
LLC. The case is styled as Jeremy Angelle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GardaWorld CashLINK LLC
doing business as: GardaWorld Cash, Case No. 9:24-cv-80403-RLR
(S.D. Fla., April 3, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Default.
GardaWorld -- https://cash.garda.com/ -- is a leading provider of
integrated security solutions : risk assessments, security
personnel, screening services and cash management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: beth@feganscott.com
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Archambeau Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GardaWorld
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Dawn Archambeaum on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
GardaWorld Corporation doing business as: GardaWorld Cash,
GardaWorld Cash Services, Inc., Case No. 9:24-cv-80404-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., April 3, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
GardaWorld -- https://cash.garda.com/ -- is a leading provider of
integrated security solutions : risk assessments, security
personnel, screening services and cash management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Ann Wallace, Esq.
SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP
20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (786) 244-5660
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: jwallace@sirillp.com
GEMI CAPITAL: MC Lawyers Investigate Suit Over Investors Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eliza Bavin, writing for Financial Standard, reports that MC
Lawyers & Advisers has launched a class action investigation into
claims of investor losses in various financial products issued by
GEMI Asset Management.
The law firm said investigations were targeting scenarios in which
wholesale or sophisticated investors were enticed into acquiring
GEMI financial products based on misleading or deceptive
information.
"We are focusing on representations made by GEMI as to the security
over their investments (e.g., mortgages over real property) and any
claims as to the purported low risk of those investments," the law
firm said.
"Investors who have suffered any capital or financial loss as a
result of entrusting their money to GEMI are encouraged to register
with us so that they may be kept informed of developments in the
prospective representative class action."
GEMI is a privately owned investment firm that facilitates
investment into debt secured by Australian real estate.
GEMI boasts that its investors include some of the most successful
individuals and families in Australia.
The private credit provider has lent out more than $3 billion since
it launched in 2000 and offers short-term property-backed loans.
GEMI's assets are split between its cash management fund, the first
mortgage fund, and the GEMI fund which offers the short-term
loans.
Investors in the group's mortgage funds started mulling a class
action when GEMI put a freeze on redemptions and dividends.
GEMI had been making regular investment updates providing second or
first mortgage facilities which suddenly stopped in December 2023.
The final update the group gave was that it had secured a second
mortgage across a portfolio of assets in Bunbury and Sydney "to
assist with working capital purposes". [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Shift Assemblies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that General Motors faces
a new proposed class action lawsuit that alleges several Chevrolet
and Buick models contain defective transmission control, or
shifter, assemblies that dangerously prevent the cars from knowing
when they are placed in "park."
The 58-page General Motors lawsuit says that as a result of the
alleged "shift-to-park" defect, an impacted vehicle, unable to be
placed in "park," will instead go into accessory mode and leave the
driver unable to shut off or lock the car, with the instrument
cluster displaying a "shift to park" message even though the gear
shifter is plainly in park, and draining the battery.
According to the case, Chevy and Buick drivers who have experienced
the shift-to-park defect have reported it taking as long as 20
minutes to get their vehicle to shut off.
"When the defect manifests, owners must resort to all manner of
gimmicks to get the vehicle to recognize the transmission has been
placed in Park and allow the driver to turn off the vehicle," the
complaint says. "For instance, owners must manipulate the shifter
back and forth or repeatedly drive forwards and backwards before
placing the vehicle in Park again."
General Motors vehicles allegedly hampered by the shift-to-park
defect include 2021-2023 Chevy Trailblazer, 2020-2022 Chevy
Traverse, 2020-2023 Chevy Malibu and 2020-2023 Buick Encore models
(class vehicles). The alleged defect renders these vehicle models
not only unable to provide safe, reliable transportation as
warranted but "unmerchantable and worth less money at the time of
sale or lease," the suit contends.
Although shifter assemblies generally do not require repairs or
replacements, GM has failed to fix the shift-to-park defect under
its new vehicle limited warranty, the filing claims. The automaker
did not issue a service bulletin to dealers about the problem until
last November, "at which point many Class Vehicles' 36,000 mile/36
month warranty periods had already expired," the case says, and to
date has not issued a voluntary recall about the problem, the
complaint shares.
"As a result, GM dealers regularly charge Class Vehicle owners
hundreds or thousands of dollars to attempt repair," the suit
alleges, adding that GM's purported repair, replacing the shifter
control assembly, does not correct the shift-to-park problem.
The lawsuit highlights that GM knew of the shifter defect before
selling or leasing the Chevy and Buick models at issue. In
particular, prior model year GM vehicles (2016-2019) suffered from
similar transmission control assembly problems, and the automaker
has been sued several times over the apparent defect, the suit
states.
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities who bought or
leased a 2021-2023 Chevrolet Trailblazer, 2020-2022 Chevrolet
Traverse, 2020-2023 Chevrolet Malibu or 2020-2023 Buick Encore in
the United States. [GN]
GENESIS FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Compel Ford to Arbitrate Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration in the lawsuit titled STEVE FORD, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v.
GENESIS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-02156-DLB (D. Md.).
In this purported class action, Steve Ford claims that Genesis
Financial Solutions, Inc., and Spring Oaks Capital SPV, LLC,
marketed and collected on credit card loans and acted as lenders
without the required licenses in violation of the Maryland Credit
Service Business Act and the Maryland Consumer Loan Law.
On behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers, Ford seeks
damages and a declaration that the loans are void and
unenforceable. The Defendants have moved to dismiss and compel
arbitration.
Plaintiff Steve Ford is a resident of Maryland, who applied for and
received a credit card loan from Genesis, a subprime credit card
loan originator. Genesis markets credit cards to consumers,
underwrites the loan applications for the cards, approves loan
applications and extensions of credit, and collects payments on the
loans.
According to the Plaintiff, Genesis is not a chartered bank and,
therefore, is subject to state usury laws, which limit the amount
of interest and fees that can be collected on loans. To evade these
limits, Genesis has devised a work around: third-party banks issue
the loans and then Genesis immediately purchases them. This
arrangement, Ford claims, makes Genesis a loan broker, because the
company assists consumers like Ford in obtaining these third-party
loans.
Under Maryland law, loan brokers must be licensed. Genesis is not.
So on Ford's account, Genesis is in violation of Maryland law. Ford
also alleges Genesis collects on the loans it helps originate. This
too, he claims, violates Maryland law, because entities that
arrange and collect on loans must be licensed as well.
On June 23, 2019, Genesis opened Ford's account through one of its
"third party financial partners" and mailed him the underlying
credit card and the Genesis Credit Account Agreement, which governs
the terms of the card's use. The Credit Agreement was accompanied
by a cover letter bearing Genesis letterhead.
Even though Genesis mailed the agreement and placed its name in the
title of the agreement, the Credit Agreement defines "we" as First
Electronic Bank, not Genesis. The Credit Agreement is a
three-and-a-half page, single-spaced document that establishes the
parties' rights and obligations. The agreement becomes operative
upon the cardholder's receipt and use of the credit card or the
approval of the application, whichever is earlier.
Mr. Ford received the credit card and made two purchases with the
card. In July 2020, First Electronic Bank conveyed the account and
the underlying receivables to Genesis FS Card Services, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Genesis. After a series of additional
transactions, Spring Oaks became the owner of Ford's debt.
In July 2023, Ford filed suit in state court, on behalf of himself
and a purported class, seeking damages and a declaration that the
loan agreements Genesis executed with class members are "void and
unenforceable."
The Defendants removed the action to this Court. Then, they moved
to dismiss and compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause.
Ford opposed the motion.
Judge Boardman holds that Maryland law governs whether the parties
formed an agreement to arbitrate. Under Maryland law, an agreement
to arbitrate is enforceable only if, among other things, the
agreement is supported by consideration.
Here, Judge Boardman notes, the only consideration for the
agreement to arbitrate is the mutual promise of the parties to
resolve their disputes this way. However, the Defendants' promise
to arbitrate is illusory because the change clause reserved for
them the right to modify or revoke that promise with no
limitations. So there was no consideration for the agreement to
arbitrate and the agreement is not enforceable, Judge Boardman
opines.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 28,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtvp3s3f from
PacerMonitor.com.
GENPACT COLLECTIONS: Robinson Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aaron C. Robinson, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENPACT COLLECTIONS,
LLC; GENPACT LLC; GENPACT INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES INC.;
GENPACT REGISTERED AGENT, INC.; GENPACT INTERNATIONAL, LLC; GENPACT
SERVICES LLC; GENPACT SOLUTIONS, INC.; GENPACT MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS, LLC; GENPACT US SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV02250 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 1, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02646.
The Plaintiff's Complaint contains eleven causes of action for:
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods;
waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to
timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest on
deposits; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Selwyn Chu, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Phone: 310.315.8200
Facsimile: 310.315.8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
schu@mcguirewoods.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Recommends Partial OK of Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., LLOYD C. BLANKFEIN, GARY D. COHN, and R.
MARTIN CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-12084-VSB-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Katharine Parker recommending that the motion for class
certification be granted in part and denied in part and that the
following class be certified:
"All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Goldman's common stock between Dec. 22, 2016, and Nov. 8, 2018,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby."
In sum, the Plaintiffs have offered persuasive evidence that
Goldman’s stock dropped to a statistically significant degree —
above the 95% confidence level — on both November 9 and 12 on a
close-to-close basis, including a drop in stock price at the 91%
confidence level within the first 15 minutes of market open on Nov.
9.
Goldman is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JBB9pf at no extra
charge.[CC]
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Ziegler Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KURT ZIEGLER and DANIEL
BRADY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. GW PHARMACEUTICALS, PLC, JUSTIN GOVER, GEOFFREY GUY, CABOT
BROWN, DAVID GRYSKA, CATHERINE MACKEY, JAMES NOBEL, ALICIA SECOR
and LORD WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE, Case No. 3:21-cv-01019-BAS-MSB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class settlement; and
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
service awards.
-- Settlement Class Response
A total of four (4) Settlement Class Members submitted a
timely
and proper Request for Exclusion, as reported in the
declaration
of the Claims Administrator submitted to this Court. The Court
hereby orders that the individuals listed by the Claims
Administrator as having submitted a valid Request for Exclusion
are excluded from the Settlement Class. The Settlement
Agreement
will not bind those individuals, and neither will they be
entitled
to any of its benefits. No Settlement Class Members timely
filed
an objection with this Court.
-- Attorneys' Fees and Costs; Service Awards
The Court approves Class Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees
and costs in the amount of $2,583,333.31 in fees and $33,513.97
in
costs; and approves service awards of $5,000 each for
Plaintiffs
Kurt Ziegler and Daniel Brady.
-- The Court dismisses with prejudice, without costs to any party,
except as expressly provided for in the Settlement Agreement,
the
instant action, as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
-- Class definition
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"all record holders and all beneficial holders of GW American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") who purchased, sold, or held such
ADSs
at any time during the period from and including March 10,
2021,
the record date for voting on the Merger, through and including
May 5, 2021, the date the Merger closed, including any and all
of
their respective predecessors, successors, trustees, executors,
administrators, estates, legal representatives, heirs, assigns
and
transferees."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii)
members of the immediate families of each Defendant; (iii)
GW’s
subsidiaries and affiliates; (iv) any entity in which any
defendant has a controlling interest; (v) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, administrators, executors,
and
assigns of each defendant, in their capacity as such; and (vi)
any
persons or entities who properly exclude themselves by filing a
valid and timely request for exclusion.
GW researches and develops cannabinoid prescription medicines.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=65sm3c at no extra
charge.[CC]
HDR GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Market Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebeca Moen of Blockchain News reports that BitMEX co-founder Ben
Delo, a British citizen, is set to face a class-action lawsuit from
users after U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Carter determined that
he played a central role in an alleged price manipulation scheme on
the cryptocurrency exchange. The ruling came after Delo had asked
to dismiss the suit, but Judge Carter concluded that he was
instrumental in designing a liquidation system that allowed BitMEX
to profit from the alleged manipulation.
The class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of BitMEX users, alleges
that the exchange engaged in market manipulation practices that
resulted in significant losses for traders. The plaintiffs claim
that BitMEX's liquidation system, which was designed to
automatically close out positions when a trader's balance falls
below a certain threshold, was exploited to manipulate prices and
generate profits for the exchange.
According to court documents, Judge Carter stated that Delo's
involvement in the development and implementation of the
liquidation system was crucial to the alleged manipulation scheme.
The judge noted that Delo's technical expertise and leadership
position at BitMEX made him a key figure in the case.
This is not the first time BitMEX has faced legal troubles. In
October 2020, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
charged BitMEX and its founders, including Delo, with operating an
unregistered trading platform and violating anti-money laundering
regulations. The exchange agreed to pay a $100 million civil
monetary penalty to settle the charges.
The class-action lawsuit against Delo and BitMEX is part of a
growing trend of legal actions targeting cryptocurrency exchanges
for alleged market manipulation and other fraudulent practices. In
recent years, several major exchanges, including Binance and
Coinbase, have faced increased scrutiny from regulators and law
enforcement agencies worldwide.
As the cryptocurrency industry continues to mature, it is likely
that more legal challenges will emerge, highlighting the need for
stronger regulation and oversight to protect investors and maintain
market integrity. The outcome of the class-action lawsuit against
Ben Delo and BitMEX could set an important precedent for future
cases involving alleged market manipulation in the crypto space.
[GN]
HEALTH FIRST: Court Extends Class Certification Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Powers, et al., v. Health
First Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 1,
2023), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting the
Defendant's unopposed motion to extend class certification
deadlines.
The suit alleges violation of Clayton Act involving antitrust.[CC]
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Seeks Leave to Seal Documents
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting its motion for leave to seal pursuant to Local Rules
1.11(b) and (d), and allowing Heartland to maintain under seal
certain redacted portions of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of
motion to certify class (Doc. 232).
The Complaint asserts four claims against Heartland for: (1)
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"); (2)
violation of the New Jersey Truth-inConsumer Contract, Warranty,
and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"); (3) breach of contract; and (4)
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA").
The parties have engaged in discovery, including expert
disclosures, and the Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification, seeking to certify a class to pursue claims under
the NJCFA and for breach of contract. Heartland has opposed
Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The instant Motion to Seal concerns only
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to certify class.
Heartland offers a web-based platform called MySchoolBucks ("MSB")
to provide school districts with the option to offer cashless
transactions for school-related purchases.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZjMH1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Fox Orr, Esq.
Kathleen H. Crowley, Esq.
ORR|COOK
50 N. Laura St.
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 358-8300)
E-mail: morr@orrcook.com
kcrowley@orrcook.com
- and -
David L. Balser, Esq.
Timothy H. Lee, Esq.
Peter Starr, Esq.
Laura Harris, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
tlee@kslaw.com
pstarr@kslaw.com
lharris@kslaw.com
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Suit Over Unusable Third-Party Cartridges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Sims, writing for TechSpot, reports that HP seems to have
embraced the role of the villain in the realm of printers and ink
cartridges, as controversies surrounding the company persist. Legal
battles have arisen over its customer policies, with recent
arguments focusing on whether consumers knowingly agree to
exclusively purchase HP ink when buying one of the company's
printers.
Lawyers representing plaintiffs have rejected one of HP's arguments
against a class-action lawsuit filed in January. HP has long been
criticized by customers for repeatedly blocking the use of
alternatives to its expensive ink cartridges.
The lawsuit primarily revolves around a firmware update that began
rolling out in late 2022. Plaintiffs allege that this update
rendered third-party cartridges unusable in HP printers. Cartridges
from HP and other companies are known for their high prices, with
annual costs sometimes exceeding $70. Additionally, the lawsuit
accuses HP of raising prices around the same time it released the
patch.
Plaintiffs argue that HP's actions -- locking customers in while
raising prices -- amount to a monopoly on aftermarket replacement
cartridges. They are seeking compensation for unusable third-party
cartridges and overcharging. However, the company contends that
federal law does not permit customers to sue for overcharging. HP
claims that the law clearly states that HP printers are designed to
function only with HP ink cartridges.
In response to HP's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, lawyers
representing the plaintiffs argued that customers never agreed to
exclusively purchase HP ink. The case revolves around the validity
of the company's razor-and-blade strategy, where it sells
relatively inexpensive printers and profits from expensive
replacement ink, effectively locking customers in.
The company's intention to force its cartridges on users has been
evident. CFO Marie Myers acknowledged this in December. CEO Enrique
Lores, discussing the lawsuit with CNBC in January, referred to
customers who don't consistently use the company's printers and
cartridges as "bad investments."
HP has faced criticism from regulators and plaintiffs for employing
digital rights management (DRM) to block third-party and refilled
cartridges. It has had to compensate customers in multiple
countries, faced criticism for allegedly disabling scanning and
faxing functions when ink runs low, and been accused of installing
its printer app onto all Windows PCs without consent.
Last month, HP introduced a subscription service that openly
encourages users to continually pay to use its printers. Starting
at $6.99 a month, customers receive a printer, round-the-clock
customer service, and refill shipments before their ink runs out.
[GN]
HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS: Deutsch Sues Over Decline in Securities Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, GUY P. ABRAMO, THOMAS
M. SPAETH, JAMES CAREY, MARK DZIALGA, PETER FASOLO, JAMES MATTHEWS,
PETER MUNZIG, JILL SMART, JOSH FELDMAN, and LISA TROE, Case No.
3:24-cv-00371 (M.D. Tenn., April 1, 2024), is brought on behalf of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired HireRight securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with HireRight's October 2021 initial public offering
(the "IPO" or "Offering"), pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") as a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of HireRight's securities
The Company offers background screening, verification,
identification, monitoring, and drug and health screening services
for customers under the HireRight brand name and boasts a
purportedly "robust pipeline of opportunities developed by its
sales team to continue to attract new customers and take share in
the market." On October 6, 2021, HireRight filed a registration
statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which, after an amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on
October 28, 2021 (the "Registration Statement").
On November 1, 2021, HireRight filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents"). That same day, pursuant to the Offering Documents,
HireRight's common stock began publicly trading on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker symbol HRT. Pursuant to
the Offering Documents, HireRight issued approximately 22. Million
shares of its common stock to the public at the Offering price of
$19.00 per share for proceeds to the Company of approximately $399
million after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions,
and before expenses.
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: HireRight was exposed to customers with significant
employment and hiring risk and the Company derived greater revenue
growth from existing client hiring than from new client hiring; as
a result, the Company's revenue growth was unsustainable to the
extent that it relied on the stability of its current customers'
hiring and/or the profitability of securing new customers;
accordingly, HireRight had overstated its post-IPO business and/or
prospects; and as a result, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.
On January 19, 2023, Stifel, a brokerage and investment banking
firm, downgraded HireRight's stock from a Hold to a Buy, prompting
several market analysts to issue publications discussing the
downgrade. For example, Seeking Alpha reported that Stifel found
HireRight to be exposed to large technology firms where there is
more acute employment and hiring risk, and that more of the
Company's growth comes from existing client hiring than from new.
On this news, HireRight's stock price fell $0.88 per share, or
7.5%, to close at $10.75 per share on January 19, 2023.
At the time of this Complaint, HireRight's common stock continue to
trade below the $19.00 per share IPO price. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of HireRight's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired HireRight
securities.
HireRight provides technology-driven workforce risk management and
compliance solutions to a customer base characterized as a "diverse
set of organizations, from large-scale multinational businesses to
small and medium-sized businesses, across a broad range of
industries."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
P. O. Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215
Phone: 615.248.2828
Facsimile: 866.816.4116
Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
HISAMITSU AMERICA: Class Cert Bid in Hrapoff Extended to June 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI HRAPOFF, et. al., v.
HISAMITSU AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01943-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order enlarging time for class
certification deadlines as follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Plaintiffs' class certification motion June 21, 2024
and Plaintiffs' class certification
expert disclosures due:
Defendant's class certification opposition; Aug. 23, 2024
Defendant's class certification expert
disclosures; and Defendant's class
certification Daubert motions due:
Plaintiff's class certification reply Sept. 20, 2024
and Plaintiffs' class certification Daubert
motions and oppositions to Defendants'
Daubert motions due:
Defendants' class certification Daubert Oct. 21, 2024
replies and oppositions to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions due:
Plaintiffs' class certification Daubert Nov. 21, 2024
replies due:
On March 29, 2021, the first complaint in this action was filed.
On Sept. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
on Oct. 5, 2023, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting
deadlines for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion
and class certification expert disclosures on April 26, 2024, as
well as setting additional deadlines for the opposition and reply
to class certification and related Daubert motions.
Hisamitsu manufactures pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lOAyC0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Telephone: (212) 532-2000
Facsimile: (212) 532-2020
E-mail: kimj@HuntonAK.com
HOME DEPOT: Berger Sues Over False-Reference Pricing
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Berger and Jason Londrigan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01435-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 4, 2024), is brought against
Home Depot for false-reference pricing on its website,
www.homedepot.com (the "Website").
False-reference pricing occurs when a seller advertises a
fictitious or outdated "original" price for a product while
offering that product at a substantially lower price under the
guise of a sale. The resulting artificial price disparity misleads
consumers into believing that the product they are buying has a
higher market value than the price offered, thereby inducing them
into purchasing the product at what appears to be a "bargain." This
conduct artificially increases demand for the deceptively priced
products and induces customers to pay more based on a false
impression of their value. False-reference pricing schemes thereby
enable retailers like Home Depot to sell products above their true
market price and value--to the detriment of consumers.
Home Depot willfully violated the Georgia Code by advertising items
as discounted despite the fact these items had not been readily
available for purchase at the purported original price for more
than three months or, in many cases, had never been offered at the
purported original price. The Plaintiffs purchased such products in
reliance on Home Depot's misleading advertising, motivated by the
false belief that they were getting bargains. Numerous other Home
Depot customers did the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased products from Home Depot.
Home Depot is the world's largest home-improvement retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meredith C. Kincaid, Esq.
Anna Green Cross, Esq.
CROSS KINCAID LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 715
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (404) 948-3022
Email: meredith@crosskincaid.com
anna@crosskincaid.com
- and -
Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811
Houston, TX 77080
Phone: (832) 848-0036
Email: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
Teresita T. Mercado, Esq.
DON BIVENS, PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Phone: (602) 708-1450
Email: don@donbivens.com
teresita@donbivens.com
HOME DEPOT: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Nixed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACEY LIU, et al., v.
HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01217-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge James Robart entered an order denying without prejudice
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of their
proposed class action settlement.
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=99PV1N at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: Carbajal Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Ivonne Carbajal,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home
Depot Incorporated, Validity Incorporated, Case No.
2:24-cv-00730-DGC (D. Ariz., April 2, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- often simply
referred to as Home Depot, is an American multinational home
improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction
products, appliances, and services, including fuel and
transportation rentals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine Patricia Sons, Esq.
James X. Bormes, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X BORMES PC
8 S Michigan Ave., Ste. 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 201-0575
Fax: (312) 332-0600
Email: cpsons@bormeslaw.com
jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
- and -
Michelle Ray Matheson, Esq.
MATHESON & MATHESON PLC
32531 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 105-148
Scottsdale, AZ 85266
Phone: (480) 889-8951
Fax: (480) 339-4538
Email: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com
- and -
Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M RYAN PC
35 E Wacker Dr., Ste. 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 726-3400
Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Reference Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Action reports that Home Depot class action
claims company posts fake original prices for online sales.
Who: Plaintiffs Eric Berger and Jason Londrigan filed a class
action lawsuit against Home Depot.
Why: The lawsuit claims Home Depot places items on sale using false
reference prices, leading consumers to believe they are getting a
good deal and potentially make more purchases.
Where: The Home Depot prices class action was filed in federal
court in Georgia.
A new Home Depot class action lawsuit accuses the company of using
false reference prices while marking items on sale to make
consumers believe they are getting a good deal, potentially leading
them to make more purchases.
Many of the sale items were not offered at their reference price
within the past three months or at any time, the Home Depot sales
lawsuit says.
"This conduct artificially increases demand for the deceptively
priced products and induces customers to pay more based on a false
impression of their value," the Home Depot class action says.
"False-reference pricing schemes thereby enable retailers like Home
Depot to sell products above their true market price and value --
to the detriment of consumers."
The Home Depot prices are a violation of both federal and Georgia
state law, including Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, the
lawsuit claims.
Plaintiffs Eric Berger and Jason Londrigan say they were motivated
by the advertised bargains, claiming they purchased more of the
products and at higher prices than they normally would due to the
Home Depot sales scheme.
Home Depot has 2,000 physical stores in North America with $1.53
billion in U.S. revenue in 2022; 14% of that revenue comes through
its website, according to the Home Depot class action.
The Home Depot prices are a large-scale consumer deception scheme
that helps the company pad its revenue by creating a false
impression that the company was offering products at a deep
discount, the lawsuit claims.
A separate class action filed in February against Home Depot claims
the retailer allows a Google artificial intelligence (AI) program
to record Home Depot customer calls without consent. [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Parties in Matthews Suit Must Submit Pre-Trial Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darin Mathews and Ronald
Reeves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02605-ELR (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor Ross entered an order granting the
parties joint motion for relief from Local Rule 16.4(A).
The parties are ordered to submit a consolidated pre-trial order to
the court no less than 30 days after the Court rules on the
Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification and any timely
filed motions for summary judgment.
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YFTpSE at no extra
charge.[CC]
HONEYWELL INT'L: Barragan Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luciano Barragan, individually and as a
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Honeywell 401(k) Plan v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01194 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on April 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04529-SDW-JRA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Honeywell International Inc. -- https://www.honeywell.com/us/en --
is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate
corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Phone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-5258
Fax: (215) 963-5001
Email: jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com
HOT SPRINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Real Estate Management
---------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Delavan of Hot Springs Village Voice reports that a
class-action complaint filed on April 9, 2024 afternoon in Saline
County Circuit Court alleges that the Hot Springs Village Property
Owners' Association has violated the Declaration in real-estate
matters.
The suit, Jeffery Atkins et al v. Hot Springs Village POA, is case
63CV-24-477. In an emailed statement, the plaintiffs said: "It is
our opinion that the POA Board and Management has lost its way and
we intend to fix it. We've taken this action to protect the
interest of all property owners and ask the Courts to preserve the
integrity of the governing documents."
During the March POA Board of Directors meeting, director Larry
Siener suggested that a property owner who was discussing the new
rental fee during public comments that a lawsuit could be filed to
learn the fee's validity.
Plaintiffs Jeffery Atkins, a former board director, and property
owner Dennis Simpson allege in the suit that the HSVPOA has failed
in its fiduciary duty to follow Hot Springs Village governing
documents. And although the POA has lost court cases in past years,
it continues to operate in "a pattern of intentional misconduct."
Among alleged violations -- "Implementation of special assessments
without a vote of members."
-- "Buy-in" fee -- $250 for unimproved lots and $1,500 for improved
lots, defined as one with a water meter.
-- "Public works" fee of $1,560 for each new home
-- "Deed transfer" fee
-- "Membership assignment" fee
-- "Tree cutting permit" fee enforcing different rules for lot
owners and homeowners
-- Charging new owners with assessments before receipt of deeds and
also making them immediately responsible for the full year of
assessments.
-- A $50 "rental registration" fee to register a rental and that
provides the owner's contact information for HSVPOA personnel or
police. The suit alleges this fee is to "help the POA increase
income and potentially provide bonuses to management." The POA has
said during board meetings that the rental fee only covers
expenses.
"Breaching fiduciary duty by competing with POA members."
-- Plaintiffs contend that the HSVPOA has breached its fiduciary
duty and potentially antitrust laws by using assessment dollars to
compete for lot sales by offering a 50% commission to Realtors on
POA-owned unimproved lots, undercutting other lot owners.
"Unfair enforcement of protective covenants."
-- Plaintiffs allege that the HSVPOA operated under a complaint
basis for protective covenant enforcement, but failed to enforce
rules on a regular basis, and that "enforcement is arbitrary and
unfair and can depend on who makes the complaint. Specifically, the
board fined the plaintiff for cutting a tree without a permit, but
his neighbor did the same without recourse."
The Hot Springs Village Voice emailed POA staff on April 10, 2024
morning seeking a statement on the lawsuit. [GN]
HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josepha D. Cordova Lima,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC, DMS LLC, d/b/a DELKO
Enterprise Inc., David L. Myers, and Carlos Dante Acosta,
Individually, Case No. 9:22-cv-04490-BHH (D.S.C.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 6.01
(D.S.C.), for an additional 14 days to respond to the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification, resulting in a deadline
of April 18, 2024.
Pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 7.02 Counsels for the Defendants have
conferred with the Plaintiff's counsel who consents to this motion.
In support of this motion, the parties believe they have reached a
settlement in principle but require additional time to finalize the
terms of such a settlement. This extension will not affect any
other deadlines in this case.
Housekeeping provides residential cleaning services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0vB26C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nekki Shutt, Esq.
Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq.
Lydia Robins Hendrix, Esq.
BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA
912 Lady Street, Second Floor
Columbia, SC 29202-1929
Telephone: (803) 904-7912
Facsimile: (804) 940-7910
E-mail: nshutt@burnetteshutt.law
scox@burnetteshutt.law
lhendrix@burnetteshutt.law
- and -
Thomas J. Rode, Esq.
THURMOND KIRCHNER & TIMBES, P.A.
15 Mid Atlantic Wharf
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 937-8000
E-mail: thomas@tklawyers.com
HUGGINS METAL: Smith Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Candice L. Smith, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Huggins
Metal Finishing, Inc, d/b/a Sullivan Precision Metal Finishing,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00821-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify collective action, equitably toll the statute of
limitations, and facilitate notice to potential class members.
1. The Plaintiff moves for authorization to proceed as a
collective
action for overtime violations and non-payment of wages for
hour-worked, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on
behalf of herself and similarly-situated past and present
employees of the Defendant, with the collective to be defined
as
follows:
"all hourly non-exempt employees of the Defendant between
June
26, 2020 and August 6, 2022 who were not compensated by the
Defendant at one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay
for
all work performed in excess of 40 hours per week as a result
of
the Defendant's practice of rounding up to the nearest later
quarter hour when calculating clocked-in time and rounding
down
to the nearest earlier quarter-hour when calculating
clocked-out
time regardless of when the employee clocked in, or out, for
a
scheduled shift."
2. The Plaintiff moves for an Order directing the Defendants to
produce to the Plaintiff's counsel within 10 days of the
Order
granting this Motion a list of the names, the last known
addresses, last known email addresses, and phone numbers for
hourly-paid personnel employed by the Defendants from Jan.
26,
2020 to the present.
3. The Plaintiff moves for authorization to send notice to all
individuals whose names appear on the list to be produced by
the
Defendants' counsel.
Huggins provides metal processing and finishing services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ggwh69 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward J. Rolwes, Esq.
THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC
2333 South Hanley Road, Suite 104
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 806-9626
Facsimile: (314) 472-0900
E-mail: erolwes@rolweslaw.com
HUMPHRY SLOCOMBE: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humphry Slocombe
Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alfonso M. Martinez, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Humphry Slocombe Group Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. CGC24613709
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 5, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Humphry Slocombe -- https://humphryslocombe.com/ -- is an shop and
online store for ice cream.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201
La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583
Phone: 818-230-8380
Fax: 818-230-0308
Email: alvin@yeremianlaw.com
Website: www.yeremianlaw.com
IFIT HEALTH: Class Action Settlement in Balfour Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott Balfour, Don Lee,
Kuldeep Singh, Matthew Templon, and Shelia Vorheis, v. iFIT Health
and Fitness, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-00067-CFC (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Colm Connolly entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement:
The Class:
"All persons in the United States or its territories who, on or
before Jan. 23, 2023, purchased a Class Device."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendant; any entity or which
the
Defendant has a controlling interest in the Defendant;
Defendant's
legal representatives, assigns, and successors; and all judges
who
have presided over the Action and any member of the judges'
immediate families.
iFIT operates as a health and fitness technology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9AHuCh at no extra
charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Lepper Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lepper v. Illinois
Department of Corrections, Case No. 1:23-cv-01366-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order
as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
The Defendant is the code department of the Illinois state
government that operates the adult state prison system.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oSYpzx at no extra
charge.[CC]
INSURANCE CLAIMS: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Rita Davis, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
INSURANCE CLAIMS UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-00825 (M.D.
Fla., April 3, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), that she is: entitled to unpaid wages from
Defendant for overtime work for which she did not receive overtime
premium pay, as required by law, entitled to liquidated damages
pursuant to the FLSA, entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the FLSA; and entitled declaratory relief.
The Defendant employs "Claims Adjusters" to provide adjusting
services on insurance claims made by insured policy holders. These
Claims Adjusters were paid a day rate for all hours worked with no
additional overtime compensation paid for overtime hours worked.
These Claims Adjusters work long hours to perform their work, and
operate under very tight direction, control and supervision of
Defendant. These Claims Adjusters have been misclassified as
independent contractors under the FLSA and should have been
classified as employees. As such, Plaintiff is misclassified as an
independent contractor and is entitled to overtime compensation for
overtime hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant beginning September 2021
through January 2022 and April 2022 through November 2022 in the
recent position of a Remote Property Claims Adjuster.
The Defendant does business as "Insurance Claims Unlimited, Inc.,"
and operates an independent adjusting firm providing full-service
handling of residential, commercial, casualty, catastrophe, and
other claims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Gunter, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 236-0946
Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com
INTERNATIONAL LEISURE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAULIO THORNE, v.
INTERNATIONAL LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-02520-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ez8tkE at no extra
charge.[CC]
ISMILE DENTISTRY: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Alvarez, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
ISMILE DENTISTRY, PA, a Florida Profit Corporation FRANCIS LUGO,
Individually and SALWAN LOUIS, Individually, Case No. 8:24-cv-00812
(M.D. Fla., April 3, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants
failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective members, all of whom
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, were employed as
hourly employees by Defendants. Further, Plaintiff and those
similarly situated worked more than 40 hours per workweek without
receiving the proper overtime pay for all their overtime hours by
Defendants. Throughout the relevant period, it has been Defendants'
policy, pattern, or practice to require, suffer, or permit the
Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective members to work more
than 40 hours per workweek without paying them overtime wages for
all overtime hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dental hygienist
from September 2020 to February 2024 at Defendants' office in
Tampa, Florida.
The Defendants operate interstate commerce by providing dental
services to customers in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324-4241
Phone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
JACOB RIEGER: FLSA Collective Class Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE PETERSON, v.
JACOB RIEGER & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00057-RK (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order:
(1) conditionally certifying the above-proposed FLSA collective
action class;
(2) approving the proposed Notice and ADR plan, and
(3) staying the deadlines in this matter until 14 days after the
Parties' mediation, except that the Plaintiff may file any
Consent to Join Forms for individuals wishing to join the
case.
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 26, 2023. In addition
to alleging claims under Missouri law, the Plaintiff has also
alleged that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and has proposed to assert these collective action claims
on behalf
of servers, server trainees, bartenders and bartender trainees.
The proposed Collective Action is defined as follows:
"All servers, server trainees, bartenders, and bartender
trainees who were employed by the Defendant for the
three-year
period from June 14, 2020 to the present. ("FLSA
Collective")."
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA with respect
to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective by unjustly retaining
tips, including through distributing tips to managers, supervisors,
and non-tipped employees, such as line cooks and dishwashers.
Jacob Rieger is an American distillery.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eKAchE at no extra
charge.[CC]
JANCO FS 3: Ayala Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Senorina Valencia Ayala, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JANCO FS 3, LLC, a
limited liability company; JANCO FS 2, LLC, a limited liability
company; JANCO FS 4, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24-CIV-01002 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 4, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-02061-DMR.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges eight causes of action against
Defendants: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods;
failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely
pay final wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
- and -
Joseph Lewis, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
Email: joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com
JEWISH NATIONAL: Glazer Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Randi Glazer, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JEWISH NATIONAL FUND, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV03356 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 4, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02748.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure
to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to pay final
wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jesse A. Cripps, Esq.
Thomas F. Cochrane, Esq.
Monica B. Paladini, Esq.
Alicia Hernandez, Esq.
Lili Anna Italiane, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, XA 90071
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: jcripps@gibsondunn.com
tcochrane@gibsondunn.com
mpaladini@gibsondunn.com
ahernandez@gibsondunn.com
litaliane@gibsondunn.com
JUMIO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges Jumio, Inc. illegally collects, stores and
disseminates the facial geometry scans of Instacart shoppers in
Illinois.
According to the 15-page privacy lawsuit, Instacart requires
shoppers to upload a photo of themselves and their driver's license
before they can begin to deliver groceries for the app. The
complaint explains that Instacart has defendant Jumio perform a
"facial geometry analysis" of these pictures to verify shoppers'
identities, both during initial account setup and at "regular
intervals" while they're working.
However, Jumio, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act
(BIPA), fails to inform residents and obtain consent prior to
collecting, storing and sharing their face templates -- "highly
detailed" geometric maps of the face, the case claims.
The lawsuit alleges that Jumio is one of "numerous" third parties
that process personal information for Instacart, all of whom have
had shoppers' facial geometry scans "disclosed, redisclosed or
otherwise disseminated to them" by Jumio, the suit adds.
Per the filing, the BIPA was enacted to ensure that Illinois
consumers have control over their biometric information, which
consists of "unique, permanent" identifiers that cannot be replaced
if compromised. The suit contends that Jumio's "unlawful"
collection of shoppers' biometrics exposes them to "serious and
irreversible privacy risks."
"For example, if Jumio's database containing facial geometry scans
or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached,
or otherwise exposed, Jumio users have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking, or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information," the
complaint stresses.
The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, says that neither Instacart
nor Jumio made any mention of biometric information when she worked
for the grocery delivery service.
"Instead, Instacart simply instructed [the plaintiff] to upload her
state issued identification form, avatar photograph, and periodic
verification photos as part of the onboarding and day-to-day job
duties while working as shopper for Instacart," the case shares.
The suit also claims that Jumio has run afoul of the BIPA by
failing to inform Instacart shoppers in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their biometric information
would be collected, stored and used. The company was also required
to publish a retention schedule detailing how long the workers'
data would be kept and when it would be permanently destroyed, the
filing relays.
The lawsuit looks to represent any Illinois residents who, within
the last five years, had their biometric information collected by
Jumio while using Instacart. [GN]
JVR COOLING: Cuateco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elder Xelo Cuateco, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JVR COOLING AND HEATING INC. (D/B/A JVR COOLING AND
HEATING INC.), JAVIER GONZALEZ, JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ, and OMAR
GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-02480 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2024), is
brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely
basis. Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all
other similarly situated employees. Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work
in excess of hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as an air conditioner installer.
The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a heating and cooling
services business located in Brooklyn, New York under the name "JVR
Cooling and Heating Inc."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
KA WAH TRADING: Arbona Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Juan D. Arbona and other similarly situated individuals v. Ka Wah
Trading Inc. a/k/a Ka Wah Trading Foods, Case No.
6:24-cv-00645-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024), is brought to
recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation
under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("the Act").
During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff always worked more
than 40 hours weekly. Regardless of the number of hours worked
during the week, Plaintiff was not compensated for overtime hours
as required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but
Defendant was in complete control of Plaintiff's schedule. Thus,
Defendant could track the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals. Therefore, Defendant
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of
time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in
excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a warehouse employee.
Ka Wah Trading Foods is an importer, wholesaler, and distributor of
Asian specialty food products to Asian restaurants and other Asian
wholesalers and retailers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Google Info Sharing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it
disclosed patients' personal information to Google, Microsoft,
Twitter, and other entities without their consent in violation of
state wiretapping and consumer-protection laws.
Seven anonymous plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims of breach of
implied contract, negligence, and violations of consumer-protection
laws of Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, Judge Edward M.
Chen of the US District Court for the Northern District of
California said.
Chen dismissed 15 other claims, including intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, breach of
express contract, and violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and the consumer-protection statutes of several other
states.
Their lawsuit alleged that KFHP, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc.,
and the Permanente Medical Group Inc., installed tracking code on
Kaiser Permanente websites and mobile apps, allowing the
transmission of patient information to the third parties.
The suit is part of a surge of litigation against health-care
providers over their use of third-party tracking software on their
patient portals and apps, which are used by patients to schedule
appointments, check medical results, research doctors and medical
services, communicate with providers, and pay medical bills.
KFHP didn't obtain their consent before disclosing their
information to the third parties, and allowed the disclosure to
take place despite HIPAA provisions requiring it to protect their
information, they alleged.
Chen also dismissed claims against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and
the Permanente Medical Group, finding that the plaintiffs failed to
allege wrongdoing by those entities with respect to the operation
of the Kaiser Permanente website and mobile apps.
Adequate Pleadings
KFHP argued in a motion to dismiss that the claim of negligence per
se should be dismissed because intentional acts couldn't support a
negligence claim, but Chen disagreed.
A negligence per se claim can be based on a violation of a statute,
he said. Because KFHP didn't show that all of the statutory claims
brought by the plaintiffs were deficient, there was room for a
negligence per se claim even if some of the statutory claims were
dismissed, he said.
The claim for violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act survived because plaintiff Jane Doe III alleged
that she was a Maryland resident, allowing the inference that the
interception took place in the state, he said.
Their claims of violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices
Act, the Virginia Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act,
and the Washington Consumer Protection Act were also adequately
pleaded, the judge said.
Chen dismissed several claims because the plaintiffs didn't allege
that KFHP knew or approved of third parties collecting and using
information for their own purposes, including intrusion upon
seclusion, invasion of privacy under the California Constitution,
statutory larceny, the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act, the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, the
Virginia Computer Crimes Act, and the Washington Privacy Act.
Other claims were dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't allege
the disclosure of protected information, including breach of
express contract, and violations of the California Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act, the Georgia Insurance and Information
Privacy Protection Act, and the Washington Health Care Information
Act.
Chen gave the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by May
9.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello PC represent Doe and the proposed class.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP represents Kaiser. [GN]
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY: Alper Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Williams
Realty Incorporated. The case is styled as Penny B. Alper, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Keller
Williams Realty Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-00736-MTL (S.D.N.Y.,
April 3, 2024).
The mature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Keller Williams Realty -- https://www.kw.com/ -- is an American
technology and international real estate franchise with
headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B Katz, Esq.
KENT, BEATTY & GORDON, LLP
Eleven Times Square, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 421-4300
Fax: (212) 421-4303
Email: jbk@kbg-law.com
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY: Davis Files Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Williams
Realty Incorporated. The case is styled as Paul M. Davis, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Keller Williams
Realty Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-00736-MTL (D. Ariz., April 2,
2024).
The mature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Keller Williams Realty -- https://www.kw.com/ -- is an American
technology and international real estate franchise with
headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amara W. Edblad, Esq.
AMARA & ASSOCIATES LLC
2 N Central Ave., Ste. 1936
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (623) 471-8881
Email: ae@azinjuryattorney.com
KIA AMERICA: Doucette Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Amy Doucette, Meredith Tongue,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia
America, Inc., Kia Corporation, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai
Motor Company, Case No. 8:24-cv-00731-DMG-DFM (C.D. Cal., April 3,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Default.
Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLP
150 South Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 741-1019
Fax: (312) 264-0100
Email: beth@feganscott.com
KLC SAN DIEGO: Mitchell Files Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KLC San Diego
Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jaci Mitchell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLC
San Diego Enterprises, Inc. doing business as: Keller Williams San
Diego Metro, Southbay Passive Income, Inc. doing business as:
Keller Williams South Bay, Keller Williams, Inc., Keller Williams
Realty, Inc. also known as: Keller Williams Realty International,
Does 1 to 10, Case No. 3:24-cv-00647-CAB-MMP (S.D. Cal., April 5,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
KLC San Diego Enterprises, Inc. is a Stock Corporation in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Johnsgard, Esq.
COAST LAW GROUP
1140 S. Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Phone: (760) 942-8505
Fax: (760) 942-8515
Email: amy@coastlaw.com
- and -
Aya Dardari, Esq.
Helen Irene Zeldes, Esq.
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 400-4990
Email: adardari@sshhzlaw.com
hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
jfields@sshhzlaw.com
LENS.COM INC: Fitzpatrick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mary Agrella Fitzpatrick, both individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENS.COM, INC., a
Nevada Corporation, Case No. 2024-MR-000072 was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kane County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on April 3, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-02700.
The Plaintiff alleges that Lens.com "advertises artificially low
prices for their contact lenses" that "lure consumers to Lens.com's
website and gouge consumers with hidden added fees." The Plaintiff,
on behalf of herself and the putative class, brings a claim against
Lens.com under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("ICFA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John J. Kucera, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1520
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (213) 995-5758
Email: jkucera@bsfllp.com
- and -
Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP
The Walker Center
175 S. Main Street, Suite 900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Email: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com
hansen@tnw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Resets Class Cert Hearing
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominguez v. Leprino Foods
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 12, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order resetting for
hearing before Mag. Judge Erica P. Grosjean on the same date and
time, as previously ordered in the Court's minute order.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Leprino manufactures dairy products.[CC]
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA: Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe-1, Jane Doe-2, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA
MANAGEMENT, LLC, RICHARD ROES 1-10, fictitious names of unknown
individuals; ABC COMPANIES 1-10, fictitious names of unknown
entities, Case No. BER L 1367 24 was removed from the Superior
Court Of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on April 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04566-HB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
LexisNexis Customer Data Management -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/
-- enables you to keep your customer data updated across the
enterprise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rajiv D. Parikh, Esq.
PEM LAW LLP
1 Boland Drive, Suite 101
West Orange, NJ 07052
Phone: (973) 577-5500
Email: rparikh@pemlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
Rasmeet Kaur Chahil, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 597-2500
Fax: (973) 597-2400
Email: grooney@lowenstein.com
rchahil@lowenstein.com
- and -
A. Matthew Boxer, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 597-2500
Email: mboxer@lowenstein.com
LOUISIANA: Faces Class Suit Over Constitutional Rights' Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keymonte Avery of BRProud reports that the Louisiana Department of
Children and Family Services was listed in a class action lawsuit
by organizations representing more than 4,000 children in Louisiana
after being accused of having a "dysfunctional system that violates
constitutional rights."
According to official court documents, on Feb. 19, 2024, DCFS
Secretary David Matlock said in an interview that Louisiana's child
welfare system was in a "death spiral" and was "hemorrhaging
employees."
In March 2022, former DCFS Secretary Marketa Garner Walters
reportedly said the department was "drowning" and had more than 400
vacant positions.
In January 2023, the Senate Committee of Health and Welfare met
with DCFS officials who said there had been a 33% increase in the
caseload, even with an increase of new employees.
The 95-page complaint includes multiple stories about children who
were injured, sick, abused or died. The department was not able to
maintain all cases due to a limited number of employees and
resources to help children.
In the department's 2024 annual progress report, Louisiana
reportedly earned had the lowest permanency and stability in
children's living situations since the 2019-20 report. The report
states the state is performing below the national average.
The lawsuit argues that Louisiana is not providing adequate mental
care, medical assistance and educational services.
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, A Better Childhood and Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP are organizations and firms
involved in filing the lawsuit.
"The State of Louisiana has failed to keep these children safe,"
Kevin Homiak, Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell’s Pro Bono Committee
co-chair, said in a news release. "Due to systemic issues, the
state's most vulnerable children are suffering. These children must
be protected, not neglected."
The plaintiffs are asking that the state find that DCFS and
Louisiana's actions are violating constitutional rights and federal
law. They want the following changes:
-- Keep children safe while in foster care.
-- Lower caseload capacity per employee.
-- Improve recruitment and retention of trained employees.
-- Ensure children are placed in homes that meet the
standards.
-- Ensure children with disabilities are receiving the proper
services.
-- Develop a process to match children with safe foster homes.
-- Plan for permanent placement for children.
Gov. Jeff Landry and Matlock are among the defendants listed.
BRProud has reached out to DCFS for a comment on the suit. A
spokesperson for the department said, "We are aware of the
complaint and are reviewing it." [GN]
MACY'S INC: City of Pontiac Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PONTIAC REESTABLISHED GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
EMILIE AREL, TORRENCE N. BOONE, ASHLEY BUCHANAN, MARIE CHANDOHA,
NAVEEN K. CHOPRA, DEIRDRE P. CONNELLY, JILL GRANOFF, WILLIAM H.
LENEHAN, SARA LEVINSON, TONY SPRING, PAUL C. VARGA, TRACEY ZHEN,
and MACY'S, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0369 (Del. Ch., April
8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the refusal of the Defendants, the Macy's
board of directors, to disable approvable proxy puts and instead
use the threat of more than $1 billion in potential debt
acceleration to impermissibly tilt the scales in their favor in a
pending proxy contest. Arkhouse and Brigade, Macy's investment
firms, offered to acquire Macy's on December 1, 2023, for $21 per
share in cash. However, the Defendants have refused to meaningfully
engage with Arkhouse and Brigade, forcing Arkhouse to launch a
proxy contest (with the help of Brigade) at Macy's upcoming annual
meeting scheduled for May 17, 2024. On February 14, 2024, Arkhouse
submitted its formal notice of intent to nominate nine director
candidates to Macy's Board. The Defendants, the incumbent board of
directors, are strategically withholding their approval of the
Arkhouse nominees to keep their thumb on the scale of the
stockholder franchise at the rapidly approaching 2024 Annual
Meeting. The Plaintiff seeks prompt judicial intervention in
advance of the 2024 Annual Meeting to remedy the Board's coercive
use of the approvable proxy puts.
Macy's, Inc. is an American holding company of department stores,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
Mark D. Richardson, Esq.
Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
Email: nweinberger@labaton.com
mrichardson@labaton.com
bsullivan@labaton.com
- and -
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
John Vielandi, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
Lindsay La Marca, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Cynthia Billings-Dunn, Esq.
ASHERKELLY
25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 746-2710
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Potential Class Action Over Defective Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges several Mazda vehicle models equipped with
SKYACTIV-G 2.5T engines contain a defect that can cause engine
coolant to leak, posing the risk of engine overheating, stalling
and/or catastrophic engine failure.
The 72-page lawsuit claims 2019-2020 Mazda CX-5, 2016-2020 Mazda
CX-9, and 2018-2020 Mazda6 vehicles (class vehicles) suffer from a
"latent manufacturing and/or design defect" that can cause
"significant structural weakness" in the cylinder head around the
car's exhaust manifold.
The suit accuses Mazda Motor America and Mazda Motor Corporation of
long knowing about the coolant leak defect and actively concealing
the problem from drivers.
"Despite their longstanding knowledge, Defendants have been unable
or unwilling to adequately repair the Class Vehicles for free when
the Defect manifests," the case alleges.
The alleged defect may allow coolant into an engine's combustion
chamber, where it can mix with engine oil and reduce the oil's
viscosity, hampering lubrication and increasing the chances of
premature engine failure, the filing says. Once this occurs,
internal engine damage cannot be repaired, and an engine
replacement is required, the suit states.
The Mazda vehicles at issue, like many vehicles, utilize a liquid
engine cooling system to dissipate heat generated by the engine's
combustion cycle while in operation, the lawsuit explains. This
cooling system incorporates a thermostat module that monitors the
engine's operating temperature by measuring the coolant's
temperature, and when the thermostat reads an optimal engine
temperature, it will open and allow coolant to flow between the
radiator and engine in order to stay within the ideal temperature
range, the filing relays.
Conversely, when an engine is running cold, the suit says, the
thermostat closes and keeps engine coolant from passing between the
radiator and the engine, allowing the latter to build heat to reach
optimal operating temperature.
In the Mazda class vehicles, the engine cylinder head is a critical
part of the engine's combustion cycle, as it's tasked with closing
the top of the combustion chamber, the complaint relays. Crucially,
the cylinder head, which is bolted to the top of the engine block,
also contains coolant passages through which flow significant
amounts of engine coolant, so as to transfer heat generated through
the combustion cycle away from the engine to prevent overheating,
the suit says.
"The engine cylinder head houses the spark plugs, intake and
exhaust runners, valves, oiling passages, and cooling passages. It
also has rockers to open and close the valves, and valve springs
that hold the camshafts. The function of the cylinder head is to
allow the engine to breathe the air it needs for combustion and
expel the exhaust gasses."
According to the complaint, the first technical service bulletin
(TSB) from Mazda regarding potential engine coolant leakage
stemming from the cylinder head came in October 2021, and
subsequent bulletins to dealers noted that "there may be cracks at
the stud bolt hole or outside of the exhaust manifold flange on the
cylinder head."
"According to Defendants' TSB, these cracks may be caused by
'[e]xpansion characteristics of the exhaust manifold during usage
causing unexpected force to certain areas of the cylinder head.
Residual stress generated during production in the cylinder head
material may be greater than expected. The external force from the
exhaust system when driving over bumps may cause unexpected force
to certain areas of the cylinder head. To eliminate this concern,
the design of the exhaust manifold gasket and the cylinder head has
been modified to reduce the force on the cylinder head.'"
Repair methods for the Mazda engine coolant leak defect range from
replacing an engine's cylinder head assembly to total engine
replacement, for which proposed class members are left to pay out
of pocket, the lawsuit says.
Rather than fix the alleged defect, Mazda has told drivers who
bring their cars to authorized dealers that the engine coolant
problem is not covered under warranty, the filing claims.
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
bought or leased a 2019-2020 Mazda CX-5, 2016-2020 Mazda CX-9 or
2018-2020 Mazda6. [GN]
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in NCS Set for June 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Northwest Cancer
Specialists, P.C. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00359 (N.D.
Okla., Filed June 16, 2016), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
entered an order setting class settlement conference for June 4,
2024, before Mag. Judge Paul J. Cleary.
The Court said, "The parties agreed in earlier ex parte discussions
that settlement negotiations should not occur before briefing is
completed on Class Certification. U.S. District Judge Gregory K.
Frizzell has ordered a settlement conference be conducted between
August 23 and September 30, 2024."
The purpose of this June 4 conference is to discuss the specific
timing and format for substantive settlement discussions in
September 2024, including who should be in attendance at that
conference and any preliminary issues that the Court may need to
address before that conference, the Court adds.
The Northwest suit is consolidated in the MDL case 16-md-2700
Genentech Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The lead case is case no. 4:16-md-02700.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech'
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
The Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Northwest Cancer provides health care facilities and services.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in OHACI Set for June 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oncology-Hematology
Associates of Central Illinois P.C. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No.
4:17-cv-00394 (N.D. Okla., Filed July 6, 2016), the Hon. Judge
Gregory K. Frizzell entered an order setting class settlement
conference for June 4, 2024, before Mag. Judge Paul J. Cleary.
The Court said, "The parties agreed in earlier ex parte discussions
that settlement negotiations should not occur before briefing is
completed on Class Certification. U.S. District Judge Gregory K.
Frizzell has ordered a settlement conference be conducted between
August 23 and September 30, 2024."
The purpose of this June 4 conference is to discuss the specific
timing and format for substantive settlement discussions in
September 2024, including who should be in attendance at that
conference and any preliminary issues that the Court may need to
address before that conference, the Court adds.
The Oncology-Hematology suit is consolidated in the MDL case
16-md-2700 Genentech Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation. The lead case is case no. 4:16-md-02700.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech'
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
The Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
Oncology-Hematology Associates provides health care services.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in PMC Set for June 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pikeville Medical Center
v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00251 (N.D. Okla., Filed June
7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered an order
setting class settlement conference for June 4, 2024, before Mag.
Judge Paul J. Cleary.
The Court said, "The parties agreed in earlier ex parte discussions
that settlement negotiations should not occur before briefing is
completed on Class Certification. U.S. District Judge Gregory K.
Frizzell has ordered a settlement conference be conducted between
August 23 and September 30, 2024."
The purpose of this June 4 conference is to discuss the specific
timing and format for substantive settlement discussions in
September 2024, including who should be in attendance at that
conference and any preliminary issues that the Court may need to
address before that conference, the Court adds.
The Pikeville suit is consolidated in the MDL case 16-md-2700
Genentech Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The lead case is case no. 4:16-md-02700.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech'
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
The Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
The Defendant provides health care facilities and services.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in TCI Suit Set for June 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tulsa Cancer Institute,
PLLC, et al v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00157 (N.D. Okla.,
Filed April 2, 2015), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered an
order setting class settlement conference for June 4, 2024, before
Mag. Judge Paul J. Cleary.
The Court said, "The parties agreed in earlier ex parte discussions
that settlement negotiations should not occur before briefing is
completed on Class Certification. U.S. District Judge Gregory K.
Frizzell has ordered a settlement conference be conducted between
August 23 and September 30, 2024."
The purpose of this June 4 conference is to discuss the specific
timing and format for substantive settlement discussions in
September 2024, including who should be in attendance at that
conference and any preliminary issues that the Court may need to
address before that conference, the Court adds.
The Tulsa suit is consolidated in the MDL case 16-md-2700 Genentech
Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The lead case is case no. 4:16-md-02700.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech'
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
The Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.[CC]
MDL 2700: Class Settlement Conference in VCII Set for June 4
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Virginia Cancer Institute
Incorporated v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00207 (N.D.
Okla., Filed April 7, 2016), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell
entered an order setting class settlement conference for June 4,
2024, before Mag. Judge Paul J. Cleary.
The Court said, "The parties agreed in earlier ex parte discussions
that settlement negotiations should not occur before briefing is
completed on Class Certification. U.S. District Judge Gregory K.
Frizzell has ordered a settlement conference be conducted between
August 23 and September 30, 2024."
The purpose of this June 4 conference is to discuss the specific
timing and format for substantive settlement discussions in
September 2024, including who should be in attendance at that
conference and any preliminary issues that the Court may need to
address before that conference, the Court adds.
The Virginia suit is consolidated in the MDL case 16-md-2700
Genentech Herceptin (Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The lead case is case no. 4:16-md-02700.
These actions share factual questions arising from Genentech'
marketing and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription
medication for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
The Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them.
The Defendant provides health care facilities and services.[CC]
MEDICAL EYE SERVICES: Eufusia Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eric E. Eufusia, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Medical Eye Services, Inc. doing
business as: MesVision, Case No. 8:24-cv-00432 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April
2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10844-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Medical Eye Services, Inc. doing business as MESVision --
https://www.mesvision.com/ -- focuses on brilliant vision care and
a healthy lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie A. Lyons, Esq.
Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
COHEN AND MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle T. Cutts
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Ste. 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 861-7576
Email: kcutts@bakerlaw.com
MEDICALODGES INC: DeLeon Conditional Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLONDA DELEON and SIRENA
STELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. MEDICALODGES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02224-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and notice.
The Court conditionally certifies a collective action for the
following class of persons:
"All Certified Nursing Assistants who worked in Medicalodges
facilities through Shiftkey in the last three years."
The Court further ordered that:
-- The Plaintiffs' request for setting the statute of limitations
at
three years is granted.
-- The Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations is denied.
-- The Plaintiffs remove any reference to "other like hourly
employees" from their proposed Notice and Consent Form or seek
leave to file a second amended complaint.
-- The Plaintiffs' request for a 90-day opt-in period for putative
plaintiffs to file their consent forms is granted.
Th Plaintiffs Yolanda Delon and Sirena Stell bring this putative
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
alleging that Defendant Medicalodges, Inc. failed to pay certain
certified nursing assistants ("CNAs") all wages due, including
overtime premiums.
Medicalodges owns, operates, and manages various nursing home
facilities throughout Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZvctUH at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDTRONIC PLC: Bid to Dismiss Local 464A's Claims Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled THE TRUSTEES OF THE WELFARE AND PENSION
FUNDS OF LOCAL 464A - PENSION FUND, et al., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDTRONIC
PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-02197-KMM-JFD (D. Minn.),
Judge Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss claims.
The lawsuit is a putative federal securities class action brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Medtronic PLC common stock between
May 23, 2019, and May 26, 2022 ("the Class Period").
The Plaintiffs are investors, who purchased Medtronic common stock
during the Class Period. The named plaintiffs in the Complaint are
The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix Provident
Pension Fund Ltd (collectively "Lead Plaintiffs" or "Phoenix").
The case was originally filed in September 2022 by the Trustees of
the Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A, but Phoenix moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel
in a consolidated securities class action. On Nov. 30, 2022, United
States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty appointed Phoenix as Lead
Plaintiffs. Phoenix filed the Consolidated Complaint for Violations
of the Federal Securities Laws ("Complaint") on Feb. 14, 2023.
Defendant Medtronic plc is an Irish corporation with its principal
place of business in Minneapolis. Medtronic is a medical device
company whose stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "MDT." Other Defendants include current and former
officers of Medtronic. Omar Ishrak was Medtronic's Chief Executive
Officer from June 2011 through April 26, 2020. Hooman Hakami served
as the EVP of the Diabetes Group from May 13, 2014, through Oct.
21, 2019.
In their Consolidated Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that despite
knowing of problems with Medtronic's efforts to develop and obtain
approval to sell a new generation of insulin pumps in the United
States, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to hide product issues
and their financial impact on Medtronic's business from investors
and misrepresented the degree to which timely U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval for the company's latest insulin pump was
in jeopardy.
The Defendants allegedly engaged in this fraud to keep Medtronic's
share prices artificially high, selling off substantial interests
in Medtronic shortly before information finally became public that
caused the share price to drop and led to millions in losses for
non-insiders.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs claims, raising a
throng of issues.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
relief under the federal securities laws. The Defendants raise six
distinct arguments: (i) they contend that the Complaint does not
allege any actionable misstatements; (ii) they argue that the
Plaintiffs fail to plead any violation of Item 303 of Regulation
S-K; (iii) they contend that the Plaintiffs do not assert a
cognizable "scheme" for purposes of their scheme-liability claim;
(iv) they assert that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a strong
inference of scienter; (v) they argue that Hakami is not a proper
defendant; and (vi) they contend that the Plaintiffs' control
person claims are inadequately alleged.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, based on
the Defendants' allegedly misleading forward-looking statements
about revenue from sales of the 600 Series pumps. The Court also
finds, among other things, that the alleged omission of product
problems from statements concerning competitive pressures in the
Complaint does not render those statements misleading.
Because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
that the Defendants made actionable misrepresentations and failed
to adequately allege facts supporting a strong inference of
scienter, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for relief under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. As a
result, Count I of the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
The absence of scienter also supports dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
scheme liability claim under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). And because the
Court finds no primary violation of Section 10(b), the Court also
dismisses Count II of the Complaint under Section 20(a) for
control-person liability.
Finally, in their opposition to the Defendants' motion, the
Plaintiffs request leave to amend if the Court finds that the
Complaint fails to state a claim. At this time, the Court does not
have before it a motion to amend or a proposed amended pleading to
evaluate.
In some circumstances, Judge Menendez notes, the judge will allow
the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint within a
specified time of the order granting a motion to dismiss.
However, the Court will not take that approach here for two
reasons. First, as this opinion makes clear, the Court does not
find that the flaws with the Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case are
insufficient specificity or based on merely a failure to plead
enough factual content. Rather, the Court has found the Plaintiffs'
claims are flawed for more substantive reasons.
Second, the Plaintiffs have already amended their pleading once,
and it is not clear that further amendment could resolve the
deficiencies identified by the Court in this Order. Nor does the
Court assume that, after receiving this Order, the Plaintiffs would
still prefer to seek leave to amend rather than pursue an appeal.
However, to ensure that the Plaintiffs are not deprived of an
opportunity to seek post-dismissal leave to amend, the Court will
delay entry of judgment in this matter for a period of 30 days.
If the Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to amend within 30 days
of the date of this Order, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court
to enter a final judgment in this matter. If the Plaintiffs
determine that they do not wish to file a motion to amend prior to
the expiration of this 30-day deadline, they may notify the Court
so that the Court can promptly direct the Clerk to enter judgment.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint for Violations of
the Federal Securities Laws is dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 28, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2aadnbaj from PacerMonitor.com.
MEIJER GREAT LAKES: Durham Sues Over Misleading Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Durham, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. MEIJER GREAT LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No.
2024LA000403 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., April 2,
2024), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, injunctive
and declaratory relief from Defendant, for its deceptive, unfair
and misleading advertising and pricing of gasoline products sold to
consumers in the State of Illinois.
This class action seeks remedies for Plaintiff and other Illinois
consumers who were deceived by Meijer's advertising of gas prices
using fractional pricing to the 9/10th. Meijer's fractional gas
pricing is deceptive, unfair and misleading because it does not
reflect the true cost to consumers of the gasoline purchased.
Meijer uses fractional gas pricing to advertise one price for the
gasoline it sells to Plaintiff and Illinois consumers and then
charges a different price by rounding up the final price. The price
a consumer sees as advertised by Meijer and the price the consumer
pays to Meijer for its gasoline are two different amounts. Meijer
rounds up from the actual, advertised price, to charge the
Plaintiff and Illinois consumers a price that is higher than
advertised. This bait-and-switch advertising allows Meijer to make
millions of dollars each year from unsuspecting Illinois
consumers.
During the Class Period, Meijer used deceptive, unfair and
misleading bait-and-switch advertising to fleece Illinois consumers
of millions of dollars by advertising one price and then charging a
different price for its gasoline products. In in order to
artificially inflate its income from gasoline sales, Meijer rounds
up its price for gasoline to a different, higher price than is
shown on the gas pump. Relying on the deceptive, unfair and
misleading advertising, Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased
Meijer gasoline products and paid more than the advertised price,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased gasoline at Defendant's retail store.
Meijer operates retail locations in Illinois that sell gasoline to
Illinois consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C.
IL Bar No.: 6237159
490 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1
Glen Ellyn IL 60137
Phone: (630) 677-6745
Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Bogdan, Enica, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C.
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 375
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (305) 306-4989
Email: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com
MEMPHIS,TN: Appellate Court Hears 12K Untested Rape Kits Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Best of Jackson Sun reports that an oral argument for a
pending class action lawsuit was presented before the Tennessee
Court of Appeals in Jackson on April 9, 2024, following a ruling
that the suit could be filed by all affected victims against the
City of Memphis for not testing more than 12,000 rape kits.
Denying the city's demand to drop the lawsuit, Shelby County
Circuit Court Judge Gina Higgins ruled in March 2023 that the suit
seeking damages pertaining to thousands of untested Sexual Assault
Kits (SAKs), dating as far back as the 1980s, could proceed as a
class-action suit and the city would have to stand trial.
The City of Memphis appealed the ruling, bringing the lawsuit to
the state appeals court in Jackson on April 9, 2024.
The appeal is divided between two related, yet separate cases,
"Johnson et. al. v. The City of Memphis" and "Janet Doe v. The City
of Memphis et. al."
Johnson case sheds light on slew of unsolved cases
In the summer of 2013, the City of Memphis released a statement in
response to findings of more than 12,000 rape kits that went
untested between 1985 and 2012.
Rachel Johnson, Madison Graves, and Meaghan Ybos filed a lawsuit in
2014 against the City of Memphis and other entities, noting that
they "suffered severe emotional stress," following the city's
statement and with respect to their incidents of sexual assault.
The plaintiffs asked for $1.5 million, with a maximum cap of
$750,000 to be paid by Shelby County, which was formerly a
defendant, and the City of Memphis.
In discovery, it was revealed that the women knew their kits had
been tested shortly after their assaults, and that the perpetrator,
who assaulted all three of them, was apprehended and convicted.
The three cases were ultimately dismissed.
Attorney Jon Lakey, representing the city, argued that the
class-action ruling should be overturned on the basis that the
class needs to be defined before being certified.
Noting that the existing class is broad and that the complexities
of the suit warrant subclasses, he said the trial court "failed to
engage in the rigorous analysis that it is required to undertake
before certifying a class."
Janet Doe v. The City of Memphis
Because the Johnson et. al. case was dismissed, Smith emphasized
the focus on the currently standing case of Janet Doe.
Doe was sexually assaulted in 1997 and submitted to DNA collection
for a SAK.
Her kit was not tested until 2015.
Doe's case seeks $10 million in damages with no maximum cap per
government entity, unlike Johnson et. al.
Lakey says that because the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) had
not been established by law enforcement until 2002, there was no
existing suspect to compare the DNA collected in Doe's case to,
making the operational facts of the case different from Johnson et.
al., whose assaults occurred post-CODIS.
CODIS is a national database storing DNA profiles of convicted
offenders, missing persons, and unsolved crime scene evidence.
Gary Smith, representing Doe in appellee counsel, argued that this
was a "horrendously wrong" point in Lakey's statement. Referencing
an affidavit from a retired Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
agent, Smith says SAKs could be submitted to TBI for testing
pre-CODIS.
He maintained that even after 2002, the backlog was allowed to
continue to grow, and hence why, even post-CODIS, Doe's kit had not
been tested until 2015.
"In effect, what the city argues here under some metaphorical,
theoretical pretense is that they can not be held accountable for a
scandal of epic proportions," Smith said.
The decision to uphold or deny the appeal lies in the hands of
Judges Andy Bennett, Arnold Goldin, and J. Steven Stafford. [GN]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Dismisses Snowdy Suit w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SNOWDY, et al., v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and MERCEDES BENZ GROUP AG f/k/a DAIMLER AG,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01681-ES-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas
entered an order dismissing all of the claims in Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
However, they are dismissed without prejudice, the Court says.
The Court cannot rule out the possibility that Plaintiffs might
amend their Complaint to assert viable claims.
This putative class action arises from an alleged defect in
2014–2017 Mercedes B-Class Electric Vehicles. The Plaintiffs
Stephen Snowdy,
Abraham Dean Liou, Kelsey Clifford, Dell Jones, Richard Ramdhanny,
and Brandon Waiss are consumers who either purchased or leased one
such vehicle.
The Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants bringing claims
under state law for (i) unjust enrichment; (ii) negligent
misrepresentation; (iii) statutory and common law consumer fraud;
(iv) breach of express warranty; and (v) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of
"all persons who purchased or leased a 2014-2017 Mercedes
B-Class
EV."
They also seek to represent State Sub-Classes, including
Sub-Classes of:
"all persons who purchased or leased a 2014-2017 Mercedes
B-Class
EV within the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, New
Jersey, New York, and Oregon."
A copy of the Court's opinion dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ktKiwg at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICROSOFT CORP: Bid to Intervene in Basbanes Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS A. BASBANES and
NICHOLAS NGAGOYEANES, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No.
24-CV-84 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered an
order denying the California Plaintiffs' motions to intervene for
the purpose of transferring, staying, or dismissing the New York
Actions.
Finally, the California Plaintiffs have not shown that the existing
parties would not adequately represent their hypothetical
interest.
The Court said, "The California Plaintiffs do not satisfy the
requirements of permissive intervention. First, the same factors
motivating the Court's denial of intervention as of right—the
lack of cognizable interest, the lack of impairment of any
interest, and the adequacy of representation—also motivate denial
of permissive intervention. Second, it is clear that granting
intervention here will prejudice the adjudication of the original
parties' rights."
The California Plaintiffs explicitly state that they seek
intervention "for the limited purpose of filing this Motion to
Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer." A dismissal, stay, or transfer of this
case would certainly prejudice the original parties. Third,
intervention and dismissal or transfer would disrupt the expedited
timeline agreed to by the parties and ordered by this Court in the
Author Actions, where discovery has already commenced and a
schedule for summary judgment briefing has been established, the
Court adds.
The Plaintiffs are copyright holders—a professional writers
association, authors, and a news organization—seeking to enforce
their intellectual property rights against defendants Microsoft
Corporation,
OpenAI, Inc., and various entities affiliated with OpenAI.
Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sokRYz at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICROSOFT CORP: California Plaintiffs' Bid to Intervene Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE NEW YORK TIMES
COMPANY, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET AL. Case No. 23-CV-11195
(SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered an order
denying the California Plaintiffs' motions to intervene for the
purpose of transferring, staying, or dismissing the New York
Actions.
Finally, the California Plaintiffs have not shown that the existing
parties would not adequately represent their hypothetical
interest.
The Court said, "The California Plaintiffs do not satisfy the
requirements of permissive intervention. First, the same factors
motivating the Court's denial of intervention as of right—the
lack of cognizable interest, the lack of impairment of any
interest, and the adequacy of representation—also motivate denial
of permissive intervention. Second, it is clear that granting
intervention here will prejudice the adjudication of the original
parties' rights."
The California Plaintiffs explicitly state that they seek
intervention "for the limited purpose of filing this Motion to
Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer." A dismissal, stay, or transfer of this
case would certainly prejudice the original parties. Third,
intervention and dismissal or transfer would disrupt the expedited
timeline agreed to by the parties and ordered by this Court in the
Author Actions, where discovery has already commenced and a
schedule for summary judgment briefing has been established, the
Court adds.
The Plaintiffs are copyright holders—a professional writers
association, authors, and a news organization—seeking to enforce
their intellectual property rights against defendants Microsoft
Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., and various entities affiliated with
OpenAI.
Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GQT4Cs at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Khalid Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ATM Shafiqul Khalid; Xencare Software, inc.,
and all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, Case No. 19-2-02755-0
SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, King County,
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on April 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00449.
The Second Amended Complaint filed on November 20, 2023 (SAC)
alleges four causes of action: Breach of Contract, Breach of the
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Washington Consumer
Protection Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
2800 First Avenue, Suite 326
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: 206.337-6551
Email: hbradley@bradleybernstein.com
MILLENNIAL CAPITAL: Wyrick Balks at Illegal Lease Termination Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN WYRICK, an individual, o/b/o herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLENNIAL CAPITAL COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and GREP SOUTHEAST, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, doing business together as
"Belmont, Charles Towne & Manor Row at Park Central," Defendants,
Case No. 2024-CA-002809-0 (Fla. Cir., 9th Judicial, Orange Cty.,
March 31, 2024) is a class action brought under the Florida
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment/restitution
arising from the unlawful imposing of lease termination fees by
Defendants.
According to the complaint, despite the Lease Termination
Provision, Defendants do not in fact send the mandated notice
pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 83.575(2). As a result, Defendants
claim the right to recover monies which were not owed under the
Lease Termination Provision.
The Defendants use standard form collection notices when they deal
with tenants' accounts following termination of the lease. The
Defendants violated the FRLTA by seeking monies from former tenants
under the Lease Termination Provision without legal authority. In
addition, Defendants collection practices violate the FCCPA by
asserting legal rights that Defendants knew do not exist and by
engaging in conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or
harass consumers, says the suit.
Millennial Capital Company, LLC is an apartment rental agency doing
business as Belmont Charles Towne & Manor Row at Park Central.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
440 Premier Circle, Suite 240
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Telephone: (434) 328-3100
Facsimile: (434) 328-3101
E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com
- and -
Joseph M. Sternberg, Esq.
LANDERS & STERNBERG, PLLC
100 E. Pine Street, Suite 110
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 495-1893
E-mail: joseph@landersandsternberg.com
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Seeks to File Reply in Support of Objections
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR COSTELLO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00035-TAV-CRW
(E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting the motion for leave to file a reply in support of its
objections to Magistrate Judge Wyrick's Jan. 22, 2024, Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's class certification
motion be granted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) permits a party to file
objections to an R&R, and for the other party to respond to those
objections. However, the Defendant seeks leave to file a reply for
the limited purpose of responding to new arguments in the
Plaintiff's response and to notify the court of intervening
authority.
Mountain is an insurance company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1fMPP9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Erin M. Munger, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
- and -
Taylor A. Williams, Esq.
PAINE, TARWATER, & BICKERS, LLP
900 South Gay Street, Suite 2200
Knoxville, TN 37902-1821
Telephone: (865) 525-0880
E-mail: taw@painetarwater.com
MUSEUM OF SEX: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ruiz Due Oct. 25
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLING RUIZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE MUSEUM OF
SEX LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00178-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Ronnie Abrams entered a case management plan and scheduling order
as follows:
-- All fact discovery is to be completed no Oct. 18, 2024
later than:
-- All discovery shall be completed no Feb. 21, 2025
later than:
-- The Court will conduct a post-discovery Oct. 18, 2024
conference on:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion for Oct. 25, 2024
class certification and serve her expert
reports on or before:
-- The Defendant shall file an opposition to Dec. 20, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and serve its expert reports on or before:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a reply in support Jan. 24, 2025
of her motion for class certification and
any reply expert reports on or before:
The Defendant showcases the history and evolution of human
sexuality through immersive exhibitions in collaboration with
artists and scholars.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7ZwTik at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATALE GROUP: Faces Tsolomitis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN TSOLOMITIS, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATALE GROUP LTD.
and BRUCE NATALE, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02380 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 29, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages in accordance with the
agreed terms of his employment, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements for each pay period, failure to provide a wage notice
upon his hire, for retaliation, and for violations of the New York
common law with respect to claims for unjust enrichment and quantum
meruit.
The Plaintiff commenced his employment in September 2022 as a
warehouse worker, though he ultimately worked as a driver and mover
during his employment as needed. The Plaintiff held these positions
until about January 18, 2023.
Natale Group Ltd. operates a warehouse, moving, and delivery
company, which is located in Hauppauge, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Chappelle Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gordon Chappelle, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
24STCV00286 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 2, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02667.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to assert seven causes of
action, alleging violations of the California Labor Code: Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to
Pay All Wages Upon Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shahram Samie, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: ssamie@littler.com
- and -
Atticus Lee, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.433.1940
Fax: 415.399.8490
Email: atlee@littler.com
NATIONAL VISION: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on March 30, 2024,
Judge Victoria Marie Calvert of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia granted a motion to dismiss a
putative securities class action against an optical retail company
and certain of its executive officers (the "Individual
Defendants"). City of Southfield General Employees Retirement Sys.
v. National Vision Holdings, et al., No. 23-cv-00425-VMC (N.D. Ga.
Mar. 30, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding staffing and wage pressures
faced by the Company leading up to and through the Covid-19
pandemic. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to adequately plead
falsity and scienter.
Plaintiff, representing a putative class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between May 13, 2021 and
February 28, 2023 (the "Class Period"), alleged that defendants
made false and misleading statements about the Company's ability to
navigate its growing demand for optometrists resulting from the
increased demand for eye exams during the pandemic. Plaintiff
alleged that while the Company was actually experiencing a labor
shortage crisis due in part to high turnover of its optometrists,
the Company repeatedly stated publicly that it had largely avoided
labor disruptions faced by similar retailers. Plaintiff alleged
that while the stock price was inflated, the Individual Defendants
"suspiciously" sold more than $34 million of their personally-held
Company shares, and that the truth about the Company was gradually
revealed through three partial disclosures in which the Company
announced disappointing financial projections and results resulting
from, among other things, "not having enough doctors for the
demand" faced by the Company.
The Court dismissed plaintiff's claims for failure to adequately
plead falsity and scienter. With respect to falsity, the Court
divided its analysis into three groups of allegedly false
statements by defendants: (1) statements regarding the Company's
wage inflation and retention issues; (2) statements about the
success of the Company's remote medicine initiative; and (3)
statements regarding the Company’s post-pandemic business and
sustainability.
The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege falsity with respect
to the statements about the Company's wage and retention issues
because plaintiff repeatedly categorized certain alleged statements
as false in a conclusory manner, without identifying facts that
showed the statements were in fact false when made. The Court
further held that plaintiff's allegations with respect to certain
alleged statements by defendants were misstated or contradictory.
For example, plaintiff alleged that the Company's CEO stated the
Company was experiencing "record high retention rates," when in
fact the CEO had stated the Company was continuing to invest in
retention programs to keep "high retention rates near record
levels."
The Court similarly held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
falsity with respect to alleged statements in which defendants
allegedly overstated the success of the Company's remote optometry
option—a work-from-home pilot program that the Company launched
to combat some of the retention issues it was allegedly facing.
Specifically, plaintiff repeatedly alleged that the Company
"misleadingly emphasized" the growth of this initiative; however,
the Court highlighted several disclosures in which defendants
actually reported minimal, "incremental," and "sequential" progress
with the pilot initiative. Plaintiff also alleged that the
Company's pilot remote medicine program was "inefficient and
flawed" and that defendants failed to take steps "to seriously
implement" the program, which the Court held amounted, at most, to
“an allegation of non-actionable corporate mismanagement, not
securities fraud."
Finally, with respect to plaintiff's allegations that the Company
misleadingly stated that it was "well-positioned to navigate the
rest of the pandemic and beyond," the Court held that plaintiff
failed to plead particularized facts that demonstrate why
profitability was unsustainable or how the Company's labor crisis
and exam capacity constraints were allegedly different from what
they disclosed to investors. The Court held that plaintiff, "in a
conclusory fashion and with the benefit of hindsight, . . .
criticized Defendants for their inaccurate predictions regarding
the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the Company," and that
"Courts have routinely rejected this kind of hindsight pleading in
the wake of the pandemic."
Turning to the issue of scienter, the Court held that plaintiff
could not establish that defendants acted with the required state
of mind in making the allegedly false statements about the
Company's labor shortage and future outlook by simply alleging that
defendants received reports and attended meetings discussing
recruiting, retention, and exam capacity, because plaintiff "never
alleged particularized facts demonstrating how the content of those
metrics, reports, or calls differed materially from what was
contemporaneously disclosed by the Company."
Having found no primary liability under Section 10(b), the Court
dismissed plaintiff's derivative claim under Section 20(a) against
the Individual Defendants. The Court did not grant leave to amend,
holding plaintiff's request, which was imbedded in the last
sentence of its opposition brief was not raised properly, and that,
in any event, any amendment would be futile. [GN]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Long Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dale Long, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
Case No. 24CV066752 was removed from the Alameda County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-02063 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.nationwide.com/
-- is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial services
companies based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Joel David Siegel, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 623-9300
Fax: (213) 623-9924
Email: joel.siegel@dentons.com
NCB MANAGEMENT: Trafford Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Darryl Trafford, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. NCB Management
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00576-SEB-MKK (S.D. Ind., April 2,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
NCB Management Services, Inc. -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a
national accounts receivable management company and debt
buyer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Marco, Esq.
Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
5250 Old Orchard Rd., Suite 300
Skokie, IL 60077
Phone: (312) 546-6539
Fax: (312) 602-3911
Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com
lsmith@smithmarco.com
NEMANOUUR MEHRDAD EDWARD: Elam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nemanouur Mehrdad
Edward, et al. The case is styled as Domonique R. Elam,
individually on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Nemanouur Mehrdad Edward, Case No.
24STCV08538 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 4, 2024).
The case type is stated "Breach of Rental /Lease Contract (COVID-19
Rental Debt) (General Jurisdiction)."
Nemanouur Mehrdad Edward aka Ed Newman individually in his official
Capacity As CEO And As The Property Owner Of MAJD LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Redmond, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. REDMOND, PC
656 5th Ave., Ste. R
San Diego, CA 92101-6867
Phone: 916-444-8240
Fax: 866-476-9393
Email: mr@markredmondlaw.com
- and -
Lawrence J. Asalisbury, Esq.
SALISBURY LEGAL CORP.
656 5th Ave. Ste. R.
San Diego, CA 92101-6867
Phone: 619-241-2760
Fax: 866-476-9393
Email: lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com
NEW YORK CITY: Court Dismisses Bronx Fund's 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled THE BRONX FREEDOM FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10614-JPC-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss and dismisses the second amended complaint in its
entirety.
The Bronx Freedom Fund alleges that the Bronx County Criminal Court
Clerk's Office, together with the New York City Department of
Finance (the "DOF"), regularly forfeits cash bails without
following the proper procedures.
On Dec. 10, 2021, the Fund initiated this putative class action. In
its three-count, twice-amended Complaint, the Fund asserts claims
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the New York State Constitution, and
28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202 against the City of New York (the
"City"); the former New York City Criminal Court Chief Clerk,
Justin Barry; the Bronx County Borough Chief Clerk, William Kalish;
and various John and Jane Doe Defendants, seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees.
Before the Court are motions to dismiss brought by the City, Barry,
and Kalish. The Fund's requests for prospective relief in the form
of an injunction and a declaratory judgment are dismissed without
prejudice for want of jurisdiction, and the Fund's Section 1983
claim against the City is dismissed with prejudice. Having
dismissed the Fund's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims, and so
dismisses them without prejudice to the Fund's refiling them in
state court.
The Fund is a non-profit bail fund in the Bronx. It has provided
bail assistance to indigent criminal defendants facing pretrial
detention for misdemeanor charges for nearly a decade, including by
posting cash bail to help secure the freedom of indigent New
Yorkers.
According to the Fund, the large majority of those released on bail
or bond appear for their court appearances. Indeed, as alleged,
approximately 92% of the Fund's clients make their court
appearances, and the bail money is then returned to the Fund. But
in certain instances, the Fund has been subject to improper
forfeiture procedures, carried out (1) by the Clerk's Office and
(2) by the DOF--each in contravention of its respective stated
policy.
Among other relief, the Fund seeks not only compensatory damages
from the City but also prospective relief against Barry, Kalish,
and the John and Jane Doe Defendants, in the form of a declaratory
judgment and an injunction against these Defendants' policy of
improperly forfeiting bail.
The City and the DOF jointly moved to dismiss the Complaint on
April 11, 2022, arguing, among other things, that the DOF was a
non-suable entity and that the Fund had failed to state a Monell
claim against the City, citing Monell v. Department of Social
Services of the City of New York, the Supreme Court 436 U.S. 658,
689 (1978). Kalish moved for dismissal on April 27, 2022, urging
the availability of alternate state remedies, as well as his
immunity from suit. That same day, Barry moved to dismiss the
Complaint, raising similar arguments as the other Defendants and
further contending that the Fund lacked standing for the
prospective injunctive and declaratory relief sought against him.
In response, on May 23, 2022, the Fund filed an Amended Complaint,
thereby, rendering the motions moot.
In June 2022, Kalish, Barry, the City, and the DOF moved to dismiss
the Amended Complaint on similar grounds raised in their initial
motions. The Fund opposed the motions, and the Defendants replied.
On March 31, 2023, the Court granted the motions, dismissed the
Amended Complaint in its entirety, and terminated the DOF, a
non-suable entity, as a party in the case.
In that Opinion and Order, the Court dismissed the Fund's claims
against Barry and Kalish, finding that the Fund had failed to
allege the requisite likelihood of future injury to have standing
to seek prospective relief, as well as the Fund's Section 1983
claim against the City, finding that the Fund had failed to
adequately allege a municipal policy. The Court granted leave to
amend sua sponte, but emphasized "that the Fund should amend only
if it is able to resolve the pleading deficiencies outlined" in the
Opinion and Order.
On April 30, 2023, the Fund filed the Second Amended Complaint,
bringing the same three claims as it did in its prior versions. In
Count One, the Fund alleges that the Defendants deprived the Fund
of its rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution by conducting unreasonable seizures and
unlawful taking of property and by depriving the Fund of its
property without due process of law and in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. In Count Two, the Fund alleges the same conduct but
under the New York State Constitution, Article 1, Sections 6 and 7.
In Count Three, the Fund seeks declaratory relief related to these
claims.
Defendant Kalish moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
June 20, 2023, while Barry and the City moved to dismiss on June
23, 2023. On July 28, 2023, the Fund filed an omnibus opposition
brief. Each Defendant replied.
In moving under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the claims for prospective
relief against them, Barry and Kalish argue that the Fund has
failed once again to plead facts sufficient to confer standing. The
Court agrees.
Judge Cronan points out that the Fund has not alleged any facts
suggesting a "substantial risk" that its clients will miss their
court appearances, or that such a delinquency is "certainly
impending." Nor can the Fund demonstrate a substantial risk that it
will once again be subject to the challenged forfeiture procedures
merely by relying on the four alleged instances in which the bails
it posted between May 2018 and December 2019 were deemed forfeited
between July 2018 and January 2020.
Past injury alone cannot supply the sole predicate for a risk of
future injury that is sufficiently concrete and imminent to confer
Article III standing, Judge Cronan opines.
In sum, Judge Cronan explains, despite the Court's clear
instruction in the March 31, 2023 Opinion and Order that the Fund
must plead "a likelihood of future injury" to establish standing
for prospective relief, the Fund has come forward with no
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint to allow the Court to
find a likelihood that the Fund will suffer in the future the
injury it alleges.
As the Fund seeks only prospective relief against Barry, Kalish,
and the John and Jane Doe Defendants, the Court dismisses without
prejudice the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction as to those Defendants.
Judge Cronan also finds that the Fund's allegations do not
plausibly show that through its deliberate conduct, the
municipality was the "moving force" behind the injury alleged. As a
result, the Fund has failed to allege a policy or custom that can
subject the City to Monell liability, and the Court, thus,
dismisses with prejudice the Fund's Section 1983 claim against the
City.
Lastly, the Court considers whether to grant leave to amend. Judge
Cronan notes that the Fund has not asked the Court for leave to
amend their Complaint. The Court may grant leave to amend sua
sponte after considering many factors, including undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies,
undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility.
Having considered these factors, the Court declines to grant the
Fund leave to file a third amended complaint. The Fund has now had
two opportunities to amend its pleading based on the very grounds
on which the Court bases its dismissal here. Considering these
circumstances and given the nature of the substantive deficiencies
identified in the instant writing, the Court finds that granting
the Fund yet another bite at the apple would be futile.
For these reasons, the Court dismisses the Second Amended Complaint
in its entirety. Count One is dismissed without prejudice as to
Kalish, Barry, and the John and Jane Doe Defendants for want of
jurisdiction and with prejudice as to the City. Count Two is
dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Count Three
is dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions pending at
Docket Numbers 83, 86, and 88, and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 28,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/7nby6823 from
PacerMonitor.com.
NEW YORK, NY: Campbell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Marie Campbell, Alfredo Rodriguez, Richard Larreategui, Raul
Dejesus, and Rakesh Karki, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:24-cv-02575
(S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2024), is brought by Plaintiffs challenging
acts committed by the Defendant against Plaintiffs which violate
federal wage and hour laws as a result of the unpaid overtime
wages.
The Defendant does not properly compensate Plaintiffs and other
campus peace officers, campus public safety sergeants, campus
security , and security specialists who have been employed at City
University of New York ("CUNY") community colleges ("Community
Colleges"). The Defendant does not include three types of pay
differentials – shift differentials, fire safety differentials,
and "arms" differentials--in its calculation of employees' regular
rate of pay. The regular rate of pay is used in the calculation of
Plaintiffs' overtime pay rates. The FLSA requires Defendant to
multiply CUNY Officers' regular rate of pay by 1.5 to calculate
their overtime pay rates. By omitting these differentials from CUNY
Officers' regular pay rate, Defendant underpays their overtime,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant.
The Defendant is a municipality incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
Matthew Berman, Esq.
Brendan Carman, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Ste. 519
Garden City, New York 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7180
Fax: (516) 706-0248
Email: rvalli@vkv.law
skane@vkv.law
mberman@vkv.law
bcarman@vkv.law
- and –
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Michael D. Lieder, Esq.
Jane Kim, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K. Street, NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
Email: cmehri@findjustice.com
mlieder@findjustice.com
jkim@findjustice.com
NEW YORK: Faces Zielinski Suit Over Denial of Religious Exercise
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY ZIELINSKI, TRAVIS HUDSON, BRUCE MOSES, OSCAR NUNEZ, JEAN
MARC DESMARAT, and DAVID HAIGH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS); DOCCS ACTING
COMMISSIONER DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO III, in his official capacity;
DOCCS SUPERINTENDENT DAVID HOWARD, in his official capacity; and
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR PROGRAM SERVICES DANIELLE GLEBOCKI, in
her official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-00450-MAD-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act and the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The complaint centers on the April 8, 2024 solar eclipse, which was
similarly expected to be a time for Christians, Santerians,
Muslims, and Atheists -- to name a few examples -- to gather as the
world goes dark for a few minutes in the middle of the day. The
next total solar eclipse visible from the contiguous United States
will not occur for another 20 years, in 2044.
The six named Plaintiffs come from varying backgrounds and hold
different religious beliefs, but all share the following in common:
first, they are incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility in
Sullivan County, New York; second, they have each expressed a
sincerely held religious belief that April's solar eclipse is a
religious event that they must witness and reflect on to observe
their faiths; and third, they will all be denied their statutory
and constitutional rights to practice their religions if the Court
does not act quickly to enjoin the New York Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) from enforcing a
statewide lockdown that illegally prohibits Plaintiffs from
observing the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024.
DOCCS's statewide ban on incarcerated persons viewing the eclipse
from the yard in any DOCCS facility does not promote a compelling
governmental interest through the least restrictive means, says the
suit.
DOCCS is a state agency charged with the care of incarcerated
individuals in New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher L. McArdle, Esq.
Sharon Steinerman, Esq.
Madeline E. Byrd, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 210-9542
E-mail: chris.mcardle@alston.com
sharon.steinerman@alston.com
maddy.byrd@alston.com
ODE A LA ROSE: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ode A La Rose, Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ode A La Rose, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02440 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ode a la Rose -- https://www.odealarose.com/ -- is a nationwide
flower delivery service offering same day delivery in select
cities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
ONSITE EMPLOYEE: Parties Must Refile Case Management Report
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fountain v. OnSite
Employee Leasing, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00355 (M.D. Fla., Filed
Feb. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed
order striking the case management report.
The Court said that the parties are to refile the Case Management
Report including the following dates:
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification, within 14 days of
the
date of this Order.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[CC]
OPEN AI INC: California Plaintiffs' Bid to Intervene in AG Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUTHORS GUILD, ET AL., v.
OPEN AI, INC., ET AL., Case No. 23-CV-8292 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered an order denying the California
Plaintiffs' motions to intervene for the purpose of transferring,
staying, or dismissing the New York Actions.
Finally, the California Plaintiffs have not shown that the existing
parties would not adequately represent their hypothetical
interest.
The Court said, "The California Plaintiffs do not satisfy the
requirements of permissive intervention. First, the same factors
motivating the Court's denial of intervention as of right—the
lack of cognizable interest, the lack of impairment of any
interest, and the adequacy of representation—also motivate denial
of permissive intervention. Second, it is clear that granting
intervention here will prejudice the adjudication of the original
parties' rights."
The California Plaintiffs explicitly state that they seek
intervention "for the limited purpose of filing this Motion to
Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer." A dismissal, stay, or transfer of this
case would certainly prejudice the original parties. Third,
intervention and dismissal or transfer would disrupt the expedited
timeline agreed to by the parties and ordered by this Court in the
Author Actions, where discovery has already commenced and a
schedule for summary judgment briefing has been established, the
Court adds.
The Plaintiffs are copyright holders—a professional writers
association, authors, and a news organization—seeking to enforce
their intellectual property rights against defendants Microsoft
Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., and various entities affiliated with
OpenAI.
OpenAI is a U.S.-based artificial intelligence research
organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7oeCjt at no extra
charge.[CC]
OPEN AI INC: California Plaintiffs' Bid to Intervene in Alter Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN ALTER, ET AL., v.
OPEN AI, INC., ET AL., Case No. 23-CV-10211 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered an order denying the California
Plaintiffs' motions to intervene for the purpose of transferring,
staying, or dismissing the New York Actions.
Finally, the California Plaintiffs have not shown that the existing
parties would not adequately represent their hypothetical
interest.
The Court said, "The California Plaintiffs do not satisfy the
requirements of permissive intervention. First, the same factors
motivating the Court's denial of intervention as of right—the
lack of cognizable interest, the lack of impairment of any
interest, and the adequacy of representation—also motivate denial
of permissive intervention. Second, it is clear that granting
intervention here will prejudice the adjudication of the original
parties' rights."
The California Plaintiffs explicitly state that they seek
intervention "for the limited purpose of filing this Motion to
Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer." A dismissal, stay, or transfer of this
case would certainly prejudice the original parties. Third,
intervention and dismissal or transfer would disrupt the expedited
timeline agreed to by the parties and ordered by this Court in the
Author Actions, where discovery has already commenced and a
schedule for summary judgment briefing has been established, the
Court adds.
The Plaintiffs are copyright holders—a professional writers
association, authors, and a news organization—seeking to enforce
their intellectual property rights against defendants Microsoft
Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., and various entities affiliated with
OpenAI.
OpenAI is a U.S.-based artificial intelligence research
organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=evkrdK at no extra
charge.[CC]
ORSINI PHARMACEUTICAL: Fails to Protect Health Info, Eckhart Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH ECKHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORSINI PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02935 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within the Defendant's computer system following a
data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Orsini Pharmaceutical Services, LLC is a specialty pharmacy, with
its principal place of business located in Elk Grove Village,
Illinois. [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
- and -
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: jdeters@msdlegal.com
PACIFIC CCI: Matus Sues Over Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Elieth Del Carmen Olivas Matus, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PACIFIC CCI, INC., a Delaware
corporation; THE HOXTON (DOWNTOWN LA) LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; PAUL FALLON, an individual; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08628 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to
provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties;
wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to
indemnify; and Unfair Competition.
The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without
limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per
day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work
week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess
of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week,
and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work
week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay
for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay;
engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock,
including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class
Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being
able to clock in for all that time, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee with duties that included, but were not limited to,
housekeeping and general cleaning services.
Pacific CCI is a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business in
the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Henry G. Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
henry@tomorrowlaw.com
PACIFIC COAST: Woods Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tracy Woods, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PACIFIC COAST SIGHTSEEING TOURS &
CHARTERS, INC., COACH USA, INC., MEGABUS WEST, LLC, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. BCV-24-100494 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on April 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-at-00291.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of "all
individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendants in
California, classified as non-exempt employees paid on an hourly
basis" during the relevant Class Period who were either: "required
to remain on-call or standby during at least one layover"; "worked
shifts of 10 hours or more and were not provided lawful meal
breaks"; "worked shifts of 4 hours or more and were not provided
lawful rest breaks"; "were provided with inaccurate wage
statements"; and/or "whom the Defendants knowingly failed to timely
pay all wages due to said employees."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gabriel M. Huey, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.552.5000
Fax: 310.552.5001
Email: Gabriel.Huey@klgates.com
PHARMSCRIPT LLC: Dethloff-Sprague Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Dethloff-Sprague, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PHARMSCRIPT, LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, and PS of MI, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company, jointly and severally, Case No. 3:24-cv-04589 (D.N.J.,
April 5, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a
result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime
pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and
have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that
does not include Defendants' shift differentials and other
non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA. The
Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and those similarly situated for
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, interest, and any other relief deemed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from June 2023 through January
2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.
PharmScript, LLC, is a New Jersey limited liability company,
headquartered in Somerset, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
PLATINUM CHOICE: Duncan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raesheena Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Platinum Choice Health Care, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02648 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2024), is brought against
Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") as a result
of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and sales agents as
independent contractors. The Plaintiff and other sales agents
employed by Defendant worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff and other sales agents at
one and one-half times their normal hourly rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks. In a willful
attempt to avoid the payment of overtime wages, Defendant employed
a variety of schemes to deprive their sales agents of their earned
wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a sales agent.
The Defendant pays workers to sell supplemental medicare insurance
plans in the State of Illinois and in other states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kuhk Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tyler Kuhk, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 24-2-03889-2 SEA was removed from the King
County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on April 5, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-00460.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "sells in-app chips to
consumers so they can play casino games online." The Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendant's mobile application offerings
("Apps") "mimic traditional casino games."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Todd A. Bowers, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 695-5135
Fax: (206) 689-2822
Email: tbowers@grsm.com
PRIME HYDRATION: Energy Drinks' Caffeine Ads "False," Vera Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARA VERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME HYDRATION LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02657 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Fraud Acts and the
New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, and fraud.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Prime Energy
drinks. The Defendant markets its products that they have 200
milligrams of caffeine but in reality, they do not contain the
specific amounts of caffeine as advertised. The Defendant's
misleading and deceptive practices proximately caused harm to the
Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit.
Prime Hydration LLC is a beverage manufacturer, with its principal
place of business located at 2858 Frankfort Ave., Louisville,
Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Russell M. Busch, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (202) 640-1167
Email: rbusch@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Can Seal Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knight v. Progressive
Northwestern Insurance Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203 (E.D. Ark.,
Filed Aug. 4, 2022), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an
order granting motion to seal document.
-- The Defendant's motion for leave to file its Opposition to
Plaintiffs motion for class certification and exhibits A, C,
D,
E, H, I, Y, Z, and AA under seal is granted.
-- The Defendant may file versions of the Opposition and Exhibits
I,
Y, Z, and AA that redact references to the Confidential
Information.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance.[CC]
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") announces that, on April
12, 2024, it filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Complaint") on behalf of its client Bristol County Retirement
System ("Bristol County") against QuidelOrtho Corporation, formerly
known as Quidel Corporation ("QuidelOrtho" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: QDEL), and certain QuidelOrtho officers (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Bristol County
Retirement System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, No.
24-cv-02804(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2024), asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired QuidelOrtho common stock between February 18,
2022 and April 1, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
QuidelOrtho provides tests for the detection and diagnosis of
various respiratory diseases and other medical conditions. The
Company's respiratory business has historically been tied to the
sale of seasonal flu tests and more recently to COVID-19 detection
tests. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company has
generated a significant portion of its revenue through the sale of
high-margin COVID-19 tests to government customers, healthcare
providers (through its authorized distributors), and large retail
pharmacy chains. QuidelOrtho manufactures respiratory tests under
various brands, including QuickVue, Sofia, and Savanna.
In December 2022, the Company announced that it had agreed to merge
with Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Holdings plc ("Ortho"). The merger
closed in May 2022, shortly after the start of the Class Period.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 was transitioning from pandemic to "endemic"
status (i.e., COVID-19 infections no longer growing exponentially).
Despite COVID-19 transitioning into an endemic, Defendants assured
investors that it was well positioned to maintain a stable high
margin revenue stream from its respiratory business. Among other
strategies, the Company aimed to launch its "next flagship
product," a new test called the Savanna Respiratory Viral Panel-4
(the "Savanna RVP4 Test," which tests for COVID-19 along with other
respiratory conditions) by utilizing Ortho's commercial
distribution network. During the Class Period, the Savanna RVP4
Test was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the
"FDA") to be marketed or sold in the United States. Therefore,
investors closely monitored the Company's progress in getting the
Savanna RVP4 Test approved.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by making
statements that were false and misleading when made because they
knew or deliberately disregarded and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts about QuidelOrtho's business, operations,
and prospects: (a) that QuidelOrtho sold more COVID-19 tests to its
distributors and pharmacy chain customers than they could resell to
healthcare providers and end customers; (b) that excess inventories
of COVID-19 tests existed throughout the supply chain; (c) that, as
a result of (a)-(b), QuidelOrtho's distributors and pharmacy chain
customers were poised to significantly reduce their COVID-19 test
orders; (d) that undisclosed problems created a heightened risk
that the Savanna RVP4 Test would experience a delayed commercial
launch in the United States; and (e) that, as a result of (a)-(d),
Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about QuidelOrtho's business, financials, and growth trajectory.
The truth began to emerge on February 13, 2024, when QuidelOrtho
reported underwhelming results for its fourth quarter ended
December 31, 2023. Among other things, the Company's Adjusted
Earnings Per Share was 46% below the midpoint of Wall Street
analysts' expectations. This miss was largely attributed to lower
COVID-19 revenues during the quarter due to distributor destocking.
QuidelOrtho also lowered its annual endemic COVID-19 revenue
forecast from the range of $200-$400 million to $200 million. On
this news, the price of QuidelOrtho stock dropped $21.50, or more
than 32 percent, to close at $45.27 on February 14, 2024. Then, on
April 2, 2024, QuidelOrtho announced that it had withdrawn its FDA
510(k) submission for approval to sell the Savanna RVP4 Test in the
United States after recent data did not meet expectations. On this
news, the price of QuidelOrtho stock dropped $4.85, or more than 10
percent, to close at $42.15 on April 2, 2024.
If you purchased or acquired QuidelOrtho common stock during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the
"Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than June 11, 2024.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are
a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share
in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in this action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton, at (212) 907-0650, or via email at
fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the Complaint
here.
Plaintiff Bristol County Retirement System is represented by
Labaton, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the
United States and internationally with combined assets under
management of more than $3.5 trillion. Labaton's litigation
reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation
experience, more than sixty full-time attorneys, and in-house team
of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.
Labaton has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and
peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE,
and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton is available at
www.labaton.com. [GN]
QUINSTREET PL INC: Castello Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quinstreet Pl, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Castello, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Quinstreet Pl, Inc. doing
business as: Amone, Case No. 3:24-cv-00635-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal.,
April 3, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
QuinStreet -- https://www.quinstreet.com/ -- is a pioneer in
powering decentralized online marketplaces that match searchers and
"research and compare" consumers with brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Gustavo Esquivias Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
gustavo@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
R.D.H.H. INC: Cabrera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Diosdado Cabrera, and other similarly situated individuals v.
R.D.H.H., INC., d/b/a SAVELAND SUPERMARKET, RAMON O. HERNANDEZ, and
JOSE DARIO HERNANDEZ Individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-21254-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024), is brought to recover monetary damages
for unpaid regular wages and retaliatory constructive discharge
under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(the "FLSA" or the "Act").
The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly and he was paid for
almost all his working hours but at his regular rate. Plaintiff was
not paid for overtime hours as required by law. In addition,
Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's wages 3 hours weekly as
lunchtime, although Plaintiff could not take bonafide lunch
periods. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants could track
the hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals. Defendants were in complete control of Plaintiff's
schedule and activities. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to
pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for every hour that he worked over 40, in violation of
the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a cook at the supermarket and cafeteria.
Saveland Supermarket is a Latin supermarket and cafeteria.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
R3 EDUCATION: Dudurkaewa Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Petimat Dudurkaewa, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. R3 EDUCATION INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10891-MJJ
(D. Mass., April 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' protected health information and personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network,
including, without limitation, full names, date of birth, driver
license/government-issued identification, medical information,
health information, student identification number, and electronic
signature (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter
referred to collectively, as "protected health information" or
"PHI"" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII").
With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on November 7,
2023, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately
protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII
that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach"). The Defendant
acquired, collected, and stored the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PHI/PII. Therefore, Defendant knew or should have known that the
Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store
and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential
PHI/PII.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
HIPAA, other state and federal statutes and regulations, and common
law principles. the Plaintiff does not bring claims in this action
for direct violations of HIPAA but charge Defendant with various
legal violations merely predicated upon the duties set forth in
HIPAA.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/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 Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off
this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future. the Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing
interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and
are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former student of Defendant.
The Defendant is an education management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
RBS CITIZENS: Ct. Tosses Bid to Reconsider Feb. 28 Order in Reinig
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG et al v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov 23,
2015), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order
denying the motion for reconsideration the Feb. 28, 2024, Order.
The Court said that it will not reconsider the Order, either
procedurally or substantively, as it is not consonant with justice
to do so. The Court has already afforded the Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a renewed motion for class
certification.
Accordingly, the Motion is procedurally moot. The Pennsylvania
Named Plaintiffs' substantive arguments regurgitate the same
arguments made in the class certification briefing that were
rejected, accordingly, reconsideration is not warranted, the Court
adds.
On Feb. 28, 204, the Court denied without prejudice the
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class on the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage (PMWA) Regular Rate Claim because their
proposed class definition was extremely unclear and contained too
many deficiencies for the Court to perform an analysis under Rule
23.
The Court also summarily denied with prejudice the non-Pennsylvania
Named Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class because those claims
have been long dismissed.
The Court further ordered the Plaintiffs not to file a renewed
motion for class certification unless and until authorized by the
Court.
On March 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs seek to vacate the Courts Order
and reinstate their motion to certify class.
First, the Plaintiffs' ask the Court to procedurally reconsider the
Order because the denial "without prejudice may be transferred into
a denial with prejudice without further action or explanation from
the Court, and Plaintiffs would lose the ability to timely appeal
the Order under Rule 23(f).
Second, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to substantively reconsider
its Order (a) as to the Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs, because the
class definition purportedly is clearly defined, and can be readily
redefined, and (b) as to the Non-Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs,
because the Court should perform a Rule 23 analysis of the proposed
classes, instead of summary denial, so that the Non-Pennsylvania
Named Plaintiffs may have a de novo appellate review.
In response, Citizens argues that Plaintiffs' Motion itself is
violative of the Court's Order and that there is no good cause for
the relief requested because Plaintiffs are standing on the
arguments in their motion for class certification that were denied
by the Court.
The alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
RBS Citizens is a national banking association.[CC]
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Dismisses Krakauer Suit w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KRAKAUER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-05830-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order:
-- Granting REI's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Krakauer's
Amended
Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and its Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
-- Dismissing without prejudice Krakauer's claims as currently
pled.
In sum, Krakauer's current complaint fails to meet Rule 9(a)'s
specificity requirements for fraud claims. Since Krakauer could
allege additional facts to cure the deficiencies set out in this
order, leave to amend is appropriate.
Krakauer does not allege that he was physically harmed by his
jacket, but rather that he suffered an economic injury in that he
would not have purchased the raincoat, or would have paid less for
it, had REI adequately disclosed the presence of PFAS.
Recreational is an outdoor gear and clothing apparel company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DKT5RN at no extra
charge.[CC]
RENEW LLC: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Keisha Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RENEW, LLC and NEIL KARNOFSKY, D.D.S., PLLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02420 (E.D.NY., April 1, 2024), is brought against
Defendants for violations of: the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA"), arising from Defendants' various willful
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices and to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime wages; liquidated
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in
a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Johnson, overtime wages for each hour worked as prescribed by the
FLSA and NYLL and by failing to pay their employees, including
Johnson, their earned wages within the time limitations prescribed
by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an "employee" of Defendants.
The Renew is a privately owned limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Rissmiller, Esq.
RISSMILLER PLLC
5 Pennsylvania Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (646) 664-1412
Email: arissmiller@rissmiller.com
- and -
Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: F: (516) 706-0248
Email: mberman@vkvlawyers.com
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Court OKs Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on March 30, 2024,
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of
California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action
against a biotechnology company that develops and sells skin
treatment drugs and certain of its officers. Aramic LLC, et al. v.
Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-0985-AMO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30,
2024). Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of investors in the
Company, alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements about the timing and likelihood of FDA approval of the
Company's drug in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court dismissed the amended
complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to allege that most of the
challenged statements were false or misleading and that plaintiff
in any event failed to allege adequately scienter.
According to the amended complaint, in November 2019 the Company
announced its submission of an FDA license application -- which
included an evaluation of the Company's manufacturing practices --
for its frown line drug, which the Company had been manufacturing
since 2010. Plaintiff alleged that the FDA delayed its pre-approval
inspection of the Company's manufacturing facility until July 2021
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff further alleged that after
completing its inspection of the manufacturing facility, the FDA
provided the Company with five "inspectional observations"
regarding issues with the manufacturing facility. Plaintiff further
alleged that at the same time the Company engaged with the FDA on
its license application, it issued a press release stating that the
FDA initiated its pre-approval inspection in June 2021 and that the
Company anticipated that its drug would receive FDA approval in
2021. Plaintiff alleged that in October 2021, the FDA issued a
response letter to the Company denying its license application for
the drug, and that in March 2022, the Company resubmitted its
application, which was approved in September 2022.
Plaintiff alleged that defendants made 29 false or misleading
statements about the timing and likelihood of FDA approval of the
Company's drug in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, in the following general categories: (i) defendants
failed to disclose significant quality control and manufacturing
deficiencies that made FDA approval unlikely; (ii) defendants'
alleged statements about readiness for FDA inspection and
confidence in FDA approval were false and misleading given the
deficiencies that existed; and (iii) defendants' alleged continued
statements expressing confidence in FDA approval after it received
the "inspectional observations" were false and misleading.
The Court first considered whether certain alleged misstatements
were forward-looking and protected by the PSLRA safe harbor. The
Court held that certain alleged statements -- such as, for example,
that the Company "anticipates potential product approval in the
second half of 2020" -- were forward-looking and accompanied by
meaningfully cautionary language -- such as warnings regarding the
Company's "ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of
our drug product candidates" -- and therefore were protected under
the PSLRA safe harbor. The Court further held that even if certain
alleged statements were not accompanied by meaningfully cautionary
language, they still fell under the PSLRA safe harbor because
plaintiff failed to allege with requisite particularity facts
supporting a strong inference that the Company actually knew such
statements were false or misleading when made. For example,
although plaintiff alleged that defendants knew the "inspectional
observations" decreased the likelihood of FDA approval, the Court
stated that plaintiff failed to allege that defendants knew the
projected timeline for approval was not possible at the time they
were made, even if "in hindsight, the projections may have been
overly optimistic."
The Court next considered defendants' argument that several of the
challenged statements amounted to "vague statements of optimism and
opinion statements that are not actionable." In particular, the
Court agreed that several of the statements -- such as that filing
the license application was a "monumental achievement," that the
year will be full of “excitement and execution,” and that this
is an “exciting,” "pivotal," and "transformational" year for
the Company -- were nothing more than "'feel good monikers' that
are not actionable." The Court, however, did find that the
Company’s alleged statements that it felt good about its
preparedness for approval "were misleading given the FDA
inspector’s explanation” that the Company's assumption that the
manufacturing changes it made were consistent with the licensing
application was "incorrect." As to those statements, the Court
found that they may be actionable if plaintiff alleged adequately
scienter.
The Court then addressed whether certain challenged statements were
not actionable by virtue of being immaterial. As to challenged
statements made prior to the FDA inspection, the Court held that
such statements were not actionable because plaintiff failed to
specifically allege that the statements in 2019 and 2020 about the
Company's readiness and timeline for approval were false when made,
relying instead on a July 2021 form from the FDA setting forth
additional requirements for approval. However, the Court found that
certain challenged statements made about the FDA approval process
after the FDA inspection occurred were misleading because the FDA
provided feedback that would undermine the statements by defendants
that "tout[ed] . . . confidence" in receiving licensing approval.
The Court thus found that these statements may be actionable if
plaintiff could demonstrate scienter.
The Court next considered plaintiff's three theories of scienter:
(i) defendants' knowledge and access to the deficiencies identified
by the FDA during the initial application process; (ii) the core
operations doctrine; and (iii) defendants' motive to artificially
inflate its stock. The Court held that plaintiff's allegations
failed for several reasons. First, the Court rejected plaintiff's
theory of knowledge and access, finding that plaintiff's failure to
provide detailed allegations about defendants' actual exposure to
information fell short of the PSLRA's particularity standard.
Second, the Court rejected plaintiff’s core operations theory,
because plaintiff did not make "detailed and specific allegations"
that defendants were "intimately involved in the minutiae" of the
licensing process, and the fact that defendants had "some" meeting
about the process "does not plausibly allege that specific
information was conveyed" to defendants. Finally, the Court
rejected plaintiff's motive theory, noting that such allegations
are insufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter and that
the lack of allegations regarding stock sales by the individual
defendants further undermined any such motive theory.
Accordingly, because the Court found that plaintiff failed to plead
adequately a primary Section 10(b) violation, the Court dismissed
plaintiff's Section 20(a) claims against the individual defendants,
but permitted plaintiff leave to further amend. [GN]
RHODE ISLAND: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Debritto Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DEBRITTO, et al.,
v. RHODE ISLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00018-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William Smith
entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiffs' Edwin McGill, Oneil Hernandez Malave,
Christopher Banks, Sterling Stevens, and Jonathan Archie
Motions
for leave to proceed In forma pauperis;
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and
-- dismissing the Complaint with respect to Plaintiffs McGill,
Malave, Banks, Stevens, and Archie.
DeBritto's request for an extension of time to file an amended
complaint is granted. He may file an amended complaint on his own
behalf no later than 30 days from the issuance of this Order. If
DeBritto files an amended complaint, it will be referred to Judge
Sullivan for further screening. If he fails to do so, the Court
will dismiss DeBritto's Complaint.
The Court agrees with Judge Sullivan that the Plaintiffs
impermissibly ask the Court to issue an advisory opinion, as they
fail to allege any facts describing how their own sentences violate
their Double Jeopardy rights and whether they raised this issue in
any other proceeding.
After careful review of the record and applicable law, the Court
adopts the reasoning and recommendations of Judge Sullivan's R&R in
full. Judge Sullivan recommends that the Court provide each
Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint within
thirty days from the issuance of her R&R.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Rhode Island probation scheme -- as
codified in R.I. Gen. Laws sections 12-19-8, 9 -– violates the
Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
They allege that inmates serving prison time and convicted of
probation violations "serve 'more prison time when their probation
period did not begin yet.'"
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=brhTqL at no extra
charge.[CC]
RICHARD ACKERMAN: Fulcher Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Ackerman, et
al. The case is styled as Jacob Fulcher, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated stockholders v. RICHARD ACKERMAN, BENNETT
KIM, RICHARD BIRDOFF, MICHAEL FONG, STUART KOENIG, STEVEN LEVINE,
DAVID NUSSBAUM, ALBERT G. REX, TROY T. TAYLOR, BRAC LENDING GROUP
LLC, EARLYBIRDCAPITAL, INC. and BIG ROCK PARTNERS SPONSOR, LLC,
Case No. 2024-0345-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., April 2, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. -- http://www.cantor.com/-- is an American
financial services firm that was founded in 1945.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 654-1888
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Brian D. Stewart, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 524-4290
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Phone: (484) 258-1585
RIPTIDE REMODELING: Anguisaca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jhonatan D. Anguisaca, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Riptide Remodeling LLC, and Joseph A. Dicostanzo, individually,
Case No. 8:24-cv-00832 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024), is brought to
recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and
retaliation under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("the Act").
During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had a regular
schedule. Plaintiff worked five days weekly (8.5 hours daily), or
42.5 hours weekly. The Defendants deducted 30 minutes of lunchtime
daily (2.5 hours weekly), although Plaintiff could not take
bonafide lunchtime periods. Thus, Plaintiff worked a total of 42.5
hours weekly. The Plaintiff was paid for only 40 hours weekly.
Defendants improperly deducted 2.5 lunchtime hours from Plaintiff's
wages. Those 2.5 lunchtime hours constitute 2.5 unpaid overtime
hours. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly but was not paid
for overtime, as required by law.
The Plaintiff worked between 50 and 70 hours weekly or an average
of 60 hours weekly. The Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunchtime.
The Plaintiff was paid weekly for all his hours but at his regular
rate. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid
for overtime hours, as required by law. Plaintiff did not clock in
and out, but Defendants controlled his schedule and activities.
Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, Defendants
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of
time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in
excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff performed as a construction worker.
Riptide Remodeling is a construction and remodeling company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Seeks to Consolidate Colvin and Gentry Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELLE COLVIN,
individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff, G.D., and
DANIELLE SASS, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff,
L.C., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBLOX
CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and
RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter and order to relate and
consolidate Colvin and Gentry.
Because the Court has not set a case schedule in Colvin,
consolidating the cases now will ensure that the parties can
propose a single schedule for the consolidated case.
Roblox requests that the Court relate to this case Gentry v. Roblox
Corporation, No. 24-cv-01593 (N.D. Cal.), a putative class action
alleging that Roblox engaged in "an illegal gambling operation"
involving minor users, which was filed on March 14, 2024. Nearly
65% of the Gentry complaint restates the Colvin complaint verbatim.
The Gentry plaintiffs have identified Colvin as a related case. The
Plaintiffs' counsel in Colvin did not respond to Roblox's requests
to consent to this motion.
The Defendants contend that for many of the same reasons that
Colvin and Gentry should be deemed related, they also should be
consolidated.
First, both cases concern the same defendants, the Gentry
plaintiffs fall within the same putative nationwide class alleged
in Colvin, and the complaints allege nearly all of the same factual
allegations and contain seven identical claims.
Second, there will be duplication of labor and expenses and
potentially conflicting results if Colvin and Gentry proceed before
different judges.
Third, if the Court relates the cases, Colvin and Gentry also
should be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a) because the cases share many common questions of law and
fact, and both cases are still at the early stages. The Court
should deem Colvin and Gentry to be related and consolidate the two
cases.
Roblox Corporation is an American video game developer.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nvI6Pg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tiana Demas, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Telephone: (312) 881-6500
Facsimile: (312) 881-6598
E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
SANDRA MOYER: Home Point's Partial Bid to Dismiss Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOSE CERTIN UNDERWRITERS
AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, v. SANDRA MOYER et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00405-RDB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Richard D. Bennett
entered an order granting Home Point's partial motion to dismiss.
Specifically, Count I of Underwriters' complaint is partially
dismissed without prejudice insofar as it seeks a determination
that
Underwriters have no duty to indemnify Home Point in the Underlying
Lawsuit.
Because the issue of the Underwriters' duty to indemnify is not
ripe, Underwriters lack standing to sue Defendants Sandra Moyer,
Martin, Matthews, and Patterson, as no real dispute exists—at
least, for now—between the Underwriters and the named plaintiffs
in the
underlying RESPA Lawsuit. As such, all claims asserted against
Moyer, Martin, Matthews, and Patterson are dismissed without
prejudice. Thus, Martin, Matthews, and Patterson’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 31) are both
denied as moot.
Turning to the cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, which
this Court construes to be solely on the issue of the Underwriters'
duty to defend Home Point in the Underlying Lawsuit, Home Point’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted. Specifically, with
respect to the Underwriters' duty to defend Home Point in the
underlying RESPA Lawsuit, judgment is entered in favor of Home
Point with respect to Count I of the Underwriters' Complaint (ECF
No. 1) and Counterclaim III of Home Point's Answer and
Counterclaims.
Accordingly, Underwriters' motion for judgment on the pleadings is
denied. Again, this Memorandum Opinion does not address Home
Point's Counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the Underwriters, as such counterclaims are
triable issues that shall proceed to discovery.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhSRci
at no extra charge.[CC]
SFERRA FINE LINENS: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sferra Fine Linens,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sferra Fine Linens, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02443 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sferra Fine Linens, LLC -- https://www.sferra.com/ -- offers luxury
sheets and bedding collections made in Italy from the finest
materials, since 1891.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
SONDER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities
of Sonder Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: SOND) between March 16, 2023 and
March 15, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sonder investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Sonder class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23643 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) Sonder failed to disclose all issues with its internal
controls;
(2) Sonder's financial statements for the 2022 Annual Report
and the interim periods ended March 31, June 30, and September 30,
2023 contained material errors in the way Sonder accounted for the
valuation and impairment of operating lease right-of-use ("ROU")
assets;
(3) as a result, Sonder would need to restate its previously
issued financial statements for those periods; and
(4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 10,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23643 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Thompson Files Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthState Bank, N.A.
The case is styled as Henry Thompson, George Vargha, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SouthState Bank,
N.A., Case No. 8:24-cv-00859-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
SouthState Bank -- https://www.southstatebank.com/personal -- based
in Winter Haven, Florida, is an American bank based in Florida and
a subsidiary of SouthState Corporation, a bank holding
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Jeff M. Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA
One West Las Olas Blvd Ste 500
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
FEIGLES & HAIMO LLP
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 990-2218
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Patients' Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Saint Louis
University faces a class action over a months-long data breach that
reportedly affected over 93,000 current and former patients,
employees and students.
Saint Louis University (SLU) faces a proposed class action over a
months-long data breach that reportedly affected over 93,000
current and former patients, employees and students.
The 40-page data breach lawsuit says that the Missouri-based
private research university and affiliated hospital in early March
2023 detected "suspicious activity" involving SLU email accounts.
An investigation revealed that certain email accounts and documents
on SLU's SharePoint and OneDrive platforms had been subject to
unauthorized access on various occasions between December 2022 and
July 2023, the complaint shares.
According to an online notice posted by SLU, the cyberattack may
have compromised individuals' names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, financial account information, passport
numbers, online credentials, dates of birth, health insurance
information, medical information and student record details.
The filing argues that the SLU data breach stemmed from the
university's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity measures, such as encrypting consumers' sensitive
data or deleting it when it was no longer needed. Per the case, SLU
neglected its legal duty to keep the private information of its
patients, employees and students confidential despite the known
risk of a data breach.
"Data thieves regularly target entities in the healthcare industry
like [the defendant] due to the highly sensitive information that
they maintain," the complaint says. " [The defendant] knew and
understood that unprotected private information is valuable and
highly sought after by criminal parties who seek to illegally
monetize that private information through unauthorized access."
The suit claims that SLU's negligence has placed victims at a
"lifetime risk" of identity theft and fraud.
The plaintiff, a patient of Saint Louis University Hospital who
received a data breach notice letter from the defendant in December
2023, now anticipates spending considerable time and money to try
to address the harms caused by the cyberattack.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose personal or health
information was accessed or acquired by an unauthorized party in
the Saint Louis University data breach, including all who were sent
notice of the incident.
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair
relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an
opportunity to take legal action. [GN]
SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Class Suit Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Phelps of Magnolia.com Reporter reports that the Arkansas
Court of Appeals has denied arbitration in a class-action lawsuit
that Arkansas cities filed against Suddenlink Communications.
The lawsuit was filed by the City of Gurdon on behalf of 59
Arkansas cities, including Arkadelphia and Caddo Valley, which have
franchise ordinances governing the cable television, telephone and
internet services Suddenlink provides to city residents.
On April 3, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Clark County Circuit
Court's ruling that the cities were not required to individually
arbitrate their claims against Suddenlink. The Court of Appeals
also affirmed the lower court's ruling that the case could proceed
as a class action.
The ruling means that Suddenlink, which now does business as
Optimum, will not be able to avoid the claims of the Arkansas
cities where it provides services through franchise agreements.
Gurdon and the other cities allege that Suddenlink failed to make
proper payments to them for its franchise rights and that the
company failed to meet the minimum customer standards imposed by
law and by the respective franchise ordinances.
Among other things, Gurdon and Arkadelphia's respective franchise
ordinances prohibit the cable television provider from increasing
its rates for services unless it first provides public notice of
any increase, conducts a public hearing and secures approval from
the City Council. Gurdon and other cities allege that Suddenlink
consistently failed to comply with those requirements.
In 2020, Suddenlink closed most of its offices in Arkansas, but
Arkadelphia's ordinance requires the city's franchise cable
television provider to maintain a local office. [GN]
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Discovery in Nguyen-Wilhite Due 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 Hon.
Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed letter motion to extend deadlines.
The close of class certification discovery is June 28, 2024. The
deadline for anticipated cross-motions regarding class
certification is July 26, 2024, with oppositions due on August 23,
2024, and replies due by September 13, 2024.
The Plaintiff initially sought testimony from fact witnesses with
knowledge concerning the systems within Tapestry that would show
the timing and consequences of such adjudications. The Plaintiff
then promptly followed up with targeted written discovery served on
Feb. 12, 2024, and a notice of deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) on
the same date. Among those requests, the Plaintiff seeks the number
of individuals who were the subject of an adverse First Advantage
report that was adjudicated by Tapestry, and who were sent a
pre-adverse and adverse action letter.
Tapestry provided responses to the Plaintiff's Feb. 12 Requests
asserting certain objections, and without providing the requested
information. The parties are in the process of meeting and
conferring regarding these objections and the possibility of a
supplemental response and production.
Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1EY8kF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
TUFT & NEEDLE: Chebul Sues Over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------
Emily Chebul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TUFT & NEEDLE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02707 (C.D. Cal.,
April 3, 2024), is brought under California's False Advertising Law
which prohibits businesses from making statements they know or
should know to be untrue or misleading, resulting in the Defendants
false advertising.
On its website, Defendant lists purported regular prices and
advertises purported discounts from those listed regular prices.
These include "LIMITED TIME" discounts offering "up to $X off" and
"X% off." Defendant also advertises that its Products have a lower
discount price as compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey
and/or strikethrough font.
But in fact, Defendant's discounts are routinely available. As a
result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount
advertising is false. The regular prices Defendant advertises are
not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's
Products are routinely available for less than that. The purported
discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the
customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are
the purported discounts "LIMITED TIME ONLY," or limited to specific
time periods like President's Day or Black Friday.
When Ms. Chebul made her purchase, Defendant advertised that a sale
was going on, and so Defendant represented that the Product Ms.
Chebul purchased was being offered at a steep discount from its
purported regular prices that Defendant advertised. And based on
Defendant's representations, Ms. Chebul believed that she was
purchasing a Product whose regular price and market value were the
purported regular prices that Defendant advertised, that she was
receiving a substantial discount, and that the opportunity to get
that discount was time-limited. These reasonable beliefs are what
caused Ms. Chebul to buy from Defendant when she did.
In truth, however, the representations Ms. Chebul relied on were
not true. The purported regular prices were not the true regular
prices that Defendant sells the products for, the purported
discounts were not the true discounts, and the discounts were
ongoing—not time limited. Had Defendant been truthful, Ms. Chebul
and other consumers like her would not have purchased the Products,
or would have paid less for them, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff bought items from the Defendant from its website,
www.tuftandneedle.com.
Tuft & Needle, LLC sells and markets mattresses and bedding
products online through the Tuft & Needle brand and website,
www.tuftandneedle.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-706
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
TUPPER BRANDS: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands Corp. disclosed in its form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the stockholder class suit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
In March 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The complaint alleges that statements made in public filings
between March 10, 2021 and March 16, 2023 regarding the Company's
income taxes and internal controls violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934.
On June 5, 2023, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff, who
filed an amended complaint on January 12, 2024.
The amended complaint proposes a new class period of February 23,
2022 through March 16, 2023.
On March 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Plaintiff may file a response on or before May 13, 2024, and
Defendants may reply on or before June 12, 2024.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome
of this action would have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global
marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across
multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and
categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving
solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand
and
beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller
Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands Corp. disclosed in its form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a stockholder class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of New York.
In June 2022, a putative stockholder class action was filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleged that statements made in public filings
between November 3, 2021 and May 3, 2022 regarding the Company's
earnings and sales performance and full year 2022 guidance violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the Company’s shares during the alleged class period
and demands unspecified monetary damages.
On August 17, 2022, the Southern District of New York entered an
order transferring the case to the Middle District of Florida.
On September 16, 2022, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs.
On November 30, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint.
The First Amended Class Action Complaint is based on alleged
misstatements about the Company's profitability and pricing leading
up to May 4, 2022; the plaintiffs also proposed a new class period
of May 5, 2021 through May 4, 2022.
On September 28, 2023, the Court denied the defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint.
On February 13, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to add an additional named plaintiff.
The plaintiffs did not change any of the other allegations.
Defendants answered the second amended complaint on February 27,
2024.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome
of this action would have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global
marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across
multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and
categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving
solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand
and
beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller
Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by April 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EDGE, MICHAEL J.
DENNEHY and RALPH ESTEP, v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, MIGUEL
FERNANDEZ and CASSANDRA HARRIS, Case No. 6:22-cv-01518-RBD-LHP
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered an order
granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to
respond to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
-- The deadline by which Defendants shall April 23, 2024
respond to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is extended up to
and including:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to reply to June 24, 2024.
Defendants' response is extended up to
and including:
Tupperware is an American multinational company that produces home
product lines.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=erXSpz at no extra
charge.[CC]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc won a legal victory on Tuesday as a federal
appeals court said drivers seeking to be classified as employees
rather than independent contractors must arbitrate their claims
individually, and not pursue class-action lawsuits.
In a 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco reversed a lower court judge's denial of Uber's motion to
compel arbitration in three lawsuits.
It also overturned the class certification in one of the lawsuits
of thousands of California drivers who had driven for the San
Francisco-based ride-hailing company since August 2009.
Drivers had complained that Uber misclassified them as independent
contractors to avoid having to reimburse them for gasoline, vehicle
maintenance and other expenses.
Some also accused Uber of wrongly refusing to let them keep all
tips from passengers.
The decertified class action included both types of claims.
Class actions let people sue as a group, and potentially obtain
greater recoveries than if forced to sue individually, which might
prove prohibitively expensive.
Uber's defense got a boost after the U.S. Supreme Court, in Epic
Systems Corp v Lewis, ruled 5-4 in May that companies could compel
workers to waive their right to class actions and instead pursue
arbitration for various workplace disputes.
In Tuesday's decision, Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said
arbitration was necessary in light of the Epic ruling, as well a
9th Circuit ruling from 2016 in another case against Uber.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer for the drivers, said the
overturning of the class action was expected.
She may ask an 11-judge appeals court panel to revisit the case,
but said thousands of drivers are pursuing individual arbitrations
in the meantime.
"If Uber wants to resolve these disputes one by one, we are ready
to do that -- one by one," she said.
A lawyer for Uber, Theodore Boutrous, said: "We are very pleased
with the Ninth Circuit's order reversing class certification."
The decision applies in nine Western U.S. states, but could be
cited by courts elsewhere.
Uber has faced dozens of lawsuits claiming that its drivers are
employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime and other benefits not
afforded to contractors.
Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi is preparing to take Uber public
next year, and the company's ability to retain drivers is critical
to its growth prospects.
In his year at the helm, Khosrowshahi has tried to improve Uber's
image, including by addressing federal criminal and civil probes
into its business practices and stamping out its reputation as
tolerant of chauvinism.
The cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals include O'Connor
et al v Uber Technologies Inc, No. 14-16078; Yucesoy v Uber
Technologies Inc, No. 15-17422; and Del Rio et al v Uber
Technologies Inc et al, No. 15-17475. [GN]
UNITED WHOLESALE: Escue Sues Over Corrupted Mortgage Brokers
------------------------------------------------------------
Therisa D. Escue, Billy R. Escue, Jr., Kim Schelbe, and Brian P.
Weatherill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, UWM HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, SFS HOLDING CORP., and MATHEW RANDALL ISHBIA, Case No.
2:24-cv-10853-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 2, 2024), is brought
seeksing to hold the largest wholesale mortgage lender in the
United States, Defendant United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC ("UWM"),
accountable for orchestrating and executing a deliberate scheme, in
coordination with a host of corrupted mortgage brokers, to cheat
hundreds of thousands of borrowers out of billions of dollars in
excess fees and costs that they paid to finance their homes.
The illicit scheme and enterprise go to the heart of the wholesale
mortgage industry in America. UWM and the brokers hired by class
members hold out the wholesale channel as the best way for
borrowers to obtain the most affordable mortgages because, unlike
in the retail channel, borrowers in the wholesale channel are
represented and guided by "independent" mortgage brokers who survey
options on their behalf and shop for the most competitive prices
and rates. But UWM and its captive broker partners have
systematically undermined the basic structure and purpose of the
wholesale channel.
By means of misrepresentations, deception, and unlawful
inducements, UWM has infiltrated the fiduciary and agency
relationship between class members and their hired mortgage brokers
with the purpose, intent, and effect of corrupting brokers'
independence so that they intentionally funnel unsuspecting
borrowers into UWM loans that are significantly more expensive than
the available alternatives. As a result, UWM has moved billions of
dollars from the pockets of borrowers across the country into its
own.
The consequences to UWM's borrowers have been devastating. UWM
rarely offered the best available pricing throughout the past four
years and routinely charged fees that substantially exceeded their
competitors' offerings to the tune of billions of dollars. While
UWM's borrowers believed that their "independent" brokers were
working for them, in reality, UWM induced thousands of these
brokers to participate in their funneling scheme and enterprise by
successfully infiltrating and corrupting their duties to the
Plaintiffs and the class, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs has Mortgage Loans With UWM.
United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC ("UWM"), formerly known as United
Shore Financial Services, LLC, is a limited liability company
formed in the state of Michigan with a principal place of business
in Pontiac, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon C. Hubbard, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (517) 371-1730
- and -
John T. Zach, Esq.
Marc Ayala, Esq.
David L. Simons, Esq.
Andrew P. Steinmetz
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 446-2300
- and -
Tyler Ulrich, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-8422
- and -
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 293-6800
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Carlton Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Carlton, Rueben Cotton, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Universal
Protection Service, LP doing business as: Allied Universal Security
Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-01519 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on April 5, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00751-RGK-DFM to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act to Collect Unpaid Wages.
Universal Protection Service -- https://www.gao.gov/products/ --
was a private security company in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Colby Levi Qualls, Esq.
Matthew Ryan McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 North St Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ace Thomas Tate, Esq.
Alexandra A. Smith, Esq.
Robin E. Largent, Esq.
MARTENSON HASBROUCK AND SIMON
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 970-1430
Fax: (916) 538-6524
Email: atate@martensonlaw.com
alexsmith@martensonlaw.com
rlargent@martensonlaw.com
US BANCORP: Buhrke Trust Allowed to File 2nd Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THE BUHRKE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
U.S. BANCORP, ANDREW CECERE, TERRY DOLAN, JODI RICHARD, and
KATHERINE QUINN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09174-JPC-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissing the Plaintiffs'
claims without prejudice to filing a second amended complaint.
The Buhrke Family Revocable Trust filed the original Complaint in
this action on Feb. 26, 2022. The Honorable Sarah L. Cave then
appointed Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund and Ohio Carpenters
Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs on Feb. 10, 2023. On May 5, 2023,
the Lead Plaintiffs filed the operative Amended Complaint, which
contains two counts.
The Lead Plaintiffs bring this putative securities class action
against U.S. Bancorp ("USB" or the "Company") and four of its
corporate officers--Andrew Cecere, Terry Dolan, Jodi Richard, and
Katherine Quinn (collectively, the "Individual Defendants")--for
alleged misstatements and omissions made from Aug. 1, 2019, through
July 28, 2022 (the "Class Period").
With nearly 77,000 employees and $675 billion in assets, USB is the
fifth largest bank in the U.S. It is the parent company of U.S.
Bank, which is engaged in the general banking business, principally
in domestic markets. USB's largest business unit is consumer and
business banking, a unit that generates 40% of the Company's net
revenue, of which 84% comes from consumer banking. Cecere is the
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of USB. He
has served as President since January 2016, CEO since April 2017,
and Chairman since April 2018.
The Lead Plaintiffs' allegations begin chronologically with a
discussion of the widely publicized Wells Fargo unauthorized
account scandal. As alleged, on Sept. 8, 2016, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ('CFPB') published an enforcement
action and Consent Order against Wells Fargo, penalizing the
company for its illegal practice of secretly opening unauthorized
deposit and credit card accounts.
The Lead Plaintiffs plead two counts, alleging that the Defendants
knowingly made false and misleading statements and omissions in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, and that the Individual Defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Lead Plaintiffs' claims
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim. They argue that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately
plead a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) violation because of the
absence of allegations that the Defendants made a material
misstatement or omission, that the Defendants did so with the
requisite scienter, or that any misstatements or omissions caused
the Lead Plaintiffs' losses.
The Defendants additionally argue that the Lead Plaintiffs have not
adequately pleaded scheme liability under Rule 10b-5(a) and Rule
10b-5(c), nor have they adequately pleaded control person liability
under Section 20(a). For reasons set forth in this Opinion and
Order, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, but will
allow the Lead Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint in the
event they can cure the pleading deficiencies identified here.
Judge Cronan opines that the Defendants are correct that the Lead
Plaintiffs have failed to allege both the Individual Defendants'
involvement in the unauthorized account opening practices and their
knowing failure to remediate such practices. There are no
particularized allegations tying any of the Individual Defendants
to the unauthorized account openings, and the scope of the
misconduct makes implausible any inference that they would have
been aware of the misconduct; the 342 unauthorized accounts that
Cecere admitted had been opened roughly amount to "a single
unauthorized account opened in a single branch each year in each of
the 28 states in which the Bank currently maintains branches."
While the Lead Plaintiffs suggest that Cecere downplayed the volume
of the unauthorized accounts when he testified before Congress,
Judge Cronan points out that that hypothesis is purely speculative
and finds no support in the factual allegations of the Amended
Complaint. Thus, the Lead Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged
that the Defendants' statements were misleading by virtue of
omitting the Individual Defendants' involvement in the unauthorized
account openings or their knowing failure to remediate such
wrongdoing.
That, however, only covers some of the theories of liability
asserted by the Lead Plaintiffs, as their theories premised on the
CFPB investigation, including the likelihood of a fine, and on the
actual unauthorized opening of accounts remain, Judge Cronan
explains.
The Lead Plaintiffs' claims also must be dismissed for the
independent reason that they have failed to adequately plead
scienter with particularity, Judge Cronan holds. Ultimately, even
while drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the Lead
Plaintiffs ask the Court to stack inference upon inference, which
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") prohibits.
The Court, accordingly, finds that the Lead Plaintiffs have failed
to adequately plead scienter.
The Court grants the Lead Plaintiffs leave to amend, in the event
they are able to adequately plead scheme liability under Rule
10b-5(a) and/or Rule 10b-5(c).
Because the Amended Complaint is the first complaint submitted
following the appointment of Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund and
Ohio Carpenters Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs, the Court grants
leave to amend. The Court emphasizes that the Lead Plaintiffs
should only file a Second Amended Complaint if they are able to
remedy the pleading deficiencies identified here.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. If
the Lead Plaintiffs decide to file a Second Amended Complaint, they
must file it within thirty days of this Opinion and Order. Failure
to file a Second Amended Complaint by that deadline, and without
showing good cause to excuse such failure in advance of the
deadline, will result in the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion
pending at Docket Number 40.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 28,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4k4j2jax from
PacerMonitor.com.
V12 SOFTWARE: Sinitski Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SINITSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. V12 SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-02171-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its system
following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
V12 Software, Inc. is a software company, with corporate
headquarters in San Jose, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
Email: jason@wukolaw.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
VELO3D INC: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VELO3D, INC. The case
is styled as Deshon Williams, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee and Private
Attorney General v. VELO3D, INC., Case No. 24CV070396 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., April 4, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Velo3D -- https://velo3d.com/ -- is a technology company that
provides customers with a fully integrated metal additive
manufacturing solution (AM) for performance-optimized parts in the
aerospace, semiconductor, energy, oil & gas, defense, and
automotive industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Emi Minne, Esq.
PARKER & MINNE, LLP
700 S Flower St., Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017-4112
Phone: 310-882-6833
Fax: 310-889-0822
Email: emi@parkerminne.com
VINFAST AUTO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against VinFast Auto Ltd. ("VinFast" or the "Company") f/k/a Black
Spade Acquisition Co., ("Black Spade") (NASDAQ: VFS) and certain
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under
24-cv-02750, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
VinFast securities:
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
(defined below) issued in connection with the merger ("Merger")
consummated on August 14, 2023 by and among the Company, Black
Spade, and Nuevo Tech Limited, a Cayman Islands exempted company
and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"); and/or
(b) between August 15, 2023 and January 17 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
VinFast securities during the Class Period, you have until June 11,
2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
VinFast describes itself as "an innovative, full-scale mobility
platform focused primarily on designing and manufacturing premium
EVs ("electric vehicles"), e-scooters, and e-buses." Founded and
headquartered in Vietnam, the Company has since expanded its sales
and operations into other markets, including Southeast Asia, North
America, and Europe. Prior to the Merger, the Company operated as a
publicly traded special purpose acquisition company, or a
development stage company that has no specific business plan or
purpose or has indicated that its business plan is to engage in a
merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies,
other entity, or person.
On May 12, 2023, VinFast announced that it had entered into a
business combination with Black Spade, which purportedly "runs a
global portfolio consisting of a wide spectrum of cross-border
investments, and consistently seeks to add new investment projects
and opportunities to its portfolio."
On June 15, 2023, VinFast filed a registration statement
("Registration Statement") on Form F-4 with the SEC in connection
with the Merger, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective by the SEC on July 28, 2023.
Also on July 28, 2023, the Company filed a joint prospectus and
proxy statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents") on Form 424B3
with the SEC in connection with the Merger, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement.
On August 14, 2023, the Company consummated the Merger whereby,
among other things, Merger Sub merged with and into Black Spade,
with Black Spade surviving the transaction as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company.
On August 15, 2023, the Company's ordinary shares and warrants
began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market
("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbols "VFS" and "VFSWW,"
respectively.
Leading up to and following the Merger, VinFast repeatedly
represented that the Company was focused on "achieving operational
efficiency and technological integration" and "continuously
improv[ing] [its] processes to deliver world-class products."
Indeed, the Company touted that that it possessed such strengths as
a "Comprehensive Mobility Ecosystem with Strategic Focus on High
Growth Segments" and a "Demonstrated Speed to Market and Ability to
Execute." In particular, the Company indicated that it aimed to
accomplish its long-term growth strategies by, in part,
"continu[ing] growing [its] global footprint into areas where [it]
expect[ed] high [electric vehicle ("EV")] demand growth," and
stated that it expected "[d]eliveries of vehicles to be between
40,000 and 50,000 vehicles in FY2023."
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) VinFast lacked sufficient capital to execute its purported
growth strategy;
(ii) VinFast would be unable to meet its 2023 delivery targets;
(iii) accordingly, VinFast had overstated the strength of its
business model and operational capabilities, as well as its
post-Merger business and/or financial prospects; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
On October 15, 2023, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"VinFast to Expand Into Southeast Asia, Raise More Capital." The
article discussed the Company's plans to aggressively move into
Southeast Asian markets, starting with Indonesia, and revealed
that, according to VinFast's Chief Executive Officer Le Thi Thu
Thuy, the Company would need to raise "a lot of capital" in order
to fuel its global expansion plans and would "rely on [financial]
support from parent company Vingroup JSC and its founder Pham Nhat
Vuong in the next 18 months."
On this news, VinFast's ordinary share price fell $1.45 per share,
or 18.17%, to close at $6.53 per share on October 16, 2023.
Then, on January 18, 2024, VinFast issued a press release
announcing its Q4 2023 deliveries. The press release revealed that
the Company delivered a total of 34,855 EVs in 2023, falling well
short of its annual deliveries target of 40,000-50,000 units. In
response, several market analysts commented on the Company's
disappointing announcement. For example, Barrons published an
article entitled "Vietnamese Carmaker Vinfast Misses 2023 EVs Sales
Target" which noted that VinFast was "hoping to compete with EV
giants such as Tesla" and was "listed on the Nasdaq in August,
hitting headlines around the world as its valuation skyrocketed and
then crashed."
On this news, VinFast's ordinary share price fell $0.13 per share,
or 2.25%, to close at $5.64 per share on January 18, 2024,
representing a total decline of 84.78% from the Company's first
post-Merger closing stock price of $37.06 per share on August 15,
2023 (the "Initial Closing Price").
As of the time this Complaint was filed, VinFast's ordinary shares
were trading significantly below their Initial Closing Price and
continue to trade below their initial value from the Merger,
damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in
damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
600 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10016
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
WALMART INC: Agrees to Settle Overcharging Class Suit for $45MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Taddeo of Democrat and Chronicle reports that Walmart
allegedly bamboozled its customers with falsely labeled products,
and you may be able to benefit from a class action lawsuit
settlement over it.
Walmart has agreed to pay out $45 million as part of the settlement
of a class action lawsuit filed in Florida in 2022 that alleges the
mammoth retail chain deliberately subjected customers to "systemic
and unfair business practices," according to court paperwork.
Here's what you should know about the allegations, which products
were involved and how to file a claim to receive payment.
What are the allegations against Walmart?
The lawsuit alleges that Walmart participated in several deceptive
pricing tactics.
For example, the chain typically affixes pricing stickers to all
its products, including those sold by weight. Some of those
by-weight items were displayed with sale stickers showing a lower
price. Customers buying those products rightfully expected they'd
pay the lowest advertised price for that item -- but they ended up
paying a higher price at the register instead, the lawsuit
alleged.
Walmart denies any wrongdoing related to the lawsuit, according to
the settlement website.
"We still deny the allegations, however we believe a settlement is
in the best interest of both parties," a Walmart spokesperson said
on April 9, 2024.
"Walmart uses unfair and deceptive business practices to
deceivingly, misleadingly, and unjustly pilfer, to Walmart's
financial benefit, its customers' hard-earned grocery dollars," the
plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged in paperwork.
Which Walmart products were affected?
A number of weighted meat and citrus products are included in the
lawsuit, including the following:
Beef, chicken, pork and turkey products
Miscellaneous meat products, like duck, goat and lamb
Fish products
For a full list of included meat products, go to
Walmartweightedgroceriessettlement.com.
The following bagged citrus products were included:
Oranges, organic and non-organic
Organic grapefruit
Tangerines
For a full list of the included bagged citrus products, go to
Walmartweightedgroceriessettlement.com.
Am I eligible to file a claim?
If you bought any of the above products at U.S. or Puerto Rico
Walmart stores between Oct. 19, 2018 to Jan. 19, 2024, you may be
eligible to file a claim.
The maximum compensation for any one person is $500.
How do I file a claim?
To file a claim, submit your information to the settlement website
at Walmartweightedgroceriessettlement.com.
You must submit a claim to receive a payment. You don't have to
have receipts detailing which products you bought in order to file
a claim.
If you do nothing, you will still be included in the settlement,
but you will not get a payment.
You must file a claim online or postmarked by mail by June 5, 2024.
You can file online, or download a form and mail it to the Claims
Administrator at:
Walmart Weighted Groceries Settlement, c/o Claims Administrator,
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103
If you'd like to exclude yourself from the settlement, you must do
so by May 22, 2024 by sending a written notice to:
Walmart Weighted Groceries Settlement, Attn: Exclusions, P.O. Box
58220, Philadelphia, PA 19102
Your request must be signed; state your full name, current address,
email address, and telephone number; and contain a statement that
you request to be excluded from the settlement.
You could also object to the settlement without being excluded. For
more information on that, go to
Walmartweightedgroceriessettlement.com.
What happens now?
The settlement, including the eligible claims submitted and the
exact amount of payout for customers, will be considered by a judge
at a final June 12, 2024 hearing.
The judge will then finalize the terms of the settlement -- and
there is no exact timeline on when that decision will be made, the
settlement website notes.
There could still be appeals after this hearing, and even if there
aren't, it may take several months for payouts to be processed.
Payments would be sent electronically to accounts provided by
claimants, or through a paper check, if requested, according to the
settlement website. [GN]
WAWA INC: Court Reinstates Data Privacy Class Suit Fee Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that A U.S. judge on April 10,
2024 approved $3.2 million in legal fees for consumer lawyers who
led a data privacy case against convenience store chain Wawa,
reinstating an award that a federal appeals court last year saw as
potentially unreasonable.
In a 52-page order, U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter in
Philadelphia said the original amount of $3.2 million was
reasonable for the work the plaintiffs' lawyers performed in the
case against Wawa, which was sued over a 2019 data breach.
Wawa agreed to settle the case for $12.2 million, offering $9
million in gift cards and other compensation to a class of 22
million consumers. Class members claimed only about $2.9 million,
however, so the award for fees and expenses ended up being greater
than how much consumers recovered.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November overturned the
fee award and ordered Pratter to take a "closer look." The court
directed Pratter to examine "the ratio between the fee award and
amount recovered by the class members, and side agreements between
class counsel and the defendant."
The consumer plaintiffs' lawyers and a representative for Wawa did
not immediately respond to requests for comment on April 20, 2024.
Theodore Frank, director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and
the Center for Class Action Fairness, opposed the first fee award
of $3.2 million. His appeal was the centerpiece of the 3rd
Circuit's decision to vacate the award and order a fresh analysis.
Frank on April 19, 2024 told Reuters that "it's hard for me to
imagine a legal way to award that much money given the ratio of
fees to class benefit." He said he was still weighing Pratter's
decision, and did not immediately say whether he would appeal anew
to the 3rd Circuit.
In on April 10, 2024's ruling, Pratter concluded that Wawa had a
chance but declined to fight the plaintiffs' fee request.
There was no provision in the settlement that might have blocked
Wawa from objecting, Pratter wrote, and she found the requested fee
was in line with other similar cases.
Pratter also said the court has discretion to "consider either the
amounts made available to the class or the amounts claimed by the
class when considering the reasonableness of a fee award."
The case is In re Wawa Inc Data Security Litigation, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No.
2:19-cv-06019.
For consumer plaintiffs: Sherrie Savett of Berger Montague; Roberta
Liebenberg of Fine, Kaplan and Black; Benjamin Johns of Shub &
Johns; and Linda Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group
For Wawa: Kristin Hadgis, Gregory Parks and Michael Kenneally of
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius [GN]
WAYNE BANK: Werkmeister Data Breach Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as IAN WERKMEISTER, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYNE BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00254, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 29,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-10813-ADB to the proceeding.
The action arises from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the
confidential Personally Identifying Information (PII) of its
customers, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members,
resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of that PII in a
cyberattack in May 2023 to Wayne Bank's vendor, MOVEit.
Wayne Bank is headquartered in Honesdale, Pennsylvania. Wayne Bank
provides financial services including banking services and loan
services to consumers and business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS&GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Partly Grants Jonathan R.'s Bid for Sanctions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, grants
in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions in
the lawsuit captioned JONATHAN R., et al., Plaintiffs v. JIM
JUSTICE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00710 (S.D.W. Va.).
On Sept. 30, 2019, 12 current and former West Virginia foster
children filed a putative class action complaint against Jim
Justice, in his official capacity as Governor of West Virginia;
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR");
and other state officials in their official capacities, who were
responsible for administering West Virginia's foster care system,
including, as relevant to this motion: (1) Bill Crouch, Cabinet
Secretary of DHHR and (2) Linda Watts, Commissioner of the Bureau
for Children and Families.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' system-wide foster care
policies and practices expose them to a substantial risk of harm in
violation of their substantive due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They seek
injunctive and declaratory relief, but no monetary damages, in this
lawsuit.
The Court certified a General Class consisting of all foster
children, who are or will be in the custody of DHHR or its
successor agency. The Court also certified an ADA Subclass, which
includes all members of the General Class, who have physical,
intellectual, cognitive, or mental health disabilities, as defined
by federal law.
In certifying the class action, the Court narrowed the lawsuit to
three common claims relating to the General Class and one common
claim of the ADA Subclass. The General Class alleges that the
Defendants' inadequate array of appropriate placements, lack of
appropriate case planning, and high caseloads and chronic
understaffing expose them to a substantial risk of harm. The common
claim of the ADA Subclass focuses on the provision of
community-based treatment.
On Dec. 4, 2019, DHHR's General Counsel, April Robertson, sent a
"Litigation Hold" letter in a group email that included eight DHHR
employees, including, as relevant to this motion: (1) Crouch; (2)
Tanny O'Connell, Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau for Children and
Families; and (3) Watts. The group email was also sent to Shaun
Charles, DHHR's Chief Information Officer, and Chris Avis, Cyber
Security Operations Analyst, West Virginia Office of Technology
("OT").
On July 8, 2021, Cammie L. Chapman, Associate General Counsel of
the Bureau for Children & Families, sent a memorandum to Crouch,
O'Connell, Watts, four other DHHR employees, and Charles. In the
memorandum, Chapman reminded Crouch, O'Connell, Watts, and the
other recipients of the memorandum to preserve and maintain all
documents listed in the Litigation Hold. Chapman asked the
recipients of the memorandum to review the Litigation Hold letter
previously sent by Robertson and "ensure that you and the DHHR
employees and contractors under your supervision follow its
guidance."
On Jan. 14, 2020, after being served with the Plaintiffs' first
request for production of documents, the Defendants proposed search
terms and custodians of information to be searched, including, as
relevant to this motion: (1) Crouch; (2) Kevin Henson, Assistant
Commissioner to the Office of Planning, Research, & Evaluation for
the Bureau for Children and Families; (3) O'Connell; and (4)
Watts.
On Sept. 17, 2020, in response to the Plaintiffs' second set of
document requests, the Defendants again identified proposed search
terms and custodians, including (1) Laura Barno, Director of Family
First within the Bureau for Children and Families; (2) Crouch; (3)
Henson; (4) O'Connell; and (5) Watts.
In 2020, the Defendants produced emails from the accounts of
Crouch, Watts, O'Connell, Henson, and Barno. After these
productions, the case was briefly stayed; discovery continued when
the stay was lifted; and the case was ultimately dismissed on July
28, 2021.
The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which remanded the case on July 20,
2022. A Scheduling Order was entered on June 12, 2023, discovery
continued, and class certification was granted, in part, on Aug.
17, 2023.
On Sept. 5 and 6, 2023, in response to additional discovery
requests by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants identified proposed
search terms and custodians of information, including: (1) Barno;
(2) Jeff Coben, Interim Cabinet Secretary of DHHR; (3) Crouch; (4)
Henson; (5) Jane McCallister, Director of Planning & Quality
Improvement for the Bureau for Children and Families; (6)
O'Connell; and (7) Watts.
On Oct. 6, 2023, the Defendants sent the Plaintiffs a letter
notifying them that the Defendants had discovered a problem with
some of the DHHR's electronically stored information ("ESI"). The
Defendants explained that, despite the Litigation Hold, OT had
deleted the email files of several custodians thirty days after
their termination of employment with DHHR, per OT's standard and
automated practice when individuals leave state employment.
As indicated, some emails were produced in response to prior
discovery requests. However, according to the Defendants, some
custodians' emails for certain time periods were not preserved. The
Defendants advised, however, that they still possessed all emails
sent to/from these individuals to/from other individuals still
employed by DHHR.
In an effort to mitigate any prejudice that the Plaintiffs believed
was caused by the non-preservation of emails in the custodians'
accounts, the Defendants offered to expand the search and produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents for Jan. 1, 2019, through
Nov. 30, 2023, for 27 custodians and all search terms identified by
the Plaintiffs to which the Defendants had previously objected.
The Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants' proposal indicating
that they intended to seek sanctions for spoliation of evidence. On
Oct. 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
due to the Defendants' failure to preserve the ESI from the email
accounts of Barno, Coben, Crouch, Henson, McCallister, O'Connell,
and Watts.
The parties requested a hearing on the Motion for Sanctions and
were given the option of conducting an evidentiary hearing.
However, they declined that option and chose to proceed on their
briefs and oral argument. The hearing was held on Jan. 17, 2024.
The Defendants explained that they were able to recover additional
emails downloaded in September 2020 relating to four of five of the
custodians at issue in the sanctions motion.
In the Plaintiffs' view, a substantial amount of highly relevant
ESI was lost, resulting in significant prejudice to them;
particularly, in their ability to prove the Defendants' deliberate
indifference.
In their motion, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants spoliated
evidence that severely prejudiced their ability to prove the
deliberate indifference element of their substantive due process
claim.
The Court notes that the Plaintiffs argue that sanctions are
warranted under Rule 37(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Under this subsection of the rule, the Plaintiffs must
show that the Defendants engaged in willful or intentional conduct,
regardless of whether the spoilation prejudiced the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' failure to preserve the
emails of Crouch and other high-ranking custodians was so derelict
and egregious that it demonstrates intentionality.
Judge Eifert disagrees with the Plaintiffs' conclusion. At the
hearing, the Defendants explained that Robertson sent the initial
Litigation Hold letter at the outset of the proceedings in December
2019, but after that, she did not play a major role in the
litigation. Moreover, when the Defendants became aware of the ESI
destruction, they promptly alerted the Plaintiffs that emails had
been deleted. The Defendants have since invested significant effort
and expense in attempting to recover as many of the lost emails as
possible.
Those actions are inconsistent with an intent to deprive the
Plaintiffs of information, Judge Eifert points out. Therefore, as
the Plaintiffs fail to carry the burden of proof required by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), the Court denies their request for sanctions
under that rule.
The next issue before the Court is whether the spoliation
prejudiced the Plaintiffs in order to warrant sanctions and, if so,
what measure would cure the prejudice. The Plaintiffs argue, among
other things, that the emails are relevant to show that the
Defendants subjectively recognized a substantial risk of harm and
that their actions were inappropriate in light of that risk.
In response to the Plaintiffs' arguments, the Defendants note that
the Plaintiffs do not need the emails to prove that the Defendants
were aware of the caseworker staffing and caseload issues because
the Defendants publicly acknowledged the problems and sought
funding to address the issues.
Ultimately, Judge Eifert concludes that, while the Plaintiffs
suffered some prejudice, they were not exceptionally prejudiced by
the spoliation. Stated another way, on the continuum of prejudice,
the spoilation only slightly compromised the Plaintiffs' ability to
present their case.
Regarding the actions that the Defendants took or did not take to
address the harm, Judge Eifert says the Plaintiffs fail to show why
the reasoning for the actions is so instrumental to their claims
for prospective relief.
To accomplish the prophylactic, punitive, and remedial purposes of
Rule 37(e)(1), Judge Eifert agrees that it would be patently unfair
for the Defendants to use the spoilation of evidence to their
advantage. Judge Eifert holds that the Defendants should also
reimburse the Plaintiffs for the fees and costs associated with the
motion for sanctions.
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court grants the motion for sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) and
orders that the Defendants (1) are precluded from arguing that the
deleted ESI would have shown that the Defendants did not act with
deliberate indifference and (2) must reimburse the Plaintiffs for
their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with the
motion for sanctions.
The Plaintiffs had until April 16, 2024, in which to file an
affidavit of reasonable fees and expenses incurred in making the
motion for sanctions, as well as any supportive documentation or
argument to justify the amount of fees and expenses requested.
Failure to timely file the affidavit and supporting documentation
will result in a denial of fees and costs.
The Defendants will have through and including April 30, 2024, in
which to respond to the Plaintiffs' submissions. The response will
include any justification that would obviate against an award of
expenses. Failure to file a response will be deemed an admission of
or agreement with the representations and arguments of the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs will have through and including May 3, 2024, in
which to file a reply memorandum. At the conclusion of the period
allowed for briefing, the Court will either schedule a hearing, or
simply rule on the request for reasonable fees and costs. The Clerk
is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
March 28, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/7axjshte from
PacerMonitor.com.
WILLIAM WARREN GROUP: Williams Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The William Warren
Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as B. Williams, individually
on behalf of himself the general public and on behalf of all other
persons and or class similarly situated v. The William Warren Group
Inc.; Bill Hobin, doing business as: StorQuest Self Storage also
known as: William Warren Hobin individually, and in his official
capacity as CEO Ownder Principal Mgr. Chairman of the William
Warren Group, individually; Cindy Mirandy individually, and in her
official capacity as an Employee on the Date of the Causes of
Action in January 2022 thur April 1st, 2022 and still working
thereafter, individually; StorQuest Self Storage also known as: WWG
Team doing business as: StorQuest Self Storage doing business as:
The William Warren Group, Inc.; Xercor Insurance Services LLC doing
business as: Xercor Holdings LLC individually, a Indiana Limited
Liability Company; Kenneth E. Nitzberg doing business as: Xercor
Holdings LLC individually and in his official capacity as CEO and
President of Xercor Insurance Services, LLC a Limited Liability
Company; Xercor Holdings LLC doing business as: Xercor Insurance
Services LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company individually;
Does 1 through 200 inclusive; Case No. 2:24-cv-02687-AB-JC (C.D.
Cal., April 2, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
The William Warren Group -- https://www.williamwarren.com/ -- is a
real estate management and development company located in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
WYNDHAM HOTELS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyndham Hotels and
Resorts, Inc. The case is styled as Bartley Mullen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Hotels
and Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00509 (W.D. Pa., April 4,
2024).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. -- https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/ --
is an American hotel company based in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
222 Broad Street
PO Box 242
Sewickley, PA 15143
Phone: (724) 730-1753
Email: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com
XENIAL INC: Mendenhall Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Faith Mendenhall, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Xenial, Inc., Global Payments Inc., Case No.
2024CH00998 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02640 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Xenial -- https://www.xenial.com/ -- is a complete restaurant
management cloud platform, making customer interaction to back
office.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kaitlyn Luther, Esq.
CHITTENDEN, MURDAY & NOVOTNY LLC
303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 281-3600
Email: kluther@cmn-law.com
[*] Credit Card Class Action Settlement Harms Consumers/Merchants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Armour, writing for RealClearMarkets, reports that Visa,
Mastercard and a few class-action lawyers recently announced a
proposed settlement in long-running litigation about the unfair
ways that the major credit card companies and banks impose credit
card swipe fees on U.S. merchants. The National Association of
Convenience Stores (NACS), which I lead, was a named plaintiff in
the leading class lawsuit filed in the case starting in 2005. We
parted ways with an earlier group of lawyers and filed our own case
because a settlement reached in 2012 entrenched the bad acts of the
credit card industry rather than reforming them. The same thing is
happening again.
Why do I say that? Because the proposed settlement creates a mirage
of change that won't benefit anyone long-term -- other than the
credit card companies and large banks that caused these problems in
the first place.
Even a cursory look at the key provisions of the agreement shows
them dissolving into dust. The proposed settlement, for example,
calls for an average seven-basis-point reduction in banks' fees to
be maintained over five years. But, U.S. swipe fees, which are the
highest in the industrialized world, are two hundred twenty-six
basis points. The reduction won't even get the dollars down to the
amount that neighborhood businesses paid in 2021. The fees have
tripled since 2010. Is a return to 2021 really a win for a lawsuit
filed in 2005 at a time when the fees were a small fraction of what
they are today? Of course it isn't.
Plus, the overall fees that businesses pay are unlikely to go down
at all. That's because the settlement reduces banks' fees but won't
stop Visa and Mastercard from increasing the fees that they
themselves charge merchants (on top of the banks' fees). The most
likely outcome is that Visa and Mastercard will increase what
merchants pay them -- and then give banks a corresponding discount
on the fees that they charge the banks to handle credit card
transactions. And with that, voila, nothing changes to help
consumers or merchants.
Another key piece of the agreement gives merchants the supposed
ability to add the fees as a surcharge on their customers, which
most merchants wouldn't consider. Why? It makes merchants seem like
the villains because customers think the merchants are just trying
to gouge them. Just to make sure, the credit card companies also
buried complicated provisions in the settlement, putting limits on
merchants that are difficult to follow without referencing the
complex rules of multiple card companies and knowing how much
different credit cards cost. Merchants have complained for years
that the system is so opaque that they don't know the real cost, so
it's a bitter irony that the settlement uses that fact to make it
very difficult for any merchant to follow its terms.
Not only that, but the settlement touts a provision that would let
merchants form buying groups to bargain with the credit card
giants. Guess what? The antitrust laws already allow merchants to
form buying groups. Why don't they do it? Because the credit card
companies know that merchants can't possibly say "no" to taking
credit cards, inconveniencing customers who want payment options.
So, the card companies don't need to give the buying groups a deal
and merchants gave up on that path long ago. Nothing in the
settlement will give buying groups any real leverage or make the
credit card giants interested in a deal. Giving merchants
ineffective rights they already have doesn't sound like much of a
deal.
On top of the mirage of changes, the settlement proposes to bind to
its terms every business that has accepted a credit card back to
2005. So, even though NACS and many others filed and pursued our
own lawsuits to change credit card practices for years, this
settlement would prohibit any of those lawsuits from asking for
other changes. Rather than reforming the credit card system, the
settlement would etch it into stone and let Visa, Mastercard and
the biggest banks do business just as they have for decades -- no
matter how badly their practices violate U.S. antitrust laws.
The sum total of the terms of this proposed settlement is that in
another five years, everything would be business as usual and
merchants and their customers would be paying dramatically rising
fees along with the increasing fraud and restraints on innovation
that are hallmarks of the credit card duopoly.
No one should be fooled by the sleight of hand. Real market reforms
are needed to make U.S. swipe fees competitive and end the excess
extraction of wealth from Americans, especially low-income
Americans. This mirage isn't it. We hope Congress will take note
and finally make the credit card companies compete like everyone
else in the economy. [GN]
[^] Registration Ongoing for May 6 Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference to be held next month in Manhattan. This year's
event is led by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP;
and Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, as conference
chairs.
The agenda for CAME 2024 are:
(A) State of the Industry: Class Action Review
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane
Morris will present key findings from their inaugural
Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2024. Their one-of-a-
kind publication provides an analysis of class action
trends impacting Corporate America, including, Class
Action Fairness Act, mass appeals, consumer fraud, data
breaches and more.
(B) The Ethics of Wiretapping and Data Privacy Class Actions
David Bertoni (Moderator), Partner, Brann & Isaacson;
Kelly Iverson, Partner, Lynch Carpenter; Terence "Terry"
Coates, Managing Partner, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco;
David Lietz, Senior Partner, Milberg; and Max Bernstein,
Associate, Cooley, will delve into the moral intricacies
of wiretapping and data privacy class actions; explore
legal, ethical, and technological dimensions, weighing
individual rights against security needs; and navigate
through case studies, ethical dilemmas, and corporate
responsibilities, while scrutinizing the global
landscape of privacy regulations.
(C) Maximizing Financial Strategy: Exploring Qualified
Settlement Funds
Nicholas Sanchez (Moderator), Partner, Miller Kaplan;
Eric Gladbach, Partner, King & Spalding; Justin Parks,
Vice President, AB Data; Amy Gernon, Founder, Gernon
Law; and Michael O'Connor, Senior Vice President,
Western Alliance Bank, will discuss the complexities of
Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) and tax implications
in class actions; analyze strategies for maximizing
benefits, minimizing tax liabilities, and ensuring
compliance; and navigate through legal nuances,
financial considerations, and practical insights for
attorneys, plaintiffs, and stakeholders.
(D) The Double-Edged Sword: TCPA and Email Restrictions in
Case Notifications
Christopher Longley (Moderator), Co-Founder & CEO,
Atticus Administration; Christopher Roberts, Partner,
Butsch Roberts & Associates; Jessica Ranucci, Attorney,
New York Legal Assistance Group; and Bryn Bridley,
Director of Project Management at Atticus, will examine
the intricate balance between TCPA regulations and email
restrictions in case notifications; navigate through
legal pitfalls, compliance challenges, and best
practices for effective communication; and explore
strategies for optimizing outreach while mitigating
risks and respecting recipients' privacy rights.
(E) Luncheon Roundtable Discussion: Resolution of Mass Tort
Claims in Bankruptcy
Join esteemed judges -- Hon. Michael Kaplan, Chief United
States Bankruptcy Judge, District of New Jersey; the Hon.
Shelley Chapman (Ret.), Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP; and the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.),
Partner, Otterbourg P.C. -- for an intimate roundtable
on resolving mass tort claims in bankruptcy as they
delve into legal intricacies, precedents, and ethical
considerations shaping outcomes; and explore strategies
for balancing creditor rights, public interests, and
equitable distribution, fostering dialogue and insights
over a luncheon setting. Chad Husnick, Partner, Kirkland
& Ellis, moderates.
(F) Comparative Class Action Funding: a Multi-Jurisdictional
Examination
Dai Wai Chin Freman (Moderator), Managing Director,
Parabellum Capital; Kyle Taylor, Partner, Orr Taylor;
Luke Streatfeild, Partner, Hausfeld; Michael Dell'Angelo,
Executive Shareholder, Berger Montague; and Manuel "John"
Dominguez, Partner, Cohen Milstein, discuss different
class actions funding models, exploring the benefits and
drawbacks of various models, as well as explore whether
the US model is ripe for disruption.
(G) Fraud in Class Actions
Ross Weiner (Moderator), Legal Director, Certum Group;
Rebecca Gilliland, Principal, Beasley Allen; Kyle Mason,
Director, EisnerAmper; Franco Corrado, Partner, Morgan
Lewis; Jeff Wilkerson, Partner, Winston & Strawn; and
Etia Rottman Frand, Head of Sales, Darrow, tackle the
complexities of detecting and addressing fraud in class
actions; explore case studies, legal precedents, and
emerging trends; discuss strategies for safeguarding
integrity, ensuring fair outcomes, and upholding justice
within class action litigation; and delve into ethical
considerations and practical measures for combating
fraudulent practices.
(H) ESG Litigation From A Securities Perspective
Eric Zagar (Moderator), Partner, Kessler Topaz; Lauren
Wagner, Counsel, O'Melveny; and Minor Myers, Professor
of Law, UConn Law School, dive into the intersection of
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors with
securities litigation; explore evolving regulations,
shareholder activism, and fiduciary duties; and dissect
recent cases, analyze market trends, and propose
strategies for navigating ESG-related risks and
opportunities within the securities landscape.
(I) The Revolution of Lead Generation in Mass Tort With
Cutting Edge AI and Marketing Tools
Erin Mulvaney (Moderator), Reporter, The Wall Street
Journal; Brendan Kane, Founder, Hook Point; Rustin
Silverstein, President and Founder, X Ante; and
Christopher Ege, Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully,
Mansukhani, explore the transformative impact of AI
and marketing tools on mass tort lead generation;
discuss data-driven strategies, predictive analytics
and ethical considerations; and how innovative
technologies are reshaping legal marketing, enhancing
client acquisition, and revolutionizing mass tort
litigation.
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on May 6th.
To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/
Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.
Conference agenda is subject to change. Additional panels and
speakers will be added leading up to the conference. Check back
frequently for updates!
For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***