/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240429.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 29, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 86
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Carr Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Close Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Marshall Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
ADAMS COUNTY, CO: Seeks More Response Time to Class Cert Bid
ADVANCE TRADING: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Butler Suit
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Court Certifies Garrett Suit as Class Action
ALCOA USA: Liable to Pension Plans' Losses, Camire Suit Alleges
AMICK FARMS: Bid to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline Nixed
APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Devices' Battery Health
APPLE INC: Melkowski Sues Over Monopoly in Smartphone Market
APPLE INC: Siano Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
APRIO LLP: Lechter Bid for Class Certification Remains Pending
ARISE VIRTUAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Niro Alleges
ASR GROUP: Wakefern Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price-Fixing Scheme
ATRIUM HEALTH: Share Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges
BILL HICKS: Starr Files Suit in W.D. Texas
BLOOMINGTON & NORMAL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Brewer
BLUE DIAMOND: Jeska et al. Sue Over False Almond Product Labeling
BOTANIC TONICS: Continuance of Class Cert Deadline Sought
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court to Seal Docs Temporarily
CAPPY'S WAREHOUSE: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CEDAR FAIR: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings Tossed
CENTRAL GARDEN: Floddin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Paula S. Gordy LISW Files Suit Over Data Breach
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Baird Seeks Certification of Class Claims
CITIZENS BANK: Reinig Seeks to Certify PMWA Overtime Sub-Classes
CITY OF HOPE: L.E. Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: CGL Bid to Certify Class Bid Partly OK'd
COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Patora Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
COMME DES GARCONS: Herrera Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
CONNECTWISE INC: Faces Marshall Suit Over Failure to Secure Info
CONOPCO INC: Candelaria Must File Class Cert Bid by May 31
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Steinberg
CREDIT SUISSE: $580MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 4
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Johnstone Suit Seeks to Certify Class
D2C LLC: Univision Reply to Response Extended to May 7
DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Conditional Status Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
DR. KATES GROWING: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Faces Handelsbanken Suit Over Breach of Charter
EXPEDIA GROUP: Echevarria Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Adenikinju Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
FEIN & SUCH: Zeccardi Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
FORD MOTOR: Johnson et al. Sue Over Defective Rear View Cameras
FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Parties Seek Initial Nod of Settlement Deal
GENERAL MOTORS: Unlawfully Collects Drivers' Info, Valencia Claims
GLENCO CONTRACTING: Rivero Seeks Conditional Collective Status
GOODYEAR TIRE: Alves Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 1st Cir.
GOOGLE LLC: Court Approves $62-M Deal in Privacy Invasion Suit
GRAPPLER PRESSURE: Rose Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
HARBOR UCLA: Court Remands Wilcox Suit to LA County Superior Court
HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Faces Unlawful Practice of Tying Class Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Enters Class Cert. Order in Caccavale
HN & SONS: Pagano Suit Seeks Class Action Certification
INDIAN HILL: Filing for Class Certification Bid in RLK Due June 24
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to June 6
J&R EARTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrera Alleges
JAF COMMUNICATIONS: Belendez-Desha Seeks to Certify Employee Class
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Covachuela Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tuominen Decongestant Suit Goes to E.D. New York
KAREN ST. GERMAIN: Bid to Stay Class Cert Proceedings Granted
KARTOON STUDIOS: Faces Shareholder Suit in California
KRUA THAI: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Juarez Suit Claims
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Seeks to Certify Class Action
LARKIN COMMUNITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to June 6
LOREAL USA: Noakes Alleges Benzene Presence in Skin Care Products
LOS ALTOS: Terrazas Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Violations
LULU & DINO: Kim Sues Over Human Rights, Labor Law Breaches
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Reset to May 28
LYONS MAGNUS: Class Settlement in Wayne Suit Gets Final Nod
MARLOU CORP: Wheeler Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
MCMENAMINS INC: Court Tosses Kirby Bid for Class Status
MEDNAX SERVICES: Ct. Certifies Settlement Class in Data Breach Suit
MELTWATER NEWS: Napoleon and Ezsak Seek Proper Overtime Wages
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits Partly OK'd
MGM RESORTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 24
NANCY BUCKNER: Reply in Support of Class Cert Reset to July 11
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Initial Management Conference Set for June 12
OLD DOMINION: Tensae Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Seeks to File Opposition Papers Under Seal
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: May 21 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ORSINI PHARMACEUTICAL: Kerber Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
PERDUE FOODS: Tripp Seeks Damages for Failure to Pay Proper Wages
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Alleged Corruption
PUBLICIS HEALTH: Contributes to Opioid Epidemic, Cleveland Claims
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Bristol Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
RESONETICS LLC: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Partly OK'd
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Made in USA Ads "False," Fogle Suit Alleges
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
RHINO ONWARD: Faces Strobl Suit Over Sale of Fake Investments
SELECT EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Smith Suit Says
SHAUN FERGUSON: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Enomoto Suit Seeks to Certify 11 Classes
SOCIETE GENERALE: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 18
SONDER HOLDINGS: Duffaybar Sues Over Securities Law Violations
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Van Dyke Says
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 20
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Sept. 2 Class Cert. Bid Filing Extension Sought
STARBUCKS CORP: Fact Discovery in Kominis Due Oct. 1
TC HEARTLAND: Karabas Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Sweeteners
TIM GRIFFIN: Expert Deposition in Johnson Extended to May 27
TIM HORTONS: Faces Class Suit Over Roll Up the Rim to Win Promotion
TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Johnson Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
TRC SOLUTIONS: Bandy Wins Bid to Certify Class w/ Modification
TRENT ALLEN: Feal May File Amended Complaint by May 27
TRUCK MOTION: Soliz Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Cunningham's Bid to Intervene in Goble Tossed
U LVP LLC: Faces Troche Wage & Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
UNIFIED PROTECTIVE: Faces Roque Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
UNITED AIRLINES: Witmer Sues Over Unreasonable NOL Pill
VINFAST AUTO: Faces Comeau Suit Over 84.78% Drop of Stock Price
VMSB LLC: Volpe Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: $2.2MM Settlement to be Heard on June 14
WHKS & CO: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Bowen Class Suit
WORKFORCE 7: Court Enters Revised Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order
*********
3M COMPANY: Carr Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eddie Carr, et al. v. 3M Company, et al.,
Case No. 01-CV-2024-900996.00 was removed from the Circuit Court
for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
on April 11, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00460-ACA.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Close Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel David Close, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01744-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 8, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian
firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to
Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for
heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in
hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal
liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers
contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional
PFAS.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
Juan Saavedra-Castro, Esq.
August Matties, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
290 Ave. Jesus Y. Pinero, Suite 1201
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918
3M COMPANY: Marshall Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Charles C. Marshall, et al. v. 3M Company, et
al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-901005.00 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on April 11, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00458-GMB.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
ADAMS COUNTY, CO: Seeks More Response Time to Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY CARL WIND JR., v.
MICHAEL J. MICKINNEY (33312), Adams County Sherriff, ADAMS COUNTY,
and NATHAN MCDONALD (18543), Captain and Volunteer Coordinator for
Religions at the Limon Correctional Facility, Case No.
1:23-cv-01011-PAB-MDB (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for an extension of 21 days,
up to and including May 10, 2024, to file their response to
Plaintiff Gregory Carl Wind Jr.'s Motion to certify class action
pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act ("RLUIPA").
The Plaintiff Wind initiated this action by filing a Complaint on
April 21, 2023. Mr. Wind filed an Amended Complaint on June 30,
2023.
The Defendant McDonald filed his Motion to Dismiss on Jan. 16,
2024. Mr. Wind was granted leave to file a surresponse, and the
Defendant McDonald filed a surreply. Mr. Wind filed his Motion to
Certify Class Action on March 29, 2024.
Good cause exists for granting the requested extension of time.
Although the precise relief requested is unclear, Wind references
his status as a member of the Islamic/Muslim faith, an incarcerated
person, and a pretrial detainee within the State of Colorado.
Consequently, the Defendant McDonald interprets Wind to request a
class of incarcerated persons and pretrial detainees of the
Islamic/Muslim faith within the State of Colorado. Wind also makes
additional allegations regarding his religious beliefs related to
"Sharee'ah Law" and jihad that do not appear in the operative Third
Amended Complaint.
This is Defendant McDonald's first request for an extension of time
to file a response to the Motion to Certify Class Action.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aTqqOp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip T. Barrett, Esq.
Kelley M. Dziedzic, Esq.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (720) 508-6659
E-mail: philip.barrett@coag.gov
kelley.dziedzic@coag.gov
ADVANCE TRADING: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Butler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Butler v. Advance Trading,
Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01445-JES-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.
Advance provides risk management & market guidance for producers,
elevators & end users.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated April 15, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7NOMxB
at no extra charge.[CC]
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Court Certifies Garrett Suit as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cecil C. Garrett, v.
Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No.
2:21-cv-02082-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane Humetewa entered
an order certifying case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3) as a class action on behalf of:
"All natural persons who were the subject of a consumer report
furnished by Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting
Incorporated
to a third party from Dec. 8, 2019, through Nov. 2021, where the
consumer report contained a notation that the consumer was
deceased
from at least one of Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union and where
at
least one other of Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union did not
contain a deceased notation. Excluded from the Class are:
a. Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated's
officers, directors, and employees;
b. the Parties' counsel;
c. any judge overseeing or considering the approval of the
settlement of this matter, together with members of their
immediate family and any judicial staff; and
b. any individuals who submitted a valid exclusion request by
the
Opt-Out & Objections Deadline.
-- Class Representative and Class Counsel Appointment:
The Court certifies Plaintiff Cecil C. Garrett as the Class
Representative and Berger & Montague PC as Class Counsel for
the
Class Members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
-- Agreement Terms:
The Settlement Agreement & Release, which is on file in this
case,
shall be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed
settlement
set forth in the Agreement is finally approved and shall be
consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof,
except as amended by any order issued by this Court. The
material
a. Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated shall
deposit $96,000 into the Settlement Fund as a common fund
for the Class.
b. Class Counsel shall first distribute from the Settlement
Fund a
$5,000 service award to Plaintiff Cecil C. Garrett to
compensate him for his unique services in initiating and
maintaining this litigation as Class Representative.
c. Class Counsel shall then distribute from the Settlement Fund
equal payments of $1,000, the maximum statutory amount, to
each Class Member.
On July 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint against Advantage on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated consumers.
On Nov. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his original motion to
certify class.
Advantage is a credit reporting agency that offers personal credit
reports, credit repair, and credit monitoring.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2XFHga at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALCOA USA: Liable to Pension Plans' Losses, Camire Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA BRENNAN CAMIRE, CRAIG JEFFERSON, DAVID LYN SHEPHERD, and
DANIEL SCHIPPER, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Pension Plan for
Certain Salaried Employees of Alcoa USA Corp., the Pension Plan for
Certain Hourly Employees of Alcoa USA Corp., and the Alcoa
Subsidiaries Merged Inactive Plan, Plaintiffs v. ALCOA USA CORP.,
ALCOA CORP., THE ALCOA BENEFITS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, WILLIAM F.
OPLINGER, FIDUCIARY COUNSELORS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01062 (D.D.C., April 12, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties
and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Alcoa Plans' retirees and beneficiaries by selecting
Athene Annuity and Life Co. or Athene Annuity & Life Assurance
Company of New York, a substantially riskier insurer than numerous
other traditional annuity providers. In transferring the
Plaintiffs' pension benefits to Athene, the Defendants put their
future retirement benefits at substantial risk of default, a risk
which devalued their pensions without proper compensation. The
Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain appropriate relief for the
Defendants' ERISA violations.
Alcoa Corporation is a publicly traded aluminum producer
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Alcoa USA Corporation is a subsidiary of Alcoa Corp. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence M. Mann, Esq.
ALPER & MANN
9205 Redwood Ave.
Bethesda, MD 20817
Telephone: (202) 298-9191
Email: Lm.mann@verizon.net
- and -
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com
ssoyars@uselaws.com
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
AMICK FARMS: Bid to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diaz, et al., v. Amick
Farms, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01246 (D.S.C., Filed: April 18, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin entered an order denying motion
to stay deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' conditional
certification motion.
-- The Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class within seven days of this Order.
The suit alleges violation of the Equal Pay Act.
Amick produces poultry products.[CC]
APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Devices' Battery Health
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Devika of NRCL reports that the Canadian iPhone Slowdown Settlement
addresses widespread concerns over alleged performance throttling
in several iPhone models by Apple Inc. Stemming from lawsuits
initiated in 2018, this settlement seeks to compensate affected
iPhone users in Canada who experienced decreased device performance
due to software updates.
This article outlines the settlement's background, eligibility
criteria, claim submission process, and important dates. It
provides essential information for Canadian iPhone users seeking to
understand their rights and potential compensation under the
settlement agreement. The court has approved this settlement on
March 4, 2024.
The core of the lawsuit revolves around claims that Apple's iOS
versions (10.2.1, 10.3, 11, and 11.2) deliberately throttled or
slowed down the performance of several iPhone models, including the
iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus. Allegations
further include that Apple failed to disclose information regarding
battery health and performance management, misleading users about
their devices' capability and health.
Eligibility Criteria for Canada iPhone Slowdown Settlement
To qualify for compensation under the Canadian iPhone Slowdown
Settlement, individuals must meet the following criteria:
Affected iPhone Models: The settlement covers specific iPhone
models, which include:
-- iPhone 6
-- iPhone 6 Plus
-- iPhone 6s
-- iPhone 6s Plus
-- iPhone SE (1st generation)
-- iPhone 7
-- iPhone 7 Plus
iOS Version Requirement: Eligible iPhones must have had
either:
-- iOS version 10.2.1 or later (for iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s,
6s Plus, or SE) installed or downloaded.
-- iOS version 11.2 or later (for iPhone 7 or 7 Plus)
installed or downloaded.
This installation or download must have occurred before December
21, 2017.
Experience of Issues: Claimants must declare under oath that they
experienced diminished performance on their device after the
relevant iOS version was installed or downloaded.
Apple Canada iPhone Settlement Amount and Claim Submission
Apple has agreed to settle by paying between CAD 11,137,500 and CAD
14,427,500, though this does not imply Apple has admitted to
wrongdoing. The compensation for each eligible claimant may vary,
potentially up to CAD 150 per affected iPhone.
Following a final court hearing on 04 March 2024, where the
settlement was approved, claimants are expected to receive
guidelines on submitting their claims, including providing personal
details, iPhone serial numbers, and a declaration under oath
regarding installing the specified iOS versions and subsequent
performance issues. [GN]
APPLE INC: Melkowski Sues Over Monopoly in Smartphone Market
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MELKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04827 (D.N.J., April 11, 2024) accuses Apple of employing
anticompetitive practices to illegally maintain monopoly power over
the smartphone market in violation of the Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Apple has unlawfully maintained a
smartphone monopoly by suppressing five key technologies that
otherwise would have stimulated competition: super apps, cloud
streaming game apps, messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital
wallets. The Plaintiff also claims that Apple exercises its control
over app distribution and app creation to dictate how developers
innovate for the iPhone and enforces rules and contractual
restrictions that prevent or delay developers from innovating in
ways that would threaten Apple's monopoly power.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple Inc. is a technology company
that designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables, and other related accessories,
computer software, and online services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: SAS@chimicles.com
TNM@chimicles.com
BMM@chimicles.com
AMK@chimicles.com
APPLE INC: Siano Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------
DEANNA SIANO and CHRISTOPHER WALKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-04568 (D.N.J., April 4, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's attempted monopolization of the performance smartphone
market in the United States in violation of Sherman Act and the New
Jersey Antitrust Act.
The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of the millions of
consumers who purchased iPhones directly from Apple at an
artificially and unlawfully inflated price and who were otherwise
injured by Apple's relentless march toward and maintenance of its
monopolistic domination of the U.S. smartphone market. The tools
Apple uses to build and maintain its monopoly have included (1)
making it difficult and costly for consumers to switch to other
smartphones, such as those using the Android operating system, (2)
preventing developers from offering super apps, cloud-based
software, and other technologies that would make consumers less
dependent on the iPhone, and (3) forcing consumers and developers
to use Apple-controlled systems (such as the Apple's App Store and
its Digital Wallet), say the Plaintiffs.
Apple, Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology
company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Seeger, Esq.
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
jscullion@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
xanb@rgrdlaw.com
ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
APRIO LLP: Lechter Bid for Class Certification Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lechter, et al., v. Aprio,
LLP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325 (N.D. Ga., Filed: March 26,
2020), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order that the prior
oral argument and the parties briefing are sufficient bases for the
Courts resolution of the pending Motion for Class Certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.
Aprio is an accounting and business advisory firm.[CC]
ARISE VIRTUAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Niro Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DIAVION DE NIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00695 (D. Nev., April 10, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff De Niro was employed by the Defendant as a call center
employee.
ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS INC. provides business process outsourcing
and consulting services. The Company offers customer support
services, including voice, email, live chat, text, social media,
and technical support. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
- and -
Kristina Hillman, Esq.
Sean W. McDonald, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
3199 E. Warm Springs Rd, Ste 400
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Telephone: (702) 508-9282
Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
Email: nevadacourtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
smcdonald@unioncounsel.net
ASR GROUP: Wakefern Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price-Fixing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
WAKEFERN FOOD CORP., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS &
REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD WISTISEN,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02840 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2024) seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief over Defendants' alleged
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Plaintiff claims that Defendants conspired to fix the prices of
Granulated Sugar in the United States. The price-fixing conspiracy
allegedly began in January 2019, with Defendants exchanging
confidential, competitively sensitive information about Granulated
Sugar prices, capacity, sales, volume, supply, and demand. The
unlawful agreement enabled Defendants to inflate the prices of
Granulated Sugar from 2019 up to the present, in violation of the
Sherman Act. This has affected direct purchasers of the product,
including Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit.
Based in West Palm Beach, FL, ASR Group is a global producer and
seller of Granulated Sugar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ira N. Glauber, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
99 Park Avenue, Suite 320
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (917) 675-4252
E-mail: iglauber@dilaworthlaw.com
- and -
Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq.
Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
Lisa J. Rodriguez, P.C.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 575-7000
E-mail: cpratsinakis@dilworthlaw.com
irichards@dilworthlaw.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn
William E. Hoese
Douglas A. Abrahams
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whoese@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
ATRIUM HEALTH: Share Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. and J.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ATRIUM HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case
3:24-cv-00382-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., April 10, 2024) seeks legal
redress for the Defendant's conscious decision to install tracking
technologies on its website to collect its patients' personal
health information and disclose that highly sensitive information
to third party platforms like Facebook and Google without consent.
ATRIUM HEALTH, INC. provides general medical services. The Hospital
offers cancer treatment, cardiology, diabetes services, emergency,
surgery, behavioral health, laboratory facilities, rehabilitation
center, stroke program, medical imaging, and other health care
services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com
BILL HICKS: Starr Files Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bill Hicks. The case
is styled as Carl Starr, and all others similarly situated v. Bill
Hicks, in his Official Capacity DA of the 34th Judicial District of
Texas, Case No. 3:24-cv-00113-KC (W.D. Tex., April 8, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Bill Hicks (William Melvin Hicks) was an American stand-up comedian
and satirist.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
BLOOMINGTON & NORMAL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Brewer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brewer v. Bloomington &
Normal Water Reclamation District, Case No. 1:23-cv-01404-JES-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 standing order dated April 12, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u5wtDG
at no extra charge.[CC]
BLUE DIAMOND: Jeska et al. Sue Over False Almond Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORIANNE JESKA, JULIA IASSOGNA, and TYOKA BRUMFIELD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE
DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00677-VDO (D. Conn.,
April 11, 2024) arises from the Defendant's false and misleading
labeling of its almond products. Plaintiffs assert claims for
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The Defendant allegedly sells almonds purporting to be smoked over
hardwoods, with "Smokehouse Almonds" emblazoned across a red ribbon
with glowing borders, above an orange polygon, evocative of fire,
surrounded by almonds with a light salt coating, indicative of a
smoking process. However, the representations that the almonds'
smoked taste is from being smoked over hardwoods, in a smokehouse,
are false and misleading. This is only disclosed through the fine
print of the ingredients on the back of the package, which lists
"Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor," a form of pyroligneous acid or
synthesized liquid smoke, says the suit.
Based in California, Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural
cooperative of almond growers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
777 W Putnam Ave Ste 300
Greenwich, CT 06830
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com
BOTANIC TONICS: Continuance of Class Cert Deadline Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Torres v. Botanic Tonics,
LLC et al. (BOTANIC TONICS LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-01460-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to
continue deadline for class certification as follows:
a) That the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification
be continued to Sept. 3, 2024 or a date soon thereafter
subject
to the Court's calendar;
b) That the deadline for Defendants' response be continued to
Oct. 16, 2024 or a date soon thereafter subject to the
Court's
calendar;
c) That the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply be continued to Nov.
15,
2024 or a date soon thereafter subject to the Court's
calendar;
and
d) That the hearing date for Plaintiffs' motion for Class
Certification be continued to Dec. 12, 2024 or a date soon
thereafter subject to the Court's calendar.
The deadline for the motion for class certification is currently
June 3, 2024, the deadline for responses is currently July 16,
2024, and the deadline for Replies is currently Aug. 15, 2024.
The hearing for class certification is currently Sept. 12, 2024
On April 4, 2024, the Torres and C.C. Plaintiffs and Defendants
Botanic Tonics, Inc. and Nowhere Partners, Inc., participated in a
private mediation. The Parties did not reach a settlement but made
strides in discussing a path towards a resolution of the instant
class actions and related personal injury cases currently in a
Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) in California
Superior Court.
Botanic Tonics offers plant-based wellness tonics.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9wBwSt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert S. Arns, Esq.
Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
Katherine A. Rabago, Esq.
ARNS DAVIS LAW
515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 495-7800
Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
jed@arnslaw.com
ssd@arnslaw.com
kar@arnslaw.com
- and -
Anthony L. Label, Esq.
Theo Emison, Esq.
Steven A. Kronenberg, Esq.
THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
20 Haight Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 673-4800
Facsimile: (415) 771-5845
E-mail: al.team@veenfirm.com
t.emison@veenfirm.com
al.team@veenfirm.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court to Seal Docs Temporarily
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, ET AL, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order as follows:
-- The Court will grant the motion to seal these documents
temporarily until the Court has had an opportunity to review
the
content of such filings.
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to seal the following Docket
Entries: 409-16, 409-17, 409-18, 409-40, 409-41, 409-43, 409-44
and 409-57. Brookdale shall file redacted versions of these
materials within five days.
-- As Plaintiffs' class certification memorandum and exhibits
thereto
have already been refiled, Brookdale's request for a temporary
stay is denied as moot.
Brookdale owns and operates retirement homes across the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSjDy5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAPPY'S WAREHOUSE: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cappy's Warehouse
Wine & Spirits, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cappy's Warehouse Wine
& Spirits, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02626 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cappy's Warehouse Wine & Spirits, Inc. --
https://www.cappyswineandspirits.com/ -- is a wine store in Merrick
Road Lynbrook, New York.[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
CEDAR FAIR: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moneva Walker, et al., v.
Cedar Fair, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge James Carr entered an order denying Defendants'
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
The Clerk is directed to schedule a status/scheduling conference
following this Order.
The court said that the Plaintiffs have satisfied that Defendants
had prior notice of the Attorney General rule. This is not to say
that Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on their Rule 23 class
certification motion; rather, this ruling is limited to the CSPA's
prior notice requirement only. Having satisfied that Defendants
were on notice, Plaintiffs are not barred from proceeding as a
putative class.
The case is a putative class action arising out of the wholly
cancelled or otherwise abbreviated 2020 season at Defendants Cedar
Fair, L.P. and Cedar Fair Management, Inc.'s various amusement
parks.
The Plaintiffs, the putative class members, were 2020 season
passholders at the Defendants' amusement parks. They seek to obtain
compensation for themselves and other similarly situated persons
for the partial and/or complete closure, due to the Covid-19
pandemic, of Defendants' amusement parks.
Via Defendants' website, the Plaintiffs purchased season passes,
which provide unlimited access.
Due to the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the Defendants
did not open their parks at their usual opening dates. California's
Great America, Valleyfair, and Canada's Wonderland never opened.
King's Dominion and Carowinds were closed for most of the season,
opening only for a brief "Taste of the Season" event in November
and December. The Defendants closed all remaining parks for a
substantial portion of the season.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants refused to provide them
with a refund for the portion of the regularly scheduled year that
their parks remained closed.
Cedar operates thirteen amusement parks in the United States and
Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bElduT at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTRAL GARDEN: Floddin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, BREEDER'S
CHOICE PET FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
Order that this case proceed to the merits as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on Causes of Action
Nos. 1-3 and 5 as set forth in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class
Action Complaint filed against the Defendants on behalf of all
persons who fall within at least one of the following Subclasses
who purchased the Products1 for household use and not for resale or
distribution:
California Subclass:
"All residents of California who purchased the Products from
March 8, 2017 through Dec. 1, 2020."
Washington Subclass:
"All residents of Washington who purchased the Products from
March 8, 2017 through Dec. 1, 2020."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns,
successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in which
Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state, and/or
local governments, including, but not limited to, their
departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections,
groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial
officer presiding over this matter and person within the third
degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer.
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify the Class
(and each of its Subclasses), appoint Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives, and appoint Fox Law, APC as Class Counsel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 8, 2017, which was
amended pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B) on June 7, 2021, in response
to the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants falsely represented that
avocado is a main ingredient in AvoDerm.
Central is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality branded
products for the pet and lawn and garden supplies markets.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NCzFRH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dave Fox, Esq.
Joanna Fox, Esq.
Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
201 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 420
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (858) 256-7616
Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
joanna@foxlawapc.com
courtney@foxlawapc.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Paula S. Gordy LISW Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paula S. Gordy LISW, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00386 (M.D. Tenn., April 4, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to employ reasonable measures to protect
against unauthorized access to patient information that constitutes
an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
A ransomware group claims to have accessed Change's servers and
seized 6 terabytes of critical confidential and highly sensitive
information, resulting in network outages that have already
impacted millions of patients and physicians across the country. On
February 21, 2024, Change disclosed that it was the subject of this
massive data breach whereby hackers known as "ALPHV/Blackcat"
gained unauthorized access to its networks.
The complaint alleges that Change is responsible for the data
breach because it failed to implement reasonable security
procedures and practices and failed to disclose material facts
surrounding its deficient security protocols. Responding to the
data breach, Change claims to have chosen to take systems offline
to stop hackers from seizing more data than the 6 terabytes already
taken.
As a result of Change's actions, Plaintiff and Class members did
not receive the benefit of their bargain with Change and are not
receiving the services that they have paid for. Furthermore,
Plaintiff and Class members have not received payments for their
healthcare services and have incurred extra costs from switching to
another healthcare payment software, says the suit.
Plaintiff Paula S. Gordy LISW, LLC is an Iowa limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Centerville, Iowa.
Change Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare technology company with its
principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
Michael Iadevaia, Esq.
Emily Schiller, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Patrick Montoya, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
pmontoya@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Ken Grunfeld, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Baird Seeks Certification of Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. dba CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting certification of Plaintiff's class claims.
The Plaintiff moves for certification of two classes arising from
the Defendants' uniform practices:
Store Pickup Class:
"All persons in California who purchased internet service from
the
Defendant, and to whom the Defendant promised "free" use of
the
Defendant's internet modems but were charged a
"self-installation
Fee" to self-install Defendant's internet service."
Own Modem Class:
"All persons in California who purchased internet from the
Defendant and were charged a "self-installation fee" to self-
install the Defendant's internet service."
The Plaintiff also moves to be appointed Class Representatives and
for his counsel to be appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 (g).
The crux of the Plaintiff's complaint is that Defendant violated
consumer protection statues, including the California Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and California common law by falsely
advertising the use of "free" modems with internet service purchase
while simultaneously charging a standard fee of $9.99 to $24.99 –
a fee that has been increased over the years since this action was
filed in 2019 – that Defendant uniformly refers to as a
"self-installation fee."
Charter provides internet service to consumers across the United
States and the State of California using the branding name
"Spectrum."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qLQCGf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq.
Saima Ali Gipson, Esq.
EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC
1001 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 382-2222
Facsimile: (213) 382-2230
E-mail: kelihu@ejlglaw.com
sali@ejlglaw.com
CITIZENS BANK: Reinig Seeks to Certify PMWA Overtime Sub-Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 23(b)(3) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2):
(1) Certifying the PMWA Standard Overtime Sub-Class, which shall
consist of all Mortgage Loan Officers employed by the
Defendant
in Pennsylvania between Nov. 24, 2012, and the present, who
were paid Standard Overtime by the Defendant in at least one
workweek;
(2) Certifying the PMWA Commission Overtime Sub-Class, which
shall
consist of: all Mortgage Loan Officers employed by the
Defendant in Pennsylvania between Nov. 24, 2012 and the
present, who were paid Commission Overtime by the Defendant
in
at least one workweek.
(3) Appointing Plaintiffs Alex Reinig, Kenneth Gritz, and
Robert Soda as class representatives; and
(4) Appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC and Robert Soloff, Esq. as
class
counsel; and
(5) Directing Notice to be issued to the members of each
sub-class.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h9708T at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
9 Tanner Street Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
- and -
Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
7805 SW 6th Ct.
Plantation, FL 33324- 3203
Telephone: (954) 472-0002
CITY OF HOPE: L.E. Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.E., on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, d/b/a
CITY OF HOPE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02967 (C.D. Cal., April
12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and violations of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California
Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Records Act, and
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
patients stored within its information networks and servers
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.
City of Hope National Medical Center, doing business as City of
Hope, is a non-profit health care organization with its principal
place of business at 1500 E. Duarte Red., Duarte, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: CGL Bid to Certify Class Bid Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE CROSSROADS GROUP, LLC,
et al., v. CITY OF CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00184-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese
entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion and
certifying the following class:
"All individuals and businesses who own residential rental
property in the City of Cleveland Heights and, while residing
outside of Cuyahoga County, on or after Jan. 31, 2021, paid to
the City of Cleveland Heights one or more $100 annual out-of-
county owner registration fees."
The Court has no opinion on whether the individual defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity because that substantive inquiry has
no bearing on class certification. The Court will consider
Defendants' qualified immunity argument and any other merits-based
defense at the appropriate time.
While the Court understands, and has a certain amount of sympathy
for, the concerns about including the individual Defendants in any
class certification order that defense counsel raised, there are
ways to address those issues other than by fast forwarding to a
ruling on the merits now. To that end, the Court will not identify
the individual Defendants in notice to potential class members.
Doing so will avoid at least some concerns bearing on the
circumstances of the individual Defendants without prejudice to
class members, who likely will not recognize the names of these
individuals in any event.
The City of Cleveland Heights requires homeowners that lease their
property to register and apply for a certificate of occupancy. If
the homeowner resides outside Cuyahoga County, the owner must also
pay a $100.00 fee. Plaintiffs The Crossroads Group, LLC, Andrew
Strigle, and Sole Houses LLC allege that this additional fee
imposed only on owners of property in Cleveland Heights who reside
outside Cuyahoga County (1) violates their rights to due process
and equal protection and (2)
constitutes an unconstitutional condition and taking.
On Jan. 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the City's
imposition of an additional $100 fee on owners of rental properties
who reside outside of Cuyahoga County.
Cleveland Heights is a diverse, progressive and vital suburb of
Cleveland.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGd2Jy at no extra
charge.[CC]
COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Cognyte Software Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F report filed for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2024, that on March 1, 2023, a
putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Cognyte Software Ltd., its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period between February 2, 2021, and June
28, 2022, and seeking unspecified damages.
On November 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges that Cognyte and its Chief Executive Officer purportedly
issued false and misleading statements and made omissions in
violation of U.S. federal securities laws between February 2, 2021,
and January 19, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges that statements such as those in Cognyte's code
of conduct asserting that the company operates in an ethical manner
and complies with the law in the jurisdictions in which it
operates, as well as its descriptions of services provided and its
customer base, were purportedly false and misleading because
Cognyte allegedly violated social media companies' community
standards and terms of service and the export control laws of
Israel and other jurisdictions.
Cognyte is an Israeli company into investigative analytics software
that empowers a variety of government and other organizations using
investigative analytics platform and solutions.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Patora Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeannie Patora,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-01118-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- granting final approval of the class action settlement,
-- granting final approval of a proposed Settlement with the
Defendant and affirmation of the certification of the
Settlement
Class defined in the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XikGTR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Jeremy Francis, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12061
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
Paul Sweeny
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com
Paul@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
E-mail: NSuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Paul Doolittle, Esq
POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTAPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.comc
COMME DES GARCONS: Herrera Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL HERRERA, CURTIS
HENNAGER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, DANIEL ABBOTT, ELIZABETH AMMERMAN, AMIR AZARCON, SEAN
CONWAY, BLAKE MARTIN, MADISON MURPHY, CARLIN ROLLENHAGEN, WINSTON
TOLLIVER, DAVID UNICH, DYLAN WARMACK, FNAN YSAHAK, Individually, v.
COMME DES GARCONS, LTD., DOVER STREET MARKET NEW YORK LLC, ELAINE
BEUTHER, JAMES GILCHRIST, Case No. 1:21-cv-04929-VEC-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Specifically the Plaintiffs wants the Court to:
1. Conditionally certifies the proposed FLSA Collective Action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. Compels the Defendants to produce within 10 days of the
Court's
decision a computer-readable data file containing, for each
Collective member: (a) name; (b) last known mailing
address(es);
(c) last known telephone number(s); and (d) last known email
address(es) of all potential class members employed by the
Defendants from June 1, 2018, through June 1, 2021;
3. Authorizes the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of
Pendency and Consent to Join to the Collective in the
Plaintiffs' proposed envelope by U.S. Mail, email, and text;
4. Authorizes the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed Reminder
Notice to the Collective by U.S. Mail, email, and text; and
5. Equitably tolls the FLSA statute of limitations to June 3,
2018.
Comme is engaged in the wholesale distribution of women's,
children's, and infant's clothing and accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fksXBZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Alexander Bernstein, Esq.
JOSH BERNSTEIN, P.C.
447 Broadway, 2nd Fl.
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (646) 308-1515
E-mail: jbernstein@jbernsteinpc.com
CONNECTWISE INC: Faces Marshall Suit Over Failure to Secure Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONNECTWISE, INC. and ON Q FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00901-MSS-NHA (M.D. Fla., April 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment,
and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within On Q
Financial's computer networks following a data breach. The
Defendants 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.
On Q Financial, LLC is a mortgage lender with its headquarters in
Scottsdale, Arizona.
ConnectWise, Inc. is an information technology company with its
headquarters in Tampa, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
- and -
Christopher Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Ave. S, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Email: crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
CONOPCO INC: Candelaria Must File Class Cert Bid by May 31
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Candelaria v. Conopco,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06760 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 06, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered a scheduling order:
-- The Plaintiff Candelaria is ordered to file May 31, 2024
her motion for class certification by:
-- The Defendant's opposition is due by: July 1, 2024
-- The plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by: July 19,
2024
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.
Conopco provides personal care products.[CC]
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Steinberg
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLENE STEINBERG, v.
CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00498-H-SBC (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Marilyn Huff entered an order:
(1) certifying settlement Class;
(2) granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of
class action settlement; and
(3) granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for Attorneys' fees,
costs, and Class representative Incentive award.
First, the Court certifies the settlement class and grants final
approval of the settlement. All persons who satisfy the class
definitions and did not opt out of the settlement classes by the
deadline are class members bound by the Order.
Second, the Court grants class counsel $1,423,750 in attorneys'
fees and $16,995.49 in documented out-of-pocket expenses. The Court
also grants $118,000 to the settlement administrator.
Further, the Court grants Plaintiff an incentive award of $7,500.
The attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award will be paid out of
the settlement fund The Court reserves jurisdiction over the
implementation, administration, and enforcement of this settlement.
On Dec.15, 2023, the Plaintiff filed unopposed motions for final
approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs,
and class representative incentive award.
The case is a class action for alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant negligently and willfully violated the FCRA by failing to
maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible
accuracy in the preparation of the credit reports it resold
regarding the settlement class members, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b).
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant resold
inaccurate information from one or more of the nationwide consumer
reporting agencies ("CRAs") where the consumer report contained a
notation that the consumer was deceased and where either one or two
of the CRAs also provided information to Defendant that did not
include a notation
that the consumer was deceased.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant made no effort to
determine whether the consumer was in fact deceased prior to
publishing the consumer report.
Corelogic is a consumer reporting agency that evaluates consumer
information.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=deT4lS at no extra
charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: $580MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS, FAIRNESS HEARING AND
CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AN AGENT, ENTERED INTO
STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PRIME BROKER DEFENDANTS, DIRECT OR
INDIRECT PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, OR DIVISIONS OF THE PRIME BROKER
DEFENDANTS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM JANUARY 7, 2009 THROUGH AUGUST
22, 2023, INCLUSIVE.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of two separate
proposed settlements in this Action (combined, the "Settlements").
The first settlement agreement is with the "Credit Suisse Settling
Defendants," which are: Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG;
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Credit Suisse First Boston Next
Fund, Inc.; and Credit Suisse Prime Securities Services (USA) LLC.
The "Settlement Class Period" for the Credit Suisse Settlement
Agreement is January 7, 2009 through January 20, 2022, inclusive.
The second settlement is with the "Newly Settling Defendants",
which are: Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; Goldman Sachs Execution &
Clearing, L.P.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; J.P. Morgan Prime,
Inc.; J.P. Morgan Strategic Securities Lending Corp.; JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley Capital
Management, LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley
Distribution, Inc.; Prime Dealer Services Corp.; Strategic
Investments I, Inc.; UBS AG; UBS Americas Inc.; UBS Securities LLC;
UBS Financial Services Inc.; EquiLend LLC; EquiLend Europe Limited;
and EquiLend Holdings LLC. The "Settlement Class Period" for the
New Settlement Agreement is January 7, 2009 through August 22,
2023, inclusive.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, the dominant intermediary banks
in the U.S. stock loan market, conspired to block and boycott new
offerings that would have increased competition and improved the
efficiency and transparency of the market, in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. -- 1. The purpose and effect of
this alleged conspiracy was to maintain supracompetitive "spreads"
between beneficial owners of stock who lend their stock out for a
fee and borrowers of stock, who generally sell the borrowed shares
as part of a short transaction. As a result, Plaintiffs allege
Class Members were damaged by receiving lower fees for lending
shares of stock and/or paying higher fees for borrowing stock than
they would have if Defendants had not conspired to block efficient
new developments in the market. The lawsuit also alleges that
Defendants were unjustly enriched under common law. All Defendants
deny they did anything wrong.
The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlements with the
Settling Defendants who have agreed to pay a total of $580,008,750.
Class Members who or which do not opt out of the Settlements will
release their claims against all Settling Defendants in the
Action.
Your Options
If you are a Settlement Class Member of either or both Settlement
Classes and do not exclude yourself, you are eligible to file a
Claim Form to receive your share of money. Claim Forms must be
submitted online at the Settlement Website on or before 11:59 p.m.
Eastern time on July 8, 2024 OR postmarked by July 8, 2024 and
mailed to: Stock Loan Transactions Settlement, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box
3546, Portland, OR 97208-3546. If you do not file a Claim Form, you
will not receive any payments under the Settlements.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not want to remain in
either or both Settlement Classes, and do not want a payment from
the Settlements, then you must take steps to exclude yourself from
the Settlements. If you wish to exclude yourself from either or
both of the Settlement Classes, you must submit by U.S. first class
mail or deliver a written request to the Settlement Administrator
so that it is received by June 7, 2024. If you exclude yourself
from a Settlement, you will not be bound by that Settlement, if
approved, or that Settlement's release, and you will not be
eligible for any payment from that Settlement.
If you are a Class Member and you do not exclude yourself, you can
tell the Court what you think about the Settlements. You can object
to all or any part of the Settlements, Plans of Allocation, and/or
application for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation
expenses and costs, or plaintiff service awards. If you wish to
object to either or both of the Settlements, you must file a
written objection with the Court and serve copies on Plaintiffs'
Counsel and Settling Defendants' counsel so that the written
objection is received by June 7, 2024. You must be and remain
within a Settlement Class in order to object to that Settlement.
The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on September 4, 2024. At
the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider whether the
Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also
consider whether to approve the Plans of Allocation and requests
for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs, and plaintiff
service awards. If there are any objections, the Court will
consider them at this time. Plaintiffs' Counsel will answer any
questions the Court may have. You are, however, welcome to
participate at the Fairness Hearing. If you send an objection, you
do not have to participate at the Fairness Hearing to talk about
it. As long as you file and serve your written objection on time,
the Court will consider it. You may also hire your own lawyer to
participate, but you are not required to do so.
This Notice summarizes the Settlement Agreements. More details are
in the Settlement Agreements and Plans of Allocation, which are
available for your review at the Settlement Website,
www.StockLoanSettlements.com. The Settlement Website also has
answers to common questions about the Settlements, Claim Form, and
other information to help you determine whether you are a Class
Member and whether you are eligible for a payment. You may also
call toll-free 1-877-606-2315.
URL: www.StockLoanSettlements.com
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Johnstone Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JOHNSTONE and L.D.,
by and through her mother, LINDA JOHNSTONE, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated,
v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01111-BMB (N.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying the proposed Class,
(2) appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as the Class
Representatives, and
(3) appointing the Plaintiffs' lawyers as Class Counsel.
The Proposed Class:
"All persons within the United States whose cellular numbers
are
included on the "waterfall 2" portion of the class list
attached
as an exhibit to the expert report of Aaron Woolfson, or
amendments thereto: (a) who received telemarketing calls from
CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC; (b) promoting CrossCountry
Mortgage,
LLC's products or services; (c) on their cellular telephone
numbers; (d) using an artificial or prerecorded voice, as
indicated by the "IVR" field of the Five9 Dialer Logs; (e) at
any
time in between June 23, 2018 to April 15, 2024."
Expert analysis shows Defendant itself made at least 187,092
violative calls to 27,211 unique numbers, or Class members,
including the Plaintiffs. The proposed Class here is remarkably
cohesive enough to warrant certification under Rule 23's
requirements.
Specifically, Linda Johnstone alleges that she is the owner of the
telephone line that she provides to L.D. for her use. The Defendant
telemarketed a minor child, L.D., by calling L.D.'s cell phone to
pitch its useless mortgage services. Discovery ultimately revealed
that the Defendant was attempting to reach someone else but did
nothing to ensure that it was calling with consent.
The Defendant has failed to meet its affirmative burden to prove
consent in response to an alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
CrossCountry offers mortgage lending services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IIv3v1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
misny@mmmb.com
D2C LLC: Univision Reply to Response Extended to May 7
------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Robert
Scola, Jr. entered an order granting joint motion for extension of
time:
-- Univision deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for
Class
Certification is extended until April 23, 2024, and
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to reply to Univision's response is
extended until May 7, 2024.
Univision is a streaming service.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzxS2J at no extra
charge.[CC]
DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Conditional Status Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ISAYEVA and
KAHOLY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiff and the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, an unincorporated
entity, association, or affiliation, ORTHOCLUB, P.C. d/b/a DIAMOND
BRACES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, and OLEG
DRUT, Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional collective certification without prejudice
to its renewal, should the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion to enforce
the settlement.
Accordingly, the Defendants shall file their opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion to enforce on or before May 10, 2024. The
Plaintiffs may file their reply, if any, on or before May 24,
2024.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at
docket entries 83 and 94.
On March 11, 2024, the Court issued its Opinion and Order,
principally denying Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. Since then, the Plaintiffs have filed, in short
succession, a motion for conditional collective certification, a
proposed civil case management plan, and a motion to compel the
Defendants to enforce a purported class-wide settlement.
Diamond Braces is an orthodontic provider in the tri-state area.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yo7S9A at no extra
charge.[CC]
DR. KATES GROWING: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALISSA BROWN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DR. KATES GROWING SMILES CHILDREN'S
DENTISTRY, LLC, OHIO VIP DENTAL ASSISTING SCHOOL, and DALE A.
KATES, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00658-BMB (N.D. Ohio, April 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dental assistant
between approximately January 2017 and March 2024.
Dr. Kates Growing Smiles Children's Dentistry, LLC is a provider of
dental care services in Ohio.
Ohio VIP Dental Assisting School is a provider of dental care
services in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
Email: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Faces Handelsbanken Suit Over Breach of Charter
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANDELSBANKEN FONDER AB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
ARIEL EMANUEL, PATRICK WHITESELL, EGON DURBAN, STEPHEN EVANS, FAWN
WEAVER, URSULA BURNS, JACQUELINE RESES, MARK SHAPIRO, SILVER LAKE
WEST HOLDCO, L.P., SILVER LAKE WEST HOLDCO II, L.P., SILVER LAKE
WEST VOTECO, L.L.C., WILDCAT EGH HOLDCO, LP, WILDCAT OPCO HOLDCO,
LP, ENDEAVOR EXECUTIVE HOLDCO, LLC, ENDEAVOR EXECUTIVE II HOLDCO,
LLC, ENDEAVOR EXECUTIVE PIU HOLDCO, LLC, THE ARIEL Z. EMANUEL
LIVING TRUST, DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2017, and THE PATRICK WHITESELL
REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 31, 2019, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0391
(Del. Ch., April 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of the charter, tortious interference with the charter,
breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, the Defendants caused Endeavor Group
Holdings, Inc. to violate its charter by entering into an agreement
that treats the Defendants, who are permitted to roll over their
equity interests, differently from other holders of Class A common
stock in connection with a squeeze-out merger. In violation of the
Equal-Treatment Provision, Class A stockholders are being treated
differently based on their identity. On one hand, preferred
insiders have the ability to roll their equity into the
post-squeeze out company. On the other hand, unfairly low
consideration of $27.50 per share is being foisted on Endeavor's
public Class A stockholders. The Plaintiffs bring this action to
enjoin the closing of the squeeze out unless and until the
Defendants comply with the Equal-Treatment Provision.
Handelsbanken Fonder AB is a financial institution in Stockholm,
Sweden.
Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. is an American holding company for
talent and media agencies based in California.
Silver Lake West HoldCo, L.P. is an investment firm based in
California.
Silver Lake West HoldCo II, L.P. is an investment firm based in
California.
Silver Lake West VoteCo, L.L.C. is an investment firm based in
California.
Wildcat EGH Holdco, LP is a limited partnership company.
Wildcat OpCo Holdco, LP is a limited partnership company.
Endeavor Executive Holdco, LLC is a limited liability company.
Endeavor Executive II Holdco, LLC is a limited liability company.
Endeavor Executive PIU Holdco, LLC is a limited liability company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
Mae Oberste, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
EXPEDIA GROUP: Echevarria Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO ECHEVARRIA, v.
EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-22621-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting to permit the filing under seal of
exhibits A-E to Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for partial
class certification.
Exhibit A consists of a declaration and a certain confidential
document being partially disclosed as allowed under Florida Bar
Rule of Professional Conduct to meet Defendants' contention that a
conflict exists which renders Rivero Mestre inadequate as class
counsel.
Exhibits B, C, D and E consist of deposition excerpts and documents
produced by the Defendant which have been designated confidential
under the July 31, 2020 Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective
Order.
Sealing the exhibits will not impair court function, and there is
no less-restrictive alternative to sealing the exhibits.
Mr. Echevarria further asks that these exhibits remain sealed for
the duration of the litigation or until further order of the
Court.
Expedia is an American travel technology company that owns and
operates travel fare aggregators and travel metasearch engines.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6dGgtv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
Ana C. Malave, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
arolnick@riveromestre.com
amalave@riveromestre.com
- and -
Manuel Vazquez, Esq.
MANUEL VAZQUEZ, P.A.
2332 Galiano St., Second Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2344
Facsimile: (305) 445-4404
E-mail: mvaz@mvazlaw.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Adenikinju Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------------
OPE ADENIKINJU, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00259 (E.D. Va., April 10, 2024)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Robert E. Payne.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. operates as an information
services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical
tools, and marketing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 254-0842
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
Email: aw@wsjustice.com
js@wsjustice.com
FEIN & SUCH: Zeccardi Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCKY ZECCARDI, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN &
SHEPARD, P.C.; LANCER INVESTMENTS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00600-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on April 23, 2024, for an Order granting final approval of the
within Settlement Class, Class Counsel's attorney's fees and costs,
and related relief.
Fein is a law firm that offers a comprehensive range of legal
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=huXpok at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Angela Yu, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew C. Sayles, Esq.
MOREIERA SAYLES RAMIREZ LLC
712 Kearny Avenue
Kearny, NJ 07032
Telephone: (201) 991-9001
E-mail: asayles@msr-legal.com
- and -
Fred Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS NORELLI CECERE & TAVEL, P.C.
272 Duffy Avenue
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (516) 642-2012
E-mail: fgdaniels@dnctlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Johnson et al. Sue Over Defective Rear View Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-10941-NGE-KGA (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2024) seeks for
declaratory judgment and/or injunctive relief, as well as money
damages against Ford, for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business
practices, breach of express and implied warranties in connection
with marketing and sale of defective 2020-2023 Ford Explorer SUVs.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
persons or entities residing in the United States who purchased or
leased a 2020-2023 Ford Explorer equipped with a Rear View
360-Degree Camera. Plaintiff's 360-Degree Camera has failed roughly
half of the times he has put his Explorer in reverse for the
entirety of his ownership. His 360-Degree Camera failed most
recently today when his 360-Degree Camera provided only a blue
screen when he put his vehicle in reverse. Moreover, the Plaintiff
asserts that Ford failed to disclose the defect to Plaintiff before
he purchased his Explorer, despite Ford’s knowledge of the
defect.
Headquartered in Dearborn, MI, Ford is an American multinational
automobile manufacturer that sells automobiles and commercial
vehicles under the Ford brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln
brand.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206-682-5600
E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
Muriel Kenfield-Kelleher, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
akaufman@lchb.com
mkenfieldkelleher@lchb.com
FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Parties Seek Initial Nod of Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN PECK and EVAN P.
SOUTHERN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., f/k/a FRONTIER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., d/b/a FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01014-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting preliminary approval of their settlement
agreement, and certifying a class for that purpose.
Frontier is a full service environmental company specializing in
the protection of nature and the environment.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jGHXoO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel L. McElroy, Esq.
MCELROY LAW FIRM, LLC
960 Penn Avenue, Suite 1001
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 620-8735
E-mail: rachel@mcelroylawfirm.com
- and -
Christine T. Elzer, Esq.
ELZER LAW FIRM, LLC
960 Penn Avenue, Suite 1001
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 230-8436
Facsimile: (412) 206-0855
E-mail: celzer@elzerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Craig M. Brooks, Esq.
Brian D. Lipkin, Esq.
HOUSTON HARBAUGH, P.C.
401 Liberty Avenue, 22nd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-2256
E-mail: cbrooks@hh-law.com
blipkin@hh-law.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Unlawfully Collects Drivers' Info, Valencia Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR LLC,
and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02978 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of California Invasion of Privacy
Act, California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act,
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and for intrusion upon
seclusion.
The case arises from the Defendants' unauthorized collection and
dissemination of the personally identifiable information (PII) of
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals. For many years,
without the Plaintiff's or Class Members' consent, the Defendants
have been collecting private information from Class Members'
vehicles and selling to third parties vast amounts of location and
vehicle data. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII
was collected and disseminated by the Defendants.
General Motors LLC is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
OnStar LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors LLC,
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a decision analytics provider
headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur Petrousian, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
633 W. 5th St., Ste. 2200
Los Angeles, CA, 90071
Telephone: (213) 787-8590
Email: apetrousian@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
GLENCO CONTRACTING: Rivero Seeks Conditional Collective Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERMAN RIVERO and CARLOS
MANUEL VARGAS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, v. GLENCO CONTRACTING GROUP INC, Case No.
1:23-cv-11087-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for conditional collective
certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29
u.s.c. section 216(b).
Glenco is an open shop foundation and superstructure concrete
contractor.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BfWv5C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W 24th St 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
GOODYEAR TIRE: Alves Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 1st Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JOE ALVES filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
dated February 26, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled Joe Alves,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-11820-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for alleged
violation of Massachusetts privacy laws by using Session Replay
Code technology on its website, www.goodyear.com.
On Dec. 16, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge William G. Young on
July 24, 2023.
On February 26, 2024, Judge William G. Young, in accordance with
the Court's allowance of the Defendant's motion to dismiss on July
24, 2023, ordered that the action be and was, therefore,
dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned as Alves v. The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, Case No. 24-1301, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 4, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOE ALVES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Carey Alexander, Esq.
Ethan Samuel Binder, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Fl
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 S 8th St
Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Defendant-Appellee GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY is represented
by:
Sophie Kletzien, Esq.
Mark Melodia, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
31 W 52nd St
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3567
- and -
Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
10 St James Ave., 11th Fl
Boston, MA 02116-0000
Telephone: (617) 523-2700
GOOGLE LLC: Court Approves $62-M Deal in Privacy Invasion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hamza Fahmy of NewsNation reports that a federal judge has approved
a $62 million settlement in a class action suit against Google. If
follow an AP investigation that exposed the Silicon Valley titan
for tracking down user information without consent, even if they
used a privacy setting that says it will prevent Google from doing
so.
According to the settlement, Google published a support page on how
to manage and delete a user's location history, which stated, "When
you turn off location history for your Google account, it's off for
all devices associated with that Google account. "
Despite its promises against tracking a user's location, the
settlement states, "Google's representation was false."As AP
revealed, turning off "Location History only stopped Google from
creating a location timeline that the user could view. Google,
however, still continued to track the phone owners and kept a
record of their locations, the settlement states.
Even when "Location History" is turned off, the settlement states a
user's location is stored every time they use any Google-controlled
features on their phone, including the Google Maps app, weather
apps, and searches made with the phone's mobile browser.
For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you
merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on
Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches
that have nothing to do with location, like "chocolate chip
cookies, " or "kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude
and longitude -- accurate to the square foot -- and save it to your
Google account.
Contrary to the plain language and simple process told in the
Google support pages referenced above, in order to actually prevent
location tracking, an individual must navigate to a "deeply buried
and non-obvious setting titled 'Web & App Activity,'" the
settlement states.
According to the investigation, Google continued to access and
store geolocation information of people who turned off their
location history, which the plaintiffs say violates the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and California's Constitutional Right to
Privacy.
The agreement requires Google to pay $62 million into a
"non-revisionary cash fund" that will be used by up to 21 nonprofit
organizations for support and defense of the class members' privacy
rights, according to a complaint filed in March.
The fund will also cover $18.6 million in plaintiff attorney fees,
unreimbursed expenses of $151,756.23 and awards of $5,000 for each
of the three settlement class representatives. [GN]
GRAPPLER PRESSURE: Rose Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jacob Rose, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 2, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
JACOB ROSE, DERRICK BOYD, ROBERTO CASTANEDA, GERMAYNE EDMOND,
STEVEN EDMOND, JR., KELAND GIPSON, REGINALD HOGG, JIMMY KUHN, SIONE
LATU, JUSTIN LEWIS, HECTOR SALAZAR, VEHIKITE TAULAKI, HAFOKA OLIE,
GODFREY WILLIAMS, and TEDDY WOODS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRAPPLER PRESSURE
PUMPING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-00126, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland
Odessa.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 29, 2023, the
suit is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act. The Defendant
violated the WARN Act by terminating its employees as part of a
plant closing or mass layoff on or about May 15, 2021 without
providing them with advance written notice. Moreover, the Defendant
failed to pay their pre-termination wages and benefits, says the
suit.
On October 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim which the Court granted on March 1, 2024
through an Order signed by Judge David Counts.
On March 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration regarding the Order on motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, motion to amend judgment, and motion for
new trial.
On April 2, Judge Counts entered an Order denying Plaintiffs'
motions.
The appellate case is captioned as Rose v. Grappler Pressure
Pumping, Case No. 24-50251, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 4, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Jacob Rose, et al., individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by:
Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-1055
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Defendant-Appellee Grappler Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. is represented
by:
H. Brandon Jones, Esq.
BONDS ELLIS EPPICH SCHAFER JONES, L.L.P.
420 Throckmorton Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 405-6900
HARBOR UCLA: Court Remands Wilcox Suit to LA County Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor
UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-02802-MCS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi
entered an order:
-- granting the motion to remand; and
-- denying as moot the Defendant's motion for reconsideration, and
the Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the filing
deadline for a motion for class certification.
The case is remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No.
23STCV04472. The Court directs the Clerk to effect the remand and
close the case.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and
those similarly situated to her overtime wages and minimum wages,
failed to provide meal periods and rest periods, failed to pay all
wages due upon termination, failed to provide accurate wage
statements, failed
to timely pay wages during employment, and failed to pay work
expenses.
The Defendant ATC removed this action on April 14, 2023, asserting
that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Court previously denied a
motion to remand.
Harbor provides health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dUUFFj at no extra
charge.[CC]
HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Faces Unlawful Practice of Tying Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela N. Danziger of Forbes reports that luxury leader Hermes has
been hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming the company is
engaged in the "unlawful practice of tying," requiring customers to
purchase ancillary Hermes products, such as shoes, scarves, and
jewelry, before being given the opportunity to purchase a Birkin or
Kelly bag.
Claiming the company violates antitrust laws and is engaged in
unfair, anticompetitive business practices, the two plaintiffs
leading the suit filed in a California court inviting other
frustrated consumers to join their cause so they will have the
right to purchase these highly-coveted and super-expensive handbags
in the open market.
To date, Hermes has not commented on this lawsuit, but it told the
Business of Fashion last year that it, "strictly prohibits any sale
of certain products as a condition to the purchase of others. "
Nonetheless, it's hired a powerhouse antitrust legal team at Latham
& Watkins to take up the case. Haffner Law and Setareh Law Group
represent the plaintiffs, both firms specializing in personal
injury law.
On its face, the suit seems like a pesky grievance complaint that
should be easily batted down, but it threatens to reveal trade
secrets that Hermes would rather keep hidden, an anticompetitive
move on the face of it.
It also raises questions about who holds the power in the luxury
market: the companies that produce the goods, the customers who
purchase them, or the sales staff who hold the keys to the
exclusionary Hermes kingdom and who may be discriminating for whom
they open the door.
Virtually every luxury brand is in the crosshairs. "This highly
public case presents unique and challenging legal issues," reported
an alert from law firm Holland & Knight.
"The case stands to impact other luxury brands' sales and marketing
strategies, particularly given the prevailing legal landscape,
which appears to prioritize antitrust scrutiny," it continued.
Behind The Curtain
Already, the filing has exposed how Hermes operates to build desire
for its most desired products in the luxury market, yielding it
"incredible market power" by driving the prices up for its goods
and generating outsized profits for the company, it claims.
The suit challenges the company's practice of restricting the sale
of Birkin bags in its stores and even then, no Birkins are on
display, but hidden in a personal shopper viewing room.
"Typically, only those consumers who are deemed worthy of
purchasing a Birkin handbag will be shown a Birkin handbag (in a
private room). The chosen consumer will be given the opportunity to
purchase the specific Birkin handbag which they are shown," the
filing states.
It continues: "Consumers cannot order a Birking [sic] handbag at
the retail location. For all practical purposes, there is no way to
order a bag in the style, size, color, leather, and hardware that a
consumer wants." Of note: I noticed several typos in the legal
filing, careless errors that convey a message about the plaintiffs'
legal representatives.
With sales associates acting as gatekeepers, the suit claims they
are directed to only offer Birkin bags to customers with an
established history of past purchases or who met a threshold of
ancillary product purchases.
Pay To Play
The filing also reveals how sales associates are paid. They get an
hourly salary plus a sliding-scale commission based on the products
sold, according to claims in the suit.
Sales of ancillary products, such as shoes, scarves, ties, belts,
jewelry and home goods, earn a 3% commission and non-Birkin handbag
sales give them a 1.5% commission.
No commissions are earned for Birkin bag sales where the really big
money could be had. Depending on materials and workmanship, Birkins
sell for between $12,000 and $100,000 or more.
"Although Hermes Sales Associates receive no commission on the most
valuable and sought-after products sold by their employer, they are
instructed by Defendants to use Birkin handbags as a way to coerce
consumers to purchase ancillary products sold by Defendants (for
which the sales associates receive a 3% commission) in order to
build-up the purchase history required to be offered a Birkin
handbag," the filing alleges.
Whether Hermes has formally codified such tying behavior is yet to
be determined, though anecdotal evidence suggests it has not.
People are getting them from Hermes; otherwise, there wouldn't be
so many Birkin and other Hermes bags on the secondary market where
prices may be higher than the original price.
But it is easy to see how sales associates may be going rogue to
get customers to buy stuff they get a commission for and using that
as an inducement to get the Birkin bag the customer really wants.
"Maybe it will come out, but it doesn't seem like there is a
practice of having to buy Good A to purchase Good B, which could be
found illegal," shared Fashion Institute of Technology law
professor Michelle Mandelstein. She's also a practicing business
attorney with Chidatma Law Group.
"There's the implication that something could be uncovered in the
discovery process, but I know enough people who have Kelly or
Birkin bags that didn't have a problem," she noted.
Losing The Allure
Mandelstein believes the plaintiffs' antitrust claims don't hold
water. "I certainly don't think it’s an antitrust violation or
anticompetitive. There's no monopoly here that I can see, but
that's besides the point," she said.
The point being the potential impact the suit, if it is carried
forward to a jury trial as requested, will bring unwanted attention
to Hermes and standard business practices that keeps the luxury
market humming.
"The luxury world is worried no matter what. If the court has
Hermes open its closet and air everything out, even it the court
finds nothing illegal, it may find some bad practices," she
believes.
"Everybody finds out the secrets. Consumers could get mad and they
are going to demand transparency, but the lack of transparency is
what people are buying in the luxury market, the mystery and the
allure," she continued.
Tying May Occasionally Happen
A recent survey among more than 500 high-net-worth luxury shoppers
about their experiences shopping in luxury fashion boutiques
conducted by the Affluent Consumer Research Company, with which I
am affiliated, found that tying behavior is not a widespread
problem in the luxury industry, though it happens on occasion.
"About 10-15% reported being pressured to make other purchases, but
only 5-10% report being denied the option to purchase something, so
there's is no statistical evidence of widespread tying practices,"
ACRC lead researcher Chandler Mount said and added no one in the
survey called out Hermes by name.
However, the survey also revealed salespeople have a tendency to
turn off after spending time with customers, perhaps seeing no
reward coming from their efforts.
"Some 65%-75% of luxury customers are not surprised by the
salesperson's knowledge, but 30-40% believe they stop listening
during their interactions. This is a widespread problem that the
industry needs to address. [GN]
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Enters Class Cert. Order in Caccavale
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccavale, et al., v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00974 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Court entered an order that Plaintiffs
may file any motion for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of
a motion for summary judgment no later than 30 days after the Court
rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.
Hewlett is an American multinational information technology
company.[CC]
HN & SONS: Pagano Suit Seeks Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN PAGANO, PAIGE
ACEVEDO, and MAGGIE MCNEIL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. HN & SONS LLC d/b/a BUSHWICK PUBLIC HOUSE,
DERIHU 18 LLC a/k/a CHISPA, HOOMAN ENAYATIAN, DAVID LARODA, JOSH
BECKETT, JOHN DOE and/or JANE DOE No. 1-10 Case No.
1:22-cv-04897-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class action certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CzlykA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Li, Esq.
WILLIAM K. LI, LAW, PLLC
535 5th Avenue, 4th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 380-8198
E-mail: wli@wlilaw.com
INDIAN HILL: Filing for Class Certification Bid in RLK Due June 24
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.L.K., by her next
friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No.
1:23-cv-00171-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
entered an order amending the scheduling order to include the
following:
1. Defendant will produce the balance of the Plaintiff's total
requested document production under password protection by
close
of business on Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2024.
2. The Plaintiff reserves until and including May 6, 2024, to
review Defendant's document production for completeness.
3. The Plaintiff will have until and including May 20, 2024, to
supplement her discovery responses.
4. The Plaintiff will have until and including June 24, 2024, to
file her Motion for Class Certification.
5. The Defendant will have until and including Aug. 26, 2024, to
file any response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
6. The Plaintiff will have until Sept. 9, 2024, to file any
reply
in support of her Motion for Class Certification.
Following disposition of the Motion for Class Certification, if
any, the Court will convene a scheduling conference to establish
dates for additional discovery and dispositive motions.
The Defendant is a public school district in Indian Hill, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3LhU99 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to June 6
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Surgical Instrument
Service Company, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (RE: DA VINCI
SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03496-AMO
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
-- endorsing the stipulation with an order, consistent with the
Sept.
28, 2023 Order; and
-- modifying the class certification briefing schedule, further
modifying the class certification briefing deadlines, and
scheduling a Case Management Statement ("CMS") and Case
Management
Conference ("CMC"):
Event Proposed Date
Case Management Statement: May 23, 2024
Case Management Conference: May 30, 2024
Deadline to file motion for class June 6, 2024
Certification:
Deadline to file opposition to motion July 23, 2024
for class certification:
Deadline to file reply in support of Aug. 27, 2024
motion for class certification:
Class certification hearing: Oct. 10, 2024
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5cJfHm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com
smaida@hausfeld.com
gsmith@hausfeld.com
rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Zachary Glubiak, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (2150 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua V. Van Hoven, Esq.
Richard T. Mccaulley, Esq.
MCCAULLEY LAW GROUP LLC
3001 Bishop Dr., Suite 300
San Ramon, CA 94583
Telephone: (925) 302-5941
E-mail: josh@mccaulleylawgroup.com
richard@mccaulleylawgroup.com
- and -
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. 138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq.
Michael H. Menitove, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2040
E-mail: karen.lent@skadden.com
michael.menitove@skadden.com
- and -
Joshua Hill, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 432-5100
Facsimile: (628) 232-3101
E-mail: JHill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya E. Winner, Esq.
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
John Kendrick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
jkendrick@cov.com
J&R EARTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrera Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
ERWIN ARRIASA CARRERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&R EARTH, INC. (D/B/A J&R
EARTHWORKS); JBD CONTRACTING, INC. (D/B/A J&R EARTHWORKS); JACK
DASILVA, and RUSELL GRITZMACHER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02665
(E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024) is an action against the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Carrera was employed by the Defendants as a blacktop
installer.
J&R EARTH, INC. owns, operates, or controls a construction company,
located at 430 St James Street, Holbrook, NY 11741 under the name
"J&R Earthworks". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
JAF COMMUNICATIONS: Belendez-Desha Seeks to Certify Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PILAR BELENDEZ-DESHA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JAF
COMMUNICATIONS INC. d/b/a THE MESSENGER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00741-MMG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order:
(a) certifying a class, defined as:
"Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees of
the Defendant: (i) who worked at, received assignments from,
or
reported to its sites, (ii) who were terminated within 30
days
of Jan. 31, 2024, and (iii) who have not filed a timely
request
to opt-out of the class.;
(b) appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel;
(c) appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;
(d) approving the form and manner of Notice, and
(e) granting any other appropriate relief.
JAF is a telecommunications company that provides fiber optics,
IPTV, electrical design, and construction services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GebftQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
Gail Lin, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
gcl@raisnerroupinian.com
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Covachuela Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORBIN COVACHUELA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JERSEY FIRESTOP, LLC, DANIEL HINOJOSA and DAVID HINOJOSA, Case No.
3:20-cv-08806-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court
for an order granting his motion for class certification pursuant
to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class, pursuant to Rule 23,
of all current and former non-exempt employees who have worked for
the Defendants as laborers and were required to report to the
Defendants' shop before or after their worksite shifts at any time
during the class period, and were not compensated for all time
worked and/or all overtime worked as required by the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Laws.
Jersey Firestop is a complete full service mechanical insulation
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xwyEWI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole D. Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER, PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
- and -
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
WORKING SOLUTIONS LAW FIRM, PLLC
80 Broad St., Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646)-430-7930
Facsimile: (646)-349-2504
E-mail: rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brad M. Kushner, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
1500 Market Street
East Tower, Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 1910
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tuominen Decongestant Suit Goes to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TINA TUOMINEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13796, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 15,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-02787 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of state consumer
protection laws, warranty law and unjust enrichment in connection
with its deceptive marketing and sale of phenylephrine
hydrochloride nasal decongestants.
Headquartered in Skillman, NJ, Johnson & Jonhson Consumer, Inc.
manufactures, distributes and sells a variety of non-prescription
drugs, including oral nasal decongestants. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shannon M. Barrett, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Telephone: 202-383-5308
E-mail: sbarrett@omm.com
- and -
Bradley Joseph Andreozzi
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Telephone: (312) 569-1173
E-mail: bradley.andreozzi@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Sophie Honey Gotlieb, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Telephone: (312) 569-1128
E-mail: sophie.gotlieb@faegredrinker.com
KAREN ST. GERMAIN: Bid to Stay Class Cert Proceedings Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.M., by and through MARIO
RENE MENDOZA, ET AL., V. KAREN G. ST. GERMAIN, ET AL., Case No.
3:23-cv-01499-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson
entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to stay
and/or continue class certification proceedings.
The Court shall issue the Defendants a revised deadline to respond
to the Plaintiffs motion for class certification after adjudication
of the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vSg2SG at no extra
charge.[CC]
KARTOON STUDIOS: Faces Shareholder Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 9, 2024, that it is currently facing
"In re Genius Brands International, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
Master File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx) in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
Lead plaintiffs alleged generally that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing allegedly false or misleading statements about the company,
initially over an alleged class period running from March into
early July 2020. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of
the alleged class of persons who invested in the company's common
stock during the alleged class period. Defendants moved to dismiss
lead plaintiffs' amended complaint, and in a decision issued on
August 30, 2021, the court dismissed the amended complaint but
granted lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim.
On September 27, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming the same defendants. The new complaint alleged
again that the company made numerous false or misleading statements
about the company's business and business prospects, this time over
an expanded alleged class period that extended into March 2021;
they again alleged that these misstatements violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead plaintiffs again sought
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who
invested in the company's common stock during the expanded alleged
class period.
In November 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On July 15, 2022, the court issued a decision
dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety and with
prejudice. On August 12, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Briefing of the appeal has concluded.
After full briefing of the appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals
held oral argument on the appeal on November 6, 2023 and took the
matter under submission. On April 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of the second amended complaint, remanding certain claims
back to district court for further proceedings.
Kartoon Studios, Inc. is a global content and brand management
company that creates, produces, licenses, and broadcasts timeless
and educational, multimedia animated content for children.
KRUA THAI: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Juarez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISMAEL JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KRUA THAI NYC CORP. d/b/a CHOMP CHOMP THAI KITCHEN,
and NUNTAPORN THONGWAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02736
(S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024) arises out of Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt
dishwasher, food preparer/kitchen worker, porter, and food delivery
worker at the restaurant from in or about November 2022 through on
or about February 26, 2024. Throughout the entirety of his
employment, the Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime
compensation. In addition, the Plaintiff did not receive weekly
wage statements/pay stubs setting forth Plaintiffs gross wages,
deductions, and net wages, says the suit.
Krua Thai NYC Corp. owns and operates a Thai restaurant located at
78 East 1st Street, New York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY SPEIGHT, JASON
HAGENS, SCOTTIE WILLIAMS, TANGELA FLANAGAN, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the Plaintiffs' action as a class action
on behalf of:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees,
including
but not limited to, Laborers, non-exempt Crew Leads, non-
commercial drivers, technicians, carpenters, apprentices,
cleaning crew, plumbers, welders, and other Laborers with
similar
job duties employed by the Defendant within the State of North
Carolina during the Class Period."
In addition, the Plaintiffs request that the Court Certifies the
following Subclass:
"Any Class Member who was designated as or performed the
duties
of a Crew Lead."
Labor Source is a full service human resource company specializing
in temporary and career staffing.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LothcM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Eugene Zinovyev, Esq.
John J. Nestico, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com
jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
Justin M. Dean, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART P.C.
8529 Six Forks Road, Forum IV, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 787-9700
Facsimile: (919) 783.9412
E-mail: kevin.joyner@ogletree.com
justin.dean@ogletree.com
LARKIN COMMUNITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to June 6
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Case No.
3:21-cv-03496-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
-- endorsing the stipulation with an order, consistent with the
Sept.
28, 2023 Order; and
-- modifying the class certification briefing schedule, further
modifying the class certification briefing deadlines, and
scheduling a Case Management Statement ("CMS") and Case
Management
Conference ("CMC"):
Event Proposed Date
Case Management Statement: May 23, 2024
Case Management Conference: May 30, 2024
Deadline to file motion for class June 6, 2024
Certification:
Deadline to file opposition to motion July 23, 2024
for class certification:
Deadline to file reply in support of Aug. 27, 2024
motion for class certification:
Class certification hearing: Oct. 10, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0XAVQP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com
smaida@hausfeld.com
gsmith@hausfeld.com
rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Zachary Glubiak, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (2150 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua V. Van Hoven, Esq.
Richard T. Mccaulley, Esq.
MCCAULLEY LAW GROUP LLC
3001 Bishop Dr., Suite 300
San Ramon, CA 94583
Telephone: (925) 302-5941
E-mail: josh@mccaulleylawgroup.com
richard@mccaulleylawgroup.com
- and -
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. 138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq.
Michael H. Menitove, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2040
E-mail: karen.lent@skadden.com
michael.menitove@skadden.com
- and -
Joshua Hill, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 432-5100
Facsimile: (628) 232-3101
E-mail: JHill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya E. Winner, Esq.
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
John Kendrick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
jkendrick@cov.com
LOREAL USA: Noakes Alleges Benzene Presence in Skin Care Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIARA NOAKES, on behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02735 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to disclose the presence of benzene of its
CeraVe Cream branded benzoyl peroxide acne treatment products to
which the Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Alabama Deceptive
Trade Practices Act in connection with the manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of unsafe acne
treatment products.
The Plaintiff alleges that the said acne treatment products contain
and/or degrade into dangerously unsafe levels of benzene, a known
human carcinogen. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, restitution, other equitable
relief, including an injunction and disgorgement of all benefits
and profits Defendant received from misconduct.
Headquartered in New York, NY, L'Oreal manufacturers, markets,
distributes, and sells various skin care products, including CeraVe
Acne Foam Cream Cleanser and CeraVe Acne Foaming Cream Wash. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Melissa Meyer, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212-363-7500
Facsimile: 212-363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
mmeyer@zlk.com
LOS ALTOS: Terrazas Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID TERRAZAS, on behalf of himself and current and former
aggrieved employees v. GOT PAID LLC; LOS ALTOS FOOD PRODUCTS, LLC;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09401 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff, a former non-exempt, hourly-paid employee of
Defendants, brings this action to seek civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys' General Act for Defendants' alleged violations
of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff claims that he and all
other current and former aggrieved employees were subjected to
multiple Labor Code violations, including among others, failure to
pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage, failure
to pay wages for overtime hours, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements.
Based in Los Angeles County, Los Altos Food Products produces dairy
products including Mexican cheese. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
William Tran, Esq.
Arthur Adamian, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
wtran@lelawfirm.com
aadamian@lelawfirm.com
LULU & DINO: Kim Sues Over Human Rights, Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yeon Hee Kim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC Companies 1-10 (names fictitious) DBA
Lulu & Dino Cafe and Bakery and Michael Park, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02724 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024) seeks to remedy the
unlawful discrimination and retaliation directed at Plaintiff on
the basis of her disability, in violation of the New York State
Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
Labor Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff started working for Defendants as a kitchen worker on
or about October 3, 2022, and remained an employee of Defendants
until her unlawful termination on October 6, 2022. The Plaintiff
actually performed work for Defendants in excess of 9-10 hours per
day and 40 hours per week. However, Plaintiff was subjected to
Defendants' unlawful policies or practices, including its failure
to proper minimum wages and failure to keep accurate and adequate
records of hours worked by Plaintiff as required by the FLSA and
the NYLL, says the suit.
Doing business as Lulu & Dino Cafe and Bakery, the Defendant is a
privately held company in New York with a principal place of
business at 219-02 Northern Blvd. Bayside, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Reset to May 28
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks III v. Lundquist
Consulting, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01916 (N.D. Cal., Filed March
25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order resetting
case deadlines as follows:
-- Joint Status Report Re: Mediation due by: May 13, 2024
-- Motions for Class Certification and May 28, 2024
Plaintiff's Class Certification Expert
Disclosures by:
-- Close of expert discovery is: June 24, 2024
-- Opposition and Defendant's Class July 22, 2024
Certification Expert Disclosures due by:
-- Reply due by: Aug. 19, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[CC]
LYONS MAGNUS: Class Settlement in Wayne Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wayne Catalano, Karen
Radford, Christy Deringer, Tomoko Nakanishi, Veronica Pereyra,
Roberta Sinico, Barbara Speaks, and Edmond Dixon, individually on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Lyons
Magnus, LLC and TRU Aseptics, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-06867-KMK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement.
1. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this
Litigation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1332 and 1367 and personal
jurisdiction over the Parties.
2. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the
Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class.
3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and
for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby
re-affirms
its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and
finally
certifies Wayne Catalano, Karen Radford, Christy Deringer,
Tomoko Nakanishi, Veronica Pereyra, Roberta Sinico, Barbara
Speaks, and Edmond Dixon as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class; and finally appoints Sultzer & Lipari,
PLLC,
Levin Sedrin & Berman LLP, Poulin, Willey, Anastopoulo, LLC,
Bradley Grombacher, LLP and Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis &
Overholtz,
PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
4. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this Court approves the Settlement and finds that
in
light of the benefits to the Settlement Class, the complexity
and expense of further litigation, the risks of establishing
liability and damages, and the costs of continued litigation,
said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
5. The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement
Agreement and to perform its terms.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for Attorneys' fees, litigation
costs, and service awards on March 11, 2024.
Lyons produces and markets food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Zc41U at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARLOU CORP: Wheeler Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA WHEELER and KARISSA
ANN HUGH, and on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals, v. MARLOU CORP. d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM and RITA
CAPOVILLA, Case No. 2:23-cv-01556-APG-BNW (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for
conditional certification.
The Plaintiffs have shown that issuance of notice to similarly
situated dancers who have worked for Club Platinum is appropriate
under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Court should therefore grant this
motion and approve the notice and opt-in forms, the Plaintiffs
contend.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize notice to other similarly
situated dancers so that they may learn of their right to "opt-in"
and join this collective action under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Club Platinum.
Club Platinum is a Gentlemen’s Club located in Las Vegas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lAaCjs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: mthomson@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
- and -
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Sean W. Mcdonald, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
3199 E. Warm Springs Rd, Ste 400
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Telephone: (702) 508-9282
Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
E-mail: nevadacourtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
smcdonald@unioncounsel.net
MCMENAMINS INC: Court Tosses Kirby Bid for Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANE J. KIRBY, et al., v.
MCMENAMINS INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05168-BHS-MLP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' objections are overruled and the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is denied.
Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson's Report and Recommendation
appropriately concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their
burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of demonstrating that the
issue of whether McMenamins compensated employees for missed breaks
can be resolved on a classwide basis.
The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of Defendant McMenamins,
Inc., request class certification of claims alleging missed, late,
and interrupted meal and rest periods under the Washington
Industrial Welfare Act, the Washington Wage Rebate Act, and WAC
296-126-092. They seek certification of a class defined as:
"All individuals who resided in Washington State and who
worked
for McMenamins, Inc. in Washington State, who were employed in
the position of bartender or server (or any similar
"front-of-
the-house" position) at any time from Feb. 9, 2019 to the date
of
the Order granting class certification."
McMenamins is a family-owned chain of brewpubs, breweries, music
venues, historic hotels, and theater pubs.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KhYakW at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDNAX SERVICES: Ct. Certifies Settlement Class in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as re: Mednax Services, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No.
0:21-md-02994-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo Ruiz II
entered an order:
-- Certifying settlement class, and
-- Granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and
notice program.
The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons residing in the United States who were notified
in
or around Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021, via either written or
substitute notice, that their PHI and PII may have been
involved
in the Incident."
The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Defendants,
any
Entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and
Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives,
successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge,
justice,
or judicial officer presiding over the Action and the members
of
their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any
individual who timely and validly opts out of the settlement.
William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood and Maureen M. Brady of
McShane & Brady, LLC, who were previously appointed by the Court as
interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are designated as Class Counsel
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g). The Court finds that Mr.
Federman
and Ms. Brady are experienced and will adequately protect the
interests of the Settlement Class.
A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on
Friday, Oct. 4, 2024 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 11-2, Wilkie D.
Ferguson Jr. United States Courthouse, 400 N. Miami Avenue, Miami,
FL 33128.
On Aug. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Consolidated
Class Action MDL Complaint against the Defendants, alleging the
Defendants failed to adequately protect the Plaintiffs' and the
Class's Protected Health Information ("PHI") and Personally
Identifiable Information
("PII") from unauthorized access and asserting multiple common law
and statutory claims for relief.
The Defendant is a national healthcare services partners providing
"newborn, anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology,
pediatric cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty care
services in 39 states and Puerto Rico."
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMPs5T at no extra
charge.[CC]
MELTWATER NEWS: Napoleon and Ezsak Seek Proper Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT NAPOLEON and EDEN EZSAK, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly, Plaintiffs v. MELTWATER NEWS US INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02938 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and
similarly situated co-workers who were misclassified as exempt
employees at Meltwater in the United States.
Plaintiff Napoleon was employed by Meltwater as a growth executive
in Chicago, IL from approximately May 2019 to September 2019. While
employed by Meltwater, the Plaintiffs consistently worked more than
40 hours per workweek without receiving any overtime compensation.
Throughout the relevant period, Meltwater deprived Plaintiffs of
their earned overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and applicable
regulations, says the suit.
Meltwater is a digital media intelligence company with
approximately 14 offices located in California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North
Carolina, Texas, and Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erika Pedersen, Esq.
PEDERSEN & WEINSTEIN LLP
231 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-0710
E-mail: epedersen@pwllp.com
- and -
Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
Emma R. Janger, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com
ejanger@outtengolden.com
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUZ PAULINO-SANTOS,
MICHAEL RING, BETTY VEGA and NEW YORK INTEGRATED NETWORK, v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, JOHN LIEBER
and RICHARD DAVEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03471-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jessica Clarke entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the motion to seal Exhibits 4 and 5 of the Goodell Decl.,
which are charts containing "aggregated data describing the number
of, and percentage change in, Access-A-Ride registrants, potential
applicants, and eligibility determinations on a month-by-month
basis for both 2022 and 2023."
-- First, these exhibits are certainly judicial documents to which
a
strong presumption of public access attaches.
-- Second, the fact that a document is restricted by a protective
order "has no bearing on the presumption of access that
attaches
when it becomes a judicial document."
-- Third, the MTA is a public benefit corporation chartered by the
New York State Legislature (and NYCTA a subsidiary thereof),
rather than a privately held business, which certainly "reduces
the weight of its privacy interests."
Metropolitan Transportation is a public benefit corporation
responsible for public transportation in the New York City
metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yUW4h2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MGM RESORTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 24
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smallman (re: MGM Resorts
International Data Breach Litigation), Case No.
2:20-cv-00376-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Court entered case schedule
extended order as follows:
-- Initial class certification expert reports: July 24, 2024
-- Motion for class certification: July 24, 2024
-- Defendants' class certification expert Sept. 6, 2024
Reports:
-- Opposition to motion for class certification: Sept. 6, 2024
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
MGM is an American global hospitality and entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JMDmYb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Berger, Esq.
Linda P. Lam, Esq.
Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
lpl@classlawgroup.com
jbk@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
Claire L. Torchiana, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC
1100 New York Ave, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
mdesanto@bm.net
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, Esq.
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK,
LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (703) 856-7430
Facsimile: (702) 447.8048
E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com
- and -
Don Springmeyer, Esq.
KEMP JONES LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy, 17th Fl.
Las Vegas, NV 89165
Telephone: (702) 385-6000
Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
E-mail: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Anne Marie Mortimer, Esq.
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
Neil K. Gilman, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
E-mail: amortimer@HuntonAK.com
kimj@HuntonAK.com
ngilman@HuntonAK.com
- and -
Todd L. Bice, Esq.
Brianna Smith, Esq.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89101
E-mail: TLB@pisanellibice.com
BGS@pisanellibice.com
NANCY BUCKNER: Reply in Support of Class Cert Reset to July 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.A. et al v. Buckner,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00367 (M.D. Ala., Filed May 20, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order that the Plaintiffs' reply in
support of class certification is reset to July 11, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act.[CC]
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Initial Management Conference Set for June 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY BLANEY, FRANCES
LOMBARDI, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, CARNELL T.
FOSKEY, CHRISTOPHER POGGIALI, DENISE VEDDER, JOHN O'CONNER, BETH
MCKENZIE, PATRICK O'CONNOR, LISA DAVIS O'CONNOR, NASSAU COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT Case No. 2:24-cv-01134-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Arlene Lindsay entered an order scheduling a Rule 16 Initial
Management Conference on on June 12, 2024.
The parties are directed to dial (888) 684-8852 before the
scheduled time to access the call center. At the prompt enter
access code 7625765. The parties may request an in person
conference by joint letter filed 48 hours prior to the scheduled
date.
Prior to the Rule 16 conference, the parties must hold a discovery
planning conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26 (f).
Two days prior to the Rule 16 Conference, the parties are directed
to complete and file the attached Rule 26(f) report. Filing of this
report is mandatory.
Nassau County is a suburban county located on Long Island,
immediately to the east of New York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rX8Kzl at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLD DOMINION: Tensae Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
TSEGAI W. TENSAE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., a
Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CGC-24-613700 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 4,
2024) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, equitable relief, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to pay reporting time pay,
failure to pay sick pay, unlawful wage deductions, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay final
wages, as well as violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt truck driver for
Defendants from approximately October 9, 2013 through approximately
February 16, 2023, making deliveries throughout the County of San
Francisco.
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. offers freight solutions across
every region of the United States and North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
Marta Manus, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
mmanus@ckslaw.com
- and -
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
400 N. Brand Blvd., 7th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 875-2008
Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
E-mail: emil@d.law
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Seeks to File Opposition Papers Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its request to
file portions of its opposition papers under seal.
The Defendant will send the proposed sealed materials to the Court
via Federal Express and to the Plaintiffs electronically.
A Proposed Order permitting the Defendant to file the Proposed
Sealed Material is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
On April 29, 2023, the parties entered a Confidentiality Agreement
to protect the disclosure of information exchanged during the
course of this litigation. Magistrate Miroslav Lovric signed the
Confidentiality Agreement on April 30, 2023.
Pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement and N.D.N.Y. L.R. 5.3,
the Defendant requests that this Court permit Defendant to file the
following exhibits under seal (the "Proposed Sealed Materials"):
Exhibit Description
Exhibit A Declaration of Brent Moody, dated April 12,
2024,
with Exhibits A-C
Exhibit B Declaration of Rebecca Bocyck, dated March 25,
2024, with Exhibits A-F
Exhibit E Summary of Managerial, Onboarding, Counseling
and
Relevant Testimony Derived from Declaration of
New
York CTLs and STLs
Exhibit F 44 Declarations of New York CTLs and STLS
Exhibit G Summary of Differences with Respect to
Management
Activities Derived from Declaration of New York
CTLs and STLs
Exhibit I Summary Chart for CTLs at 13 Sampling Stores
Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout
retailers.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xiZYuP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
430 Mountain Avenue, Suite 303
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Telephone: (908) 516-1050
Facsimile: (908) 516-1051
E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: May 21 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Shareholder
Derivative Actions
To: All Owners of Common Stock of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.
("Omega" or the "Company") as of February 22, 2024, and Who
Continue to Hold Omega Common Stock as of the date of the
Settlement Hearing ("Current Omega Shareholders"):
You are hereby notified, pursuant to an Order of the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Court"), that a proposed
settlement has been reached resolving the following two
consolidated shareholder derivative actions brought in this Court
on behalf and for the benefit of Omega: Swan v. Pickett, et al.,
Case No. 24-C-19-000573 and Bradley, et al., Case No.
24-C-19-000972 (together, the "Maryland State Action"), and the
related derivative action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District Court of New York, captioned Stourbridge
Investments LLC v. Callen et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07638 (the "New
York Federal Action"). The terms of the settlement are set for in
the Settling Parties' Stipulation of Settlement dated February 22,
2024 ("Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms herein have the
same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. This notice should
read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed
with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. A link to the
text of the Stipulation and the full-length Notice of Proposed
Settlement and of Settlement Hearing may be found on Omega's
website at:
https://www.omegahealthcare.com/investors/coporate-governance.
A Settlement Hearing shall be held by remote electronic means on
May 21, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Lawrence P.
Fletcher-Hill, at the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland,
Cummings Courthouse, 111 N. Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland
21202, at which the Court will determine: (a) whether the terms of
the Settlement should be approved, as fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders; (b)
whether notice of the Settlement fully satisfied the requirements
of due process and any other applicable law; (c) whether the Court
should enter the Judgment dismissing the Maryland State Action with
prejudice, and release and enjoin prosecution of any all Released
Claims; (d) whether the Court should approve the agreed Fee and
Expense Amount, and a Service Award to Plaintiffs; and (e) such
other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. You have an
opportunity to be heard at this hearing.
If you wish to object to the proposed settlement, you must file a
written objection with the Court on or before May 7, 2024. All
written objections and supporting papers must be filed with the
Clerk of the Court, Circuit for Baltimore City, Maryland, Cummings
Courthouse, 111 N. Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, and
served by that date to each of the following Parties' counsel:
Counsel for Plaintiffs
LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
Attn: Joshua M. Lifshitz
1190 Broadway
Hewlett, NY 11557
T: 516-493-9780
E: jlifshitz@liftshitzlaw.com
ROBBINS LLP
Attn: Craig W. Smith
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
T: 619-525-3990
E: csmith@robbinsllp.com
Counsel for Defendants
PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A.
Attn: Robert S. Campbell
901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 500
Towson, Maryland 21204
T: 410-769-6140
E: rcampbell@pklaw.com
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Attn: Eric Rieder
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
T: 212-541-2057
E: ERieder@bclplaw.com
There is additional information concerning the Settlement available
in the
Stipulation, which is available for viewing on Omega's website at
https://www.omega-healthcare.com/investors/corporate-governance
You may also inspect the Stipulation during business hours at the
office of the Clerk of the Court, Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, Cummings Courthouse, 111 N. Calvert Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202. Or you can call Plaintiffs' Counsel: Craig W.
Smith, Robbins LLP, 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300, San Diego, CA
92122, Telephone: 619-525-3990
ORSINI PHARMACEUTICAL: Kerber Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KERBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORSINI PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02936 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.
On or about March 26, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff
and other data breach victims a letter informing them that their
email account were accessed by unauthorized party between the dates
of January 8, 2024 and January 10, 2024. However, the data breach
letter failed to provide the identity of the cybercriminals who
perpetrated this data breach, the details of the root cause of the
data breach, the vulnerabilities, exploited, and the remedial
measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again,
says the suit.
Orsini Pharmaceutical Services is a specialty pharmacy
headquartered in Elk Grove Village, IL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
PERDUE FOODS: Tripp Seeks Damages for Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Tripp, individually on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Perdue Foods LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00987-JMC (D. Md., April 4, 2024) seeks
damages and other appropriate relief related to Perdue's failure to
pay minimum wage and overtime, and misclassification of Plaintiff
and members of the proposed collective as independent contractors
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Tripp is a resident of Aulander, North Carolina who
worked under contract as a grower for Defendant Perdue Foods LLC in
Aulander, North Carolina. She asserts that by misclassifying
growers, Perdue offloads enormous capital costs and financial risks
onto them. Instead of being responsible for the cost of
constructing chicken houses, upgrading equipment, managing waste,
and potentially losing chickens to natural disasters or other
unexpected circumstances, Perdue forces growers to bear these costs
by deceptively classifying growers as independent contractors while
meticulously controlling virtually every moment and every aspect of
their work.
Perdue Foods LLC is the third largest broiler chicken company in
the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
Michael Lieberman, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
1001 G Street NW Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (617) 721-3587
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
michael@fairmarklaw.com
- and -
Charles Gerstein, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
1001 G Street NW Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 670-4809
E-mail: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Alleged Corruption
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 12, 2024, that the Consumidores
Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, currently named
Consumidores Damnificados Asociación Civil, filed a class action
before the Civil and Commercial Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina on
April 10, 2023.
The Association claims Petrobras bears responsibility for an
alleged loss of market value of its securities in Argentina, as a
result of allegations made within the scope of the Lava Jato
operation where the Brazilian federal police began an investigation
on irregularities involving the company's contractors and suppliers
and uncovered a broad payment scheme that involved a wide range of
participants, including its former personnel. Said action focuses
on its effects on the company's financial statements prior to
2015.
The company presented its defense on August 30, 2023.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. is a Brazilian mixed capital company, one
of the largest producers of oil and gas in the world primarily
engaged in exploration and production, refining, energy generation
and trading.
PUBLICIS HEALTH: Contributes to Opioid Epidemic, Cleveland Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS HEALTH and WELFARE FUND, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLICIS
HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00664-JPC (N.D. Ohio,
April 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations
and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and common
law absolute public nuisance.
The case arises from the role of the Defendant in the proliferation
and expansion of the opioid epidemic. According to the complaint,
the Defendant designed and implemented marketing strategies for
major opioid manufacturer and maker of the infamous OxyContin,
Purdue Pharma, LP, and others, to increase the demand for opioid
prescriptions and the sale of opioids. The deceptive marketing
strategies developed and implemented by Publicis worked and
substantially contributed to an explosion in the use of opioids
across the country. This epidemic of opioid addiction, abuse, and
use has caused direct harm to the Plaintiff and Class members, says
the suit.
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund is a
multi-employer trust fund established to provide health and welfare
benefits to collectively bargained members represented by Bakers'
Union Local No. 19 and Teamsters Local Union No. 507, located at
9665 Rockside Road in Valley View, Ohio.
Publicis Health, LLC is a healthcare marketing company, with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonah D. Grabelsky, Esq.
George H. Faulkner, Esq.
FAULKNER, HOFFMAN & PHILLIPS, LLC
20445 Emerald Parkway Dr. Ste. 210
Cleveland, OH 44135
Telephone: (216) 781-3600
Email: faulkner@fhplaw.com
grabelsky@fhplaw.com
- and -
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
Anny M. Martin, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
Email: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
amartin@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
tziegler@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Bristol Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------
BRISTOL COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUIDELORTHO CORPORATION
f/k/a QUIDEL CORPORATION, DOUGLAS BRYANT, JOSEPH BUSKY, and RANDALL
STEWARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y., April 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding QuidelOrtho's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade QuidelOrtho common
stock at artificially inflated prices between February 18, 2022 and
April 1, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose
that: (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) above, 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; (e) that, as a result of
(a)-(d) above, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about QuidelOrtho's business, financials, and
growth trajectory.
When the truth emerged, the price of QuidelOrtho common stock
declined $21.50, or more than 32 percent, to close at $45.27 on
February 14, 2024. The stock price continued to decline $4.85, or
more than 10 percent, to close at $42.15 on April 2, 2024.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant economic losses and damages, says the suit.
Bristol County Retirement System is a public pension fund based in
Taunton, Massachusetts.
QuidelOrtho Corporation, formerly known as Quidel Corporation, is a
manufacturer of diagnostic healthcare products, headquartered in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
Email: ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
RESONETICS LLC: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reyes v. Resonetics, LLC
et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01552 (S.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 23, 2023),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part and denying in
part joint motion to continue discovery and class certification
motion deadlines:
-- The Court denies the parties' request for an 120-day
continuance
of deadlines.
-- In the interest of judicial efficiency, however, the Court
grants
a 60-day continuance of deadlines.
Accordingly, the deadline for pre-class certification discovery is
continued to Aug. 5, 2024, and the deadline for the filing of a
motion for class certification is continued to Sept. 1, 2024.
The nature of suit states civil rights – employment.
Resonetics provides laser technology services.[CC]
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Made in USA Ads "False," Fogle Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY FOGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00692-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla., April 12, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, false and misleading
advertising, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Reynold's Wrap
"Made in U.S.A." Foil Products. The Plaintiff relied upon this
representation and believed that the product was indeed made in the
United States. In reality, all or virtually all of the raw
materials used were from outside of the United States and a
substantial amount of the making, manufacturing, and/or production
of the aluminum foil product took place outside of the United
States. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the
product if they knew the "Made in U.S.A." representations and
omissions were false and misleading, or they would have paid less
for it.
Reynolds Consumer Products LLC is a provider of packaging products
with its principal place of business in Lake Forest, Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fogle v. Reynolds Consumer
Products LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00692 (M.D. Fla., Case Filed April
12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing
the Parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for
class certification and advising the Court of agreeable deadlines
in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(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.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property
--diversity-fraud.
Reynolds provides packaging products.[CC]
RHINO ONWARD: Faces Strobl Suit Over Sale of Fake Investments
-------------------------------------------------------------
STACY STROBL and BRIAN HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAUL CROFT; JONATHAN
FROST; RHINO ONWARD INTERNATIONAL, LLC; ROI FUND I, LLC; ROI FUND
II, LLC; ROI FUND III, LLC; ROI FUND IV, LLC; BRIAN KAWAMURA; CROFT
& FROST, PLLC; THE WELL FUND LLC; SCORPIO REF, LLC; MATTHEW DIRA;
THE DIRA GROUP; CHESTNUT HOLDINGS, LLC; STEVEN FROST; LISA FROST;
JOSEPH INVESTMENTS, LLC; JANE and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00140-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., April 4, 2024) alleges that
the Defendants committed fraud and conversion when they sold or
helped to sell fake investments in Rhino Onward International, LLC
to help prop up Croft & Frost and enrich themselves at the expense
of investors.
Rhino Onward International is ostensibly a green energy company
that claims it "creates the greenest and cleanest cradle-to-grave
renewable energy by harvesting Solar Energy and brackish
(non-potable) water to generate electricity, green hydrogen, and
clean water." Rhino Onward International has never created any
electricity and has no actual green hydrogen operations, says the
suit.
To ostensibly fund Rhino Onward International's operations, Frost
and Croft set up numerous shell companies promising to take moneys
raised into these shell companies to make investments into Rhino
Onward International. ROI Fund I, LLC, ROI Fund II, LLC, ROI Fund
III, LLC, ROI Fund IV, LLC and Scorpio are examples of such shell
companies. Upon information and belief, these shell companies
served no purpose and had no real operations, says the suit.
Frost and Croft, with the aid of Dira, collected over $40 million
from investors through the ROI Defendants, the Well Fund and other
shell companies. This action is meant to help Plaintiffs and other
investors recoup their money from Frost and Croft and the many
individuals that conspired with them to aid and abet their
schemes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI
& WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 800-6225
Facsimile: (615) 994-8625
E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Alyson S. Beridon, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI
& WALL, PLLC
600 Vine St., Ste 2720
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
Facsimile: (615) 994-8625
E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Scott A. Kramer, Esq.
THE KRAMER LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 240461
Memphis, TN 38124
Telephone: (901) 896-8933
E-mail: thekramerlawcenter@gmail.com
SELECT EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Smith Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JATINA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT EDUCATION GROUP, Inc., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-at-00285 (E.D.
Cal., April 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
stored within Defendant's information network, including without
limitation, name, Social Security Number, billing and payment
records, and/or academic records, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as personally identifiable information.
With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiff and, at least, 67,097 other similarly
situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack, by
which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected
network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII which was being
kept unprotected.
The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section 45 by failing to use
reasonable measures to protect PII and not complying with
applicable industry standards. The Defendant's conduct was
particularly unreasonable given the nature and amount of PII it
obtained and stored and the foreseeable consequences of the immense
damages that would result to Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members, says the suit.
Select Education Group, Inc. is a private post-secondary education
group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
SHAUN FERGUSON: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REMINGTYN A. WILLIAMS, et
al, v. SHAUN FERGUSON, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00852-DJP-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a), 23(b), and 23(c):
1
1. The Injunctive Relief Class:
"All individuals present at or near the elevated portion of
Highway 90 (Business 90 Westbound) at Crescent City
Connection
in New Orleans, Louisiana, or the streets adjacent to or
surrounding the Crescent City Connection on June 3, 2020, at,
around, or shortly after 9:00 p.m., when the events described
in
paragraphs 69-132 of the Complaint took place, who may attend
or
attempt to attend protests in New Orleans, Louisiana in the
future."
2. The Personal Injury Class:
"All individuals present at or near the elevated portion of
Highway 90 (Business 90 Westbound) at Crescent City
Connection
in New Orleans, Louisiana, or the streets adjacent to or
surrounding the Crescent City Connection on June 3, 2020, at,
around, or shortly after 9:00 p.m., when the events described
in
paragraphs 69-132 of the Complaint took place, who incurred
any
injury, illness, or other impairments as a result of
Defendants'
actions."
3. The Female Injunctive Relief Class:
"All people with female reproductive organs, including
married
people, present at or near the elevated portion of Highway 90
(Business 90 Westbound) at Crescent City Connection in New
Orleans, Louisiana, or the streets adjacent to or surrounding
the Crescent City Connection on June 3, 2020, at, around, or
shortly after 9:00 p.m., when the events described in
paragraphs
69-132 of the Complaint took place, who wish to bear children
in
the future and who may attend or attempt to attend protests
in
New Orleans, Louisiana in the future."
4. The Female Personal Injury Class:
"All people with female reproductive organs, including
married
people, present at or near the elevated portion of Highway 90
(Business 90 Westbound) at Crescent City Connection in New
Orleans, Louisiana, or the streets adjacent to or surrounding
the Crescent City Connection on June 3, 2020, at, around, or
shortly after 9:00 p.m., when the events described in
paragraphs
69-132 of the Complaint took place, who wish to bear children
in
the future and who incurred any injury, illness, or other
impairments as a result of Defendants’ actions."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ASTeX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jahmy S. Graham, Esq.
Mary C. Biscoe-Hall, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
19191 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 900
Torrance, CA 90502
Telephone: (424) 221-2700
E-mail: jahmy.Graham@nelsonmullins.com
mary.biscoehall@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Erin Bridget Wheeler, Esq.
Stephanie Willis, Esq.
Nora Ahmed, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA
1340 Poydras St., Suite 2160
New Orleans, LA 70156
Telephone: (504) 522-0628
E-mail: bwheeler@laaclu.org
swillis@laaclu.org
nahmed@laaclu.org
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Enomoto Suit Seeks to Certify 11 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chanielle Enomoto and
Brandon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-00334-DOC-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as
follows:
1. Granting Certification of the following proposed classes:
a. The FLSA Collective: All current and former employees
classified as exempt from overtime who have worked for
the
Defendant as commissioned employees nationwide from May
24,
2020 through the resolution of this matter who elect to
opt
into this action.
b. The Minimum Wage Class: All current and former
commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
c. The Overtime Class: All current and former commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
d. The Meal Break Class: All current and former commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
e. The Rest Break Class: All current and former commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
f. The Accurate Payroll Class: All current and former
commissioned employees classified as exempt who worked for
the Defendant in the State of California from Nov. 28,
2017
through the resolution of this matter.
g. The Wage Statement Class: All current and former
commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
h. The Expense Reimbursement Class: All current and former
commissioned employees classified as exempt who worked for
the Defendant in the State of California from Nov. 28,
2017
through the resolution of this matter.
i. The Waiting Time Penalty Class: All former commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2018 through the
resolution of this matter.
j. The Wage Deduction Class: All current and former
commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
k. The section 17200 Class: All current and former
commissioned
employees classified as exempt who worked for the
Defendant
in the State of California from Nov. 28, 2017 through the
resolution of this matter.
2. Ordering that the Classes and the collective under the FLSA,
as
defined above, may proceed as alleged in the Plaintiffs'
Class
Action and FLSA Complaints;
3. Appointing Plaintiffs Chanielle Enomoto and Brandon Johnson
as
class representatives for the classes and collective;
4. Appointing Jonathan M. Lebe, Brielle D. Edborg, and Ryan C.
Ely
of Lebe Law, APLC as Class Counsel for the Classes; and
5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Siemens provides engineering and technological solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3tg3rB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
Ryan C. Ely, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Brielle@lebelaw.com
Ryan@lebelaw.com
SOCIETE GENERALE: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Class Action Settlement
If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be affected
and you may be entitled to a benefit. This Notice is only a
summary of the Settlement and is subject to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and other relevant documents (available as set
forth below).
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with a proposed settlement with Defendant Societe
Generale ("SocGen") in the action titled Fund Liquidation Holdings
LLC, et al. v. UBS AG, et al., Case No. 15-cv-5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Action"). The settlement with SocGen (the "Settlement") is
not a settlement with any other Defendant and thus is not
dispositive of any of Representative Plaintiffs' claims against the
remaining Defendants.
The Settlement has been proposed to resolve this class action
lawsuit with SocGen concerning the alleged manipulation of the
London Interbank Offered Rate for Japanese Yen ("Yen-LIBOR") and
the Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from
January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. The Settlement
will provide an additional $35,000,000 to pay claims from persons
who transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006
through June 30, 2011, inclusive. If you qualify, you may send in a
Proof of Claim and Release form to potentially receive benefits. Or
you can exclude yourself from the Settlement, or object to any part
of it.
If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to
any of the Prior Class Notices in this matter (defined below), then
you do not have to submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to
participate in this Settlement with SocGen. The Prior Class Notices
are: (i) the June 22, 2016 Notice ("2016 Notice") related to $58
million in settlements with Defendants R.P. Martin Holdings
Limited, Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd., Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Citibank Japan Ltd., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., HSBC
Holdings plc, and HSBC Bank plc; (ii) the August 3, 2017 Notice,
amended September 14, 2017 (the "2017 Notice") related to $148
million in settlements with Defendants Deutsche Bank AG, DB Group
Services (UK) Ltd., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc; (iii) the
March 8, 2018 Notice ("2018 Notice") related to the $30 million
settlement with The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. and
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation; (iv) the September
11, 2019 Notice (the "2019 Notice") related to $71 million in
settlements with Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd.,
Mizuho Trust & Banking Co., Ltd., The Norinchukin Bank, Sumitomo
Mitsui Banking Corporation, The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd., Shinkin
Central Bank, The Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Trust
Bank, Ltd., and Resona Bank, Ltd.; or (v) the October 5, 2022
Notice (the "2022 Notice") related to $22.5 million in settlements
with Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays PLC, Nex
International Limited (f/k/a ICAP plc), ICAP Europe Limited, TP
ICAP plc (f/k/a Tullett Prebon plc and n/k/a TP ICAP Finance plc).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.
Who Is Included?
You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased, sold,
held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based
Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011,
inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) the
Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any
Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant; and (ii) the United States Government.
Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held,
traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based Derivatives.
If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information,
including the Settlement Agreement, Mailed Notice, Plan of
Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important
documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or
by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453.
What Is This Litigation About?
Representative Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January
1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and
abetted the manipulation of Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the
prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives. Defendants allegedly did so by
using several means of manipulation. For example, panel banks that
made the daily Yen-LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the
British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers Association
respectively (collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such as
SocGen, allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order
to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions.
Contributor Bank Defendants also allegedly requested that other
Contributor Bank Defendants make false Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR
submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based
Derivatives positions.
Representative Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers,
intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and
derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), had knowledge of,
and provided substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank
Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based
Derivatives. For example, Contributor Bank Defendants allegedly
used the Broker Defendants to manipulate Yen-LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR,
and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives by disseminating false
"Suggested LIBORs", publishing false market rates on broker
screens, and publishing false bids and offers into the market.
Representative Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various
theories, including federal antitrust law, the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law.
SocGen has consistently and vigorously denied Representative
Plaintiffs' allegations. SocGen entered into the Settlement
Agreement with Representative Plaintiffs, despite believing that it
is not liable for the claims asserted against it, and without
admitting liability, to avoid the further expense, inconvenience,
and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, thereby
putting this controversy to rest and avoiding the risks inherent in
complex litigation.
What Does the Settlement Provide?
Under the Settlement, SocGen agreed to pay $35,000,000 into the
Settlement Fund. If the Court approves the Settlement, potential
members of the Settlement Class who qualify and have sent or will
send valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of
the Settlement Fund after they are reduced by the payment of
certain expenses. The Settlement Agreement, available at the
Settlement Website, describes the details about the proposed
Settlement. The exact amount each qualifying Settling Class Member
will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated until
(1) the Court approves the Settlement; (2) certain amounts
identified in the full Settlement Agreement are deducted from the
Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members
and the amount of their claims are determined. In addition, each
Settling Class Member's share of the Settlement Fund will vary
depending on the information the Settling Class Member provides on
the Proof of Claim and Release form.
The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof
of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.
Under the Settlement, members of the Settlement Class will release
SocGen from all claims relating to conduct alleged or which could
have been alleged in the Action or which could have been alleged
concerning any Euroyen-Based Derivatives. The full terms of the
release can be found in the Mailed Notice or the Settlement
Agreement available at www.EuroyenSettlement.com or by calling
1-866-217-4453.
How Do You Ask For a Payment?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim and
Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address provided on
the Settlement Website postmarked no later than August 2, 2024. You
may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release on the Settlement Website
or by calling the toll-free number referenced above. If you are a
member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a Proof of
Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the release set forth
in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order approving
the Settlement Agreement.
Any member of the Settlement Class that previously submitted a
Proof of Claim and Release in connection with the 2016 Notice, 2017
Notice, 2018 Notice, 2019 Notice, or 2022 Notice does not have to
submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to participate in this
Settlement with SocGen and will be subject to and bound by the
release set forth in the Settlement Agreement with SocGen, unless
such member submits a timely and valid request for exclusion,
explained below.
What Are Your Other Options?
All requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice
and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no later
than May 20, 2024. The Settlement Notice, available at the
Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object.
All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set
forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored. If you exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the
Settlement Agreement and can independently pursue claims at your
own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be
eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise
participate in the Settlement.
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in this case on June 18,
2024, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request
by the lawyers representing all members of the Settlement Class
(Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.) for an award of attorneys' fees of no more
than twenty percent (20%), or $7,000,000, of the Settlement Fund
for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating
the settlement and an award to replenish the litigation fund
created to reimburse their costs and expenses in the amount of no
more than $500,000. The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also
seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in
connection with services provided after the Fairness Hearing.
Representative Plaintiffs may also seek an award from the
Settlement Fund as reimbursement of their own expenses and
compensation for their time devoted to this litigation, not to
exceed $350,000. These payments will also be deducted from the
Settlement Fund before any distributions are made to the Settlement
Class.
You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have
to. For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453 or visit
the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com.
1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures
contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a Euroyen
TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange, Inc.
("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International
Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a
U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME;
(iv) a Yen-LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap
entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a
location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen-LIBOR and/or a
Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into by
a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered into
by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within
the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen-LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based
forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a
Person from or through a location within the U.S.
2 The "Settlement Agreement" means the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with Societe Generale entered into on February 16,
2024.
SONDER HOLDINGS: Duffaybar Sues Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
NAWSHEEN DUFFAYDAR, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONDER HOLDINGS INC., FRANCIS
DAVIDSON, CHRIS BERRY, and DOMINIQUE BOURGAULT, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-02952 (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2024), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Allegedly, Defendants failed to disclose all issues with its
internal controls and that 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 the
Company accounted for the valuation and impairment of operating
lease right of use assets. As a result of Defendants' false and
misleading statements, the market price of Sonder securities was
artificially inflated during the class period, says the suit.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Sonder engages in hospitality
services and operates and manages various accommodations. Sonder
securities trades on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker
symbol "SOND." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Van Dyke Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY VAN DYKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A., Case No. 8:24-cv-00921 (M.D.
Fla., April 15, 2024) seeks damages and permanent injunctive relief
over Defendant's alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard
its customers' sensitive information.
The Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable
information, which they entrusted to Defendant, was compromised in
a data breach which was allegedly a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures necessary to protect its customers' sensitive data from
a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff accuses
Defendant of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
SouthState Bank, N.A. is a bank headquartered in Winter Haven, FL.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2ND Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
- and -
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: jwalker@msdlegal.com
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00282-JDR-JFJ (N.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge John Russell entered an amended scheduling
order for class certification issues follows:
Event Scheduled
Deadlines
Documents previously produced by parties Aug. 19, 2024
shall be deemed authenticated except as
to those objected to:
Class Certification Motion filed with all Sept. 20, 2024
supporting evidence, including expert
disclosures:
Class Certification Response filed with all Nov. 20, 2024
supporting evidence, including expert
disclosures:
Class Certification Reply filed with any Dec. 20, 2024
rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any:
Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 3, 2025
Class Certification Hearing: Jan. 8, 2025,
at 9:00 a.m.
Staghorn provides oil and gas production services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=npXuz7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Sept. 2 Class Cert. Bid Filing Extension Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00282-JDR-JFJ (N.D.
Okla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to extend the
scheduling order as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Documents previously produced by May 20, 2024 Aug. 19,
2024
parties shall be deemed
authenticated except as to those
objected to:
Class Certification Motion filed June 19, 2024 Sept. 20,
2024
with all supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures:
Class Certification Response filed Aug. 19, 2024 Nov. 20,
2024
with all supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures:
Class Certification Reply filed Sept. 17, 2024 Dec. 20,
2024
with any rebuttal evidence,
including rebuttal expert
disclosures, if any:
Class Certification Discovery Sept. 17, 2024 Jan. 10,
20251
Cutoff:
Class Certification Hearing Oct. 1, 2024 (to be set
by
the
Court)
The parties seek this extension to explore resolution of this
matter ahead of class certification.
The Court entered the current scheduling order on Sept. 6, 2023,
which set the Plaintiffs' class certification motion deadline on
June 19, 2024.
Accordingly, the Parties have agreed to mediate on June 13, 2024,
with mediator Robert G. Gum.
The Parties cooperatively scheduled the mediation to allow adequate
time for expert analysis and discussion ahead of mediation.
Staghorn provides oil and gas production services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCfJBb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
– and –
James U. White, Jr., Esq.
JAMES U. WHITE, JR., INC.
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842-7545
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Travis P. Brown, Esq.
J. Matt Hill, Esq.
MAHAFFEY & GORE, P.C.
300 N.E. 1st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 236-0478
Facsimile: (405) 236-1840
E-mail: tbrown@mahaffeygore.com
mhill@mahaffeygore.com
STARBUCKS CORP: Fact Discovery in Kominis Due Oct. 1
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kominis et al., v.
Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-06673-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no Oct. 1, 2024
later than:
-- Depositions shall be completed by: July 3, 2024
-- All expert discovery, including expert Jan. 10,
2025
depositions, shall be completed no later
than:
Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and
roastery reserves.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iiZJSf at no extra
charge.[CC]
TC HEARTLAND: Karabas Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Sweeteners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
METE KARABAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff v. TC HEARTLAND LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02722 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's deceptive marketing of Splenda Naturals Stevia
products.
Plaintiff Karabas alleges that the Defendant's prominent product
labels, "100% Natural," is false and misleading since the said
products contain the non-natural, synthetic ingredients, stevia
leaf extract and erythritol.
Headquartered in Carmel, IN, TC Heartland LLC manufactures,
distributes, and sells sweeteners. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
- and -
Matthew Peterson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC
225 1st Ave. N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (815) 999-9130
E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com
TIM GRIFFIN: Expert Deposition in Johnson Extended to May 27
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY EUGENE JOHNSON, v.
TIM GRIFFIN, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00373-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the
Hon. Judge Kristine Baker entered an order granting the parties'
joint motion to extend time:
-- The fact and expert deposition deadline is extended up to, and
including, May 17, 2024.
-- The deadline for the status report and all motions (except
motions
for class certification and motions in limine), including
Daubert
motions, is extended up to, and including, June 12, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L6ckhP at no extra
charge.[CC]
TIM HORTONS: Faces Class Suit Over Roll Up the Rim to Win Promotion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press of CBC News reports that Tim Hortons says
there's no merit to a proposed class-action lawsuit regarding
emails it sent out in error to participants in its popular Roll Up
the Rim to Win promotion.
LPC Avocat Inc. has launched the lawsuit, claiming that about
500,000 customers received an email on April 17 saying they had won
a boat through Roll up the Rim.
The law firm says the boat is worth about $64,000. The proposed
class-action lawsuit, which has yet to be certified, claims the
defendants are owed the boat as well as damages.
Tim Hortons says the email was sent through "human error," and once
the company became aware of the mistake, it quickly notified the
affected customers and apologized.
It says it believes the lawsuit has no merit, and it will address
this through the court. [GN]
TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Johnson Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skylor Johnson, On behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Travis County,
Texas, Case No. 1:24-cv-00386-DII (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying the class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointing
the undersigned counsel as class counsel pursuant to Rules 23(a)(4)
and (g).
In the alternative, if Travis County contests this motion, the
Plaintiff requests the opportunity to conduct discovery related to
class certification and a subsequent class certification hearing.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all people who are
unable to retain counsel and are detained at Travis County Jail
awaiting magistration for criminal charges punishable by
imprisonment.
Travis is located in Central Texas. Its county seat and most
populous city is Austin, the capital of Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=52yViZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
E-mail: trishat@aclu.org
- and -
Jessica L. Falk, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8511
E-mail: jessica.falk@weil.com
- and -
Savannah Kumar, Esq.
Tommy Buser-Clancy, Esq.
Adriana Pinon, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.
Houston, TX 77288
Telephone: (713) 942-8146
E-mail: skumar@aclutx.org
tbuser-clancy@aclutx.org
apinon@aclutx.org
TRC SOLUTIONS: Bandy Wins Bid to Certify Class w/ Modification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN BANDY, v. TRC
SOLUTIONS, INC., RTC ENGINEERS, INC., TRC FIELD SERVICES – TRC
ENGINEERS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00144-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order adopting Judge Howell's
recommendation and granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class
with slight modification in the class description and notice
requirements.
The Court further orders that:
1. The Plaintiff is authorized to send the proposed notice and
Consent forms to the following potential members of the
collective action:
"All current and former land acquisition personnel, employed
by,
or working on behalf of TRC Companies, TRC Solutions, Inc.,
and/or TRC Field Services during the 3 years preceding class
certification who were paid a day rate, received a toolkit
allowance, and per diem, and who worked in excess of 40 hours
in
any workweek without being paid overtime compensation.
2. The parties must meet to confer on the specifics of the
notice
within 21 days of the date of this order.
3. The Defendants must disclose to Bandy the potential class
Members' names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone
numbers,
and dates of employment in a useable electronic format.
The Court finds Judge Howell excluded TRC Field Solutions, Inc.
from the class definition because Plaintiff never named this
subsidiary in the complaint or included it in its proposed class
definition.
The Plaintiff should have corrected the omission of TRC Field
Solutions, Inc. in one of its two amended complaints or its Motion
to Certify Class. The Court declines to add a new defendant at this
stage on this procedural posture.
The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on July 5, 2022, alleging
a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
arising out of his employment with TRC from Jan. 1, 2019, to July
7, 2020.
The Plaintiff worked for TRC as a Lead Right-of-Way Agent/Landman
Supervisor.
TRC is a consulting, engineering, and construction management firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZCIgKC at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRENT ALLEN: Feal May File Amended Complaint by May 27
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO VAZQUEZ FEAL, v.
TRENT ALLEN, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05077-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order dismissing with
leave to amend and denying motion for appointment of counsel.
1. The claim against Defendant Allen is dismissed with leave to
amend. The claims against the other Defendants are, when
liberally construed, capable of judicial determination. The
motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
2. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before May
27,
2024. The amended complaint must include the caption and
civil
case number used in this order and the words "COURT-ORDERED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" on the first page. Because an
amended
complaint completely replaces the original complaint, the
Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by
reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the
claims he wishes to pursue, including the claims from his
original complaint that the Court has ruled are capable of
judicial determination, above. To the extent possible, the
Plaintiff should include the first name or initial of each
Defendant to help identify them for service, and the name of
any
"Doe" Defendant.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the
designated time, or if the amendment is not sufficient, the
claims that are dismissed will not be part of this case, and
service will be ordered upon Defendants based only upon the
claims that the Court has ruled are capable of judicial
determination.
3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. The
Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of
address
by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed "Notice of
Change of Address." He also must comply with the Court's
orders
in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests
for
an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a showing of
good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline.
The Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by failing to fix the plumbing and ventilation problems at
SVSP.
In addition to Plaintiff Feal, the complaint lists 48 other SVSP
inmates as additional plaintiffs, none of whom have signed the
complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pOefQS at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRUCK MOTION: Soliz Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ESEQUIEL SOLIZ and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. TRUCK MOTION CORP, JOAQUIN MARTIARENA, and ANDRES MARTIARENA,
individually Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80408 (S.D. Fla., April
4, 2024) is an action to recover monetary damages from the
Defendant for breach of employment contract and Plaintiff's unpaid
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
July 10, 2023 to March 18, 2024, or 36 weeks, as a truck driver
transporting cargo.
Truck Motion Corp. is a transportation and trucking company with
facilities located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Cunningham's Bid to Intervene in Goble Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE and PAULA
GOBLE, v. TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah Morrison
entered an order denying the Plaintiff-Intervenor Robert
Cunningham's motion to intervene or,
alternatively, to seek to represent the putative class as a
non-party class Representative and the Gobles' motion to send
pre-certification
notice to the putative class or, in the alternative, for 90-days in
which to identify and propose additional proposed class
representatives.
The Gobles had a policy with Trumbull that insured against property
damage to their residence. After a hailstorm damaged their windows,
the Gobles submitted a claim to one of Trumbull's subsidiaries.
In Sept. 2019, the Gobles received an "actual cash value" ("ACV")
payment of $11,694.78 before application of a $1,000 deductible.
When the Gobles notified Trumbull that their repair costs exceeded
the ACV payment, Trumbull paid the "replacement cost value" ("RCV")
by paying additional amounts to make up the difference between the
ACV and RCV.
During the relevant period, Trumbull routinely withheld the full
cost of labor from ACV payments, including the Gobles' payment.
The Gobles acknowledge that they received all depreciated labor
costs in the RCV payments.
They now contend that Trumbull's depreciation method violates its
standard form policy, and they assert a breach of contract claim
against Trumbull, seeking pre-judgment interest on the labor
depreciation holdback.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ey1v8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
U LVP LLC: Faces Troche Wage & Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
AREANA TROCHE, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U LVP, LLC; ULVH, LLC; U LVL, LLC; ULVA, LLC; and U 17
II LVS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 24CV071805 (Cal.
Super., Alameda Cty., April 15, 2024) seeks unpaid wages, relief,
and damages for Defendants' alleged labor law violations.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt service advisor at Defendants' Honda
dealership in Livermore, California from September 2022 to February
2024. Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment, Defendants
engaged in policies and practices that violate California's labor
laws. Allegedly, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
not properly compensated for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to pay meal and rest period
premium wages, maintained inaccurate payroll records, and did not
provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with accurate wage
statements. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties
under the California Business & Professions Code, the California
Labor Code, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, says
the suit.
Based in Livermore, CA, U LVP LLC owns and operates automobile
dealerships. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Sung, Esq.
Tiffany L. Luu, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 922-2000
Facsimile: (323) 922-2000
E-mail: william@justiceforworkers.com
tluu@justiceforworkers.com
UNIFIED PROTECTIVE: Faces Roque Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY ROQUE, on behalf of herself and current and former
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. UNIFIED PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV08533 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 4, 2024) is a
representative action brought by Plaintiff seeking civil penalties
associated with Defendants' wage and hour suit violations under the
California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges Defendants' failure to pay wages for all
hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or overtime rate,
failure to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal
periods, failure to pay security guards wages on a weekly basis,
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to
timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at
Defendants' location in Hawthorne from approximately September 2023
until October 18, 2023.
Unified Protective Services, Inc. provides security guard service
in Lawndale, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Cassandra A. Castro, Esq.
Win Pham, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
ccastro@lelawfirm.com
wpham@lelawfirm.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Witmer Sues Over Unreasonable NOL Pill
-------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J. SCOTT KIRBY; ANNE WORSTER; CAROLYN CORVI;
MATTHEW FRIEND; BARNEY HARFORD; MICHELE J. HOOPER; WALTER ISAACSON;
JAMES A. C. KENNEDY; EDWARD M. PHILIP; EDWARD L. SHAPIRO; LAYSHA
WARD; JAMES M. WHITEHURST; RICHARD JOHNSEN; ROSALIND BREWER;
MICHELLE FREYRE; GARTH THOMPSON; UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC.;
and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
2024-0375 (Del. Ch., April 10, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the company and shareholder.
According to the complaint, the Amended net operating loss ("NOL")
Pill approved by the Board is an unreasonable response to any
perceived threat to NOL carryforwards, since it sweeps far more
broadly than necessary to preserve the Company's tax attributes.
Instead, the Amended NOL Pill's 4.9 percent ownership threshold,
together with its boundless "any agreement, arrangement or
understanding" ("AAU") and daisy chain features, works to stifle
corporate democracy.
In practice and effect, the AAU feature improperly deters
stockholders from entering into any AAUs, including with respect to
the Amended NOL Pill vote at the 2024 Annual Meeting, because they
have no idea whether the repercussion will be triggering the
Amended NOL Pill.
The Board is misleading Company stockholders. Prompt judicial
intervention is necessary to vindicate the stockholder franchise,
ensure that any vote on the Amended NOL Pill is fully informed, and
permanently enjoin operation of the Amended NOL Pill until after
trial on the merits, says the suit.
UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and manages airlines that
transports people and cargos. [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
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
Edward Timlin, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
VINFAST AUTO: Faces Comeau Suit Over 84.78% Drop of Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIE COMEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VINFAST AUTO LTD., LE THI THU THUY, PHAM
NHAT VUONG, DAVID MANSFIELD, ANH THI LAN NGUYEN, NGAN WAN SING
WINSTON, LING CHUNG YEE ROY, PHAM NGUYEN ANH THU, and NGUYEN THI
VAN TRINH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02750 (E.D.N.Y., April 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding VinFast's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade VinFast securities at artificially
inflated prices between August 15, 2023 and January 17, 2024.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and the 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 the Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
When the truth emerged, VinFast's ordinary share price fell $1.45
per share, or 18.17 percent, to close at $6.53 per share on October
16, 2023. The stock price continued to decline $0.13 per share, or
2.25 percent, to close at $5.64 per share on January 18, 2024,
representing a total decline of 84.78 percent from the Company's
first post-merger closing stock price of $37.06 per share on August
15, 2023.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant economic losses and damages, says the suit.
VinFast Auto Ltd. is a multinational automotive company based in
Vietnam. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
VMSB LLC: Volpe Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Volpe, Enzo Ferrer,
and Vincenzo Matino, each individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. VMSB, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company d/b/a "Gianni's at the former Versace Mansion" "Gianni's at
Casa Casuarina", and/or "The Villa Casa Casuarina," Case No.
1:23-cv-23888-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) granting conditional certification as a collective action
under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
The Proposed Class are servers and others who generate
service
revenues which the Employer treats as a mandatory charge
belonging to the Employer, and who the Employer also fails
to
pay overtime wages or premiums under the idea that such
employees are "exempt" as commissioned salespersons.
(2) expediting discovery production by the Defendant, within 15
days of the Court's Order, of a complete list of each and
every
person or entity – and their last known home address,
telephone
number, and email addresses – who was ever contracted or
employed directly or indirectly to provide wait service as a
Server, Runner, Captain, Back/Server/Runner, Open, Hostess,
or
in any other capacity for which they were compensated in
whole
or in part from either gratuities received directly from
customers of the restaurant, and/or who received any
distribution from the Employer's "F&B Service Charge
Distribution" formula which the Employer produced in
discovery
under Bates Stamp "VMSB-VOLPE001-000365 CONFIDENTIAL",
whether
or not the employer claims to treat said employees or
contractors as exempt employees, exempt from the overtime
premium wage requirements of the FLSA;
(3) requiring the Defendant to format and produce on an
expedited
basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in an
editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically from
"A"
to "Z", with each person's last known home address,
telephone
number, and email addresses in separate fields
correspondingly;
and
(4) permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved
Notice
to all such persons informing them of their rights to opt-in
to
this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit.
On Oct. 11, 2023, the Named Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as a
collective action under the FLSA alleging overtime, minimum wage,
and tip confiscation violations under the FLSA, and under related
state and common law theory.
VSMB is a restaurant and hospitality establishment.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t8sPXh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 665-9211
E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com
faz@laborlawfla.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew B. Zelmanowitz, Esq.
Nikki Branch, Esq.
BERGER SINGERMAN, LLP
201 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 695-8224
Facsimile: (954) 523-2872
E-mail: azelman@bergersingerman.com
nbranch@bergersingerman.com
LTorres@bergersingerman.com
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: $2.2MM Settlement to be Heard on June 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC
STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION
C.A. No. 2022-0090-NAC
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
All persons who held fewer than 1,000 shares of Westell
Technologies, Inc. ("Westell" or the "Company") common stock
(ticker: "WSTL") immediately prior to and received cash in exchange
for their shares of Westell common stock in the amount of $1.48 per
share as a result of a 1,000-to-1 reverse stock split of Westell's
common stock, which was followed immediately by a 1-to-1,000
forward stock split of Westell's common stock (the "Class").
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) lead plaintiff Pankaj Sharma
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class, and (ii)
defendants Westell Technologies, Inc., The Voting Trust Agreement
Dated February 23, 1994, among Mr. Penny, Mr. Simon and Certain
Members of the Penny Family and the Simon Family, Robert W.
Foskett, Kirk Brannock, Scott Chandler, Timothy Duitsman, Cary
Wood, Mark Zorko, and Patrick J. McDonough, Jr. (collectively,
"Defendants" and together with Plaintiff, the "Settling Parties")
have reached a proposed settlement for $2,200,000.00 in cash (the
"Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
between Plaintiff and Defendants, dated February 13, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com. If approved by the Court,
the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action against
Defendants.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 14, 2024,
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Vice Chancellor Nathan A. Cook,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by Zoom
(in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i)
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (ii)
determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv)
determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved, including
Plaintiff's application for an incentive award; (v) hear and rule
on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or to the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award; and (vi) consider any other
matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection
with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing,
including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates
regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be
posted to the Settlement website,
www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting
Plaintiff's Counsel using the contact information below. A copy of
the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of
Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as
is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation,
Class Members consist of all persons who held fewer than 1,000
shares of Westell common stock immediately prior to and received
cash in exchange for their shares of Westell common stock in the
amount of $1.48 per share as a result of the Transaction. Pursuant
to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Class Member will be
eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund
equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of Westell common
stock held by the Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery"
for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total
amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of shares of
Westell common stock held by the Class Members immediately prior to
the Transaction. As explained in further detail in the Notice,
pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net
Settlement Fund to Class Members will be made in the same manner in
which Class Members received the Transaction Consideration. Class
Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment
from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, in connection with the
Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than May 30, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiff's Counsel.
Requests for the Notice, and all other inquiries, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Herbert W. Mondros
Rigrodsky Law, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 295-5310
hwm@rl-legal.com
Shane Rowley
Rowley Law PLLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
(914) 400-1920
srowley@rowleylawplc.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
1 Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in
the Notice.
WHKS & CO: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Bowen Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bowen v. WHKS & Co. Inc.
et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04069-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.
WHKS provides engineering, planning, and land surveying services.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated April 11, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ptnnRC
at no extra charge.[CC]
WORKFORCE 7: Court Enters Revised Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS
SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC.,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES,
INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered
an order:
1. The terms of the Jan. 11, 2024 Revised Civil Case Discovery
Plan
And Scheduling Order shall continue in full force and effect
except for the following modifications:
a. Non-expert discovery shall be completed by such date that
is
90 days from a decision on Plaintiffs' Feb. 16, 2024
Motion
for Clarification, Partial Reconsideration and,
Alternatively, Certification of the January 25th Order
for
an Interlocutory Appeal;
b. The Plaintiffs shall take the first step in class
certification motion practice by such date that is 45 days
from the close of non-expert discovery;
c. Expert reports shall be served no later than 75 days from
the
close of non-expert discovery;
d. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than 30
days
from the deadline to serve expert reports;
e. Expert witness depositions shall be completed by no later
than 45 days from the deadline to serve rebuttal expert
reports; and
f. All discovery shall be completed by: such date that is 90
days from the date of a decision on the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion.
WorkForce specializes in industries that need flaggers and securing
parking for construction companies and the utility industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fq1YVb at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***