/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240510.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 10, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 95
Headlines
AMERICAN PHOENIX: Charles Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
ASIAN FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
ASR GROUP: Madison Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
AST SPACEMOBILE: Klarkowski Seeks Damages for Securities Fraud
BANQUE DU LIBAN: Najjar Sues Over RICO Act Violations & Conspiracy
BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS: Steen Seeks Behavior Analysts' Unpaid Overtime
BUILT BRANDS: Palacios Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
CALIFORNIA: Underpays Live-In Domestic Workers, Wade Suit Claims
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 28
CAROLINE UNISEX: Faces Benavides Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Santa Rosa Says
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Insight Sues Over Data Security Failure
CITY OF HOPE: Faces Mastro Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CONTINENTAL AG: Aberman et al. Sue Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
CORE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges
CROWN HEIGHTS: Rodriguez & Trujillo Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices
DG PREMIUM BRANDS: Davidson Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Breaches
DOXIMITY INC: Faces Kissler Securities Fraud Suit
DRAFTKINGS INC: Guery Sues Over Deceptive Risk-Free Bet Promo
ENLOE MEDICAL: Lovgreen and Cuneo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
EQUINITI TRUST: Steamfitters Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
FUTURE US: Motiani Alleges Violation of Data Privacy
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Jasperson et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Burgard Sues Over Labor Law Violations
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Faces Chaffin Suit Over Discrimination
JJMB OPERATING: McCarroll Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
LEIDOS INC: Pittman Sues Over Worker Misclassification
LO SEWING: Hernandes et al. Sue Over Illegal Pay Practices
LO SEWING: Hernandes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime
MDL 3047: M.G. v. Meta Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 3080: Krasner v. Eli Lilly Consolidated in Insulin Pricing Row
MDL 3080: Panel Denies Transfer of Hawai'i v. CaremarkPCS
MDL 3083: Six Data Breach Suits v. MoveIt Transferred to D. Mass.
MDL 3089: 4 Suits Consolidated in Decongestant False Labeling Row
MDL 3097: 5 Suits Consolidated in Concrete Additive Antitrust Row
MDL 3098: 31 Suits Consolidated in 23andMe Customer Data Breach Row
MG BUILDING: Faces Alvarez Class Suit Over Time-Shaving Scheme
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Trippett Says
NOMI HEALTH: Dorzie Sues Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
PERION NETWORK: Beisner Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
POINT AUTO: Nunez Sues Over Breach of Vehicle Service Contract
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY: Arroyo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Oxman Sues Over Call Center Agents' Unpaid Wages
RAPHAEL INDUSTRIES: Faces Hernandez Wage & Hour Suit in Wis.
SCHENKER INC: Parties Seek to Correct Class Cert Deadline Errors
SENSIO INC: Brandon Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers
SHORT SQUEEZE: Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial Sought
SHOWS CALI: Calogero Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Reply
SKYONE FEDERAL: Pronos Sues Over Improper Charging of Fees
SMART TORTILLA: Quinayas Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
SPL WISCONSIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacobsen Alleges
TRANS UNION: Saucedo Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Financial Data Collection
UNITED SUGAR: Corbos Deli et al. Sue Over Price Fixing of Sugar
UNITED SUGAR: Sam Restaurants Sues Over Price Conspiracy of Sugar
VEGAN ON THE FLY: Trippett Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
WELLS FARGO: Bishop Sues Over Unlawful Product Enrollment
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jenkins Bros. $23MM Asbestos Verdict Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane to Pay Widow $1.75MM in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Defends 7,000 PI Claims as of Dec. 31
*********
AMERICAN PHOENIX: Charles Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
MONTE CHARLES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN PHOENIX, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00255 (W.D. Wis., April
17, 2024) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act for Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages and all wages due.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
production operator at its facility in Topeka, KS. Plaintiff
alleges that in the last three years, Defendant adopted certain
policies and practices that violate the FLSA and KWPA, including
failure to properly compensate him for all hours worked more than
40 hours per workweek. In particular, Defendant allegedly did not
fully compensate him and other similarly situated production
employees for post-shit work which was integral to their job
duties, says the Plaintiff.
American Phoenix, Inc. is a supplier of rubber compounds located in
Eau Claire, WI. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
ASIAN FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASIAN FOOD, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02968-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, Pinoyny.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy,
ambiguous link texts, the denial of keyboard access for some
interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to
the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Asian Food, Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
ASR GROUP: Madison Sues Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON PIZZA LLC d/b/a ROSATI'S OF MADISON (EAST); and RRG
SCOTTSDALE PIZZA LLC d/b/a ROSATI'S OF SCOTTSDALE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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; CARGILL, INC.;
COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00257 (W.D. Wis., April 18, 2024) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in an unlawful agreement to fix prices for Granulated Sugar
in the United States. The Producing Defendants are among the
largest producers and sellers of Granulated Sugar in the United
States and are direct competitors, especially after United's
acquisition of another competitor, Imperial Sugar Company
("Imperial") in 2023.
Beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, the exact date
being unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired to artificially inflate the price of
Granulated Sugar in the United States. Among the victims of the
conspiracy are commercial indirect purchasers of Granulated Sugar
from the Producing Defendants, including commercial kitchens found
in bakeries, coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants as well as
businesses that use Granulated Sugar to produce products for
resale.
To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, Defendants exchanged
detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information about
Granulated Sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and
demand, says the suit.
ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, refines purchased raw cane sugar
and sugar syrup. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark A. Solheim, Esq.
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON KING LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651)312-6518
Email: sraiter@larsonking.com
- and -
Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
John W. (“Don”) Barrett, Esq.
Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square N
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Email: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two City Place Drive Second Floor
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Cody McCracken, Esq.
Lissa Morgans, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
Email: cmccracken@cuneolaw.com
lmorgans@cuneolaw.com
AST SPACEMOBILE: Klarkowski Seeks Damages for Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACH KLARKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AST SPACEMOBILE, INC., ABEL AVELLAN, and SEAN WALLACE,
Case No. 7:24-cv-00102 (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the federal securities laws.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
SpaceMobile securities between November 14, 2023 and April 1, 2024.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and also failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. When
the truth emerged, the market value of the company's securities
significantly declined, causing substantial losses and damages to
Plaintiff and Class members. The Plaintiff brings a claim against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
AST SpaceMobile, Inc. is a satellite designer and manufacturer
headquartered in Midland, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.co
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
BANQUE DU LIBAN: Najjar Sues Over RICO Act Violations & Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
KARIM P. NAJJAR, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIAD SALAMEH, BANQUE DU LIBAN, BANK OF
BEIRUT, S.A.L., BANQUE LIBANO FRANCAISE, S.A.L., BLOM BANK, S.A.L.,
BYBLOS BANK, S.A.L., FRANSABANK, S.A.L., SOCIETE GENERALE DE BANQUE
AU LIBAN, S.A.L., BDO USA, P.C., DELOITTE, LLP, DELOITTE & TOUCHE,
LLP, and ERNST & YOUNG U.S. LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05043
(D.N.J., April 16, 2024) arises out of business transacted by
Defendants and their many co-conspirators in New Jersey and in the
United States.
Allegedly, Lebanese commercial banks systematically defrauded
American depositors, principally Americans with Lebanese roots, in
New Jersey and in other states as they desperately needed to
obtain, and retain, deposits of sought-after US dollars.
Moreover, Plaintiff Najjar alleges that the Defendants violated the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO
Act) and state common law of conspiracy. Plaintiff also asserts
claims for, among other things, negligence, unjust enrichment,
breach of contract, and common law fraud.
Banque Du Liban is the central bank of Lebanon. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
Monica Miller, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: 202-789-3960
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
daniel@cuneolaw.com
monica@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: 612-339-6900
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
- and -
John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS: Steen Seeks Behavior Analysts' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL STEEN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS SOLUTIONS LLC,
MATT B. POTAK, and AMANDA BURDICK, Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-00960 (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time
Board-Certified Behavior Analyst from January 2022 until April 5,
2024.
Behavior Analysis Solutions LLC is a mental health service provider
in Pinellas Park, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy Longman, II, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN|GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
Email: TLongman@floringray.com
WFlorin@floringray.com
BUILT BRANDS: Palacios Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIO PALACIOS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUILT BRANDS LLC, a Utah limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02234-JCS (N.D. Cal., April
16, 2024) alleges that Defendant's Built Protein Bars are
misbranded and deceptively labeled because they contain far fewer
grams of protein per serving than stated upon their labels.
All flavors of the Built Protein Bars make the same
misrepresentation regarding protein content on the label that they
contain 17 grams of protein when they do not. As a result,
Plaintiff suffered economic injury because he was charged premium
for the Built Protein Bars, says the suit.
Moreover, Plaintiff Palacios asserts claims for unjust enrichment,
breach of express warranty, and for violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Headquartered in American Fork, UT, Built Brands LLC is a Utah
limited liability company that manufactures protein bars. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
CALIFORNIA: Underpays Live-In Domestic Workers, Wade Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUEEN ESTHER WADE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIVIAN D. STOKES, WOMACK C.
STOKES, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV10018 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit rest periods, untimely payment of final wages, and failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a live-in domestic
worker in Altadena, California from October 13, 2022 until February
9, 2024. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C.
21 Miller Alley, Suite 56
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 310-0100
Facsimile: (626) 310-0103
Email: aramsey@advantage-law.com
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROLAND, et al., v.
Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-11586 (D. Mass., Filed July 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Angel
Kelley entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time
to June 28, 2024, to file motion for class certification by Altino
Barros, Frederic Roland, Flavio Lima Herculano, Jailson Pires, Jose
Antonio Ramos Lima.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Cardinal provides transportation and logistics services.[CC]
CAROLINE UNISEX: Faces Benavides Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA BENAVIDES, MARIA DUTA, and JULIO GRANDA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. CAROLINE UNISEX BEAUTY
SPA & BARBER SHOP CORP., MAURO D. ORTIZ and MAURO E. ORTIZ, Case
No. 2:24-cv-02859 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2024) seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief
for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as salon workers and
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek performing their
tasks for Defendants. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs at the required minimum wage rate and did not compensate
them for the workweeks in which they worked over 40 hours. The
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants committed other labor law
violations throughout their employment, including failure to pay
spread of hours and failure to provide wage notices and statements.
Caroline Unisex Beauty Spa & Barbershop is located in Queens
County, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 634-6340
E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Santa Rosa Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANTA ROSA ORTHOPAEDIC MEDICAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, on behalf of
itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC., and OPTUM, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00499 (M.D. Tenn., April 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated healthcare providers stored within Change Healthcare'
systems following a data breach on approximately February 21, 2024.
Following the data breach, the Defendants took Change Healthcare's
systems offline, paralyzing much of the United States healthcare
system and essentially shutting down payment processing. As a
result, the Plaintiff and a class of health care providers have
been left to suffer substantial and ongoing financial harm to their
businesses, says the suit.
Santa Rosa Orthopaedic Medical Group, Incorporated is a medical
services provider with its principal place of business in Santa
Rosa, California.
Change Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare services and support company
with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a health insurance company, with
its principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is a provider of insurance products, with
its principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Optum, Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, with its
principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Murray B. Wells, Esq.
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
81 Monroe Avenue, Suite 200
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 808-0000
Email: wells@thewellsfirm.com
- and -
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
Kevin J. Boutin, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
kboutin@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
Ruston Pritchard, Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
rpritchard@murray-lawfirm.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Insight Sues Over Data Security Failure
----------------------------------------------------------
Insight Renewal Center, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc., UnitedHealth
Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare, Inc., and Optum, Inc, Case
No. 0:24-cv-01381-PJS-DLM (D. Minn., April 17, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of failing to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's private
information.
The Plaintiff, a healthcare provider located in Little Rock,
Arkansas, was among those impacted by a recent data breach
experienced by Defendant Change Healthcare. The data breach,
perpetrated by prominent ransomware group Blackcat, was allegedly
caused by Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices to protect their information
systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. The data
breach resulted in the shutdown of critical healthcare
infrastructure in the United States, affecting the operations of
Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare providers. The
Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
Change Healthcare is a healthcare technology company headquartered
in Nashville, TN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
P.O. Box 25972
Little Rock, AR 72221
Telephone: (501) 247-6267
Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
E-mail: chris@jenningspllc.com
CITY OF HOPE: Faces Mastro Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE and CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 8:24-cv-00848 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices, resulting in a data
breach.
The Plaintiff's personally identifying information and protected
health information was compromised in a data breach experienced by
Defendant that affected approximately 827,000 other individuals.
The data breach was allegedly caused by Defendant's failure to
properly safeguard its patients' highly sensitive information.
Additionally, the Defendant allegedly did not give Plaintiff and
Class members timely, adequate notice of the data breach. The
Defendant's conduct constitutes negligence and/or recklessness and
violates federal and state statutes, Plaintiff claims.
City of Hope is a national cancer treatment center based in Duarte,
CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
11766 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 750
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
CONTINENTAL AG: Aberman et al. Sue Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIE ABERMAN, CHARLES DVORAK, MEGAN OHLRICH, SHARON REIF, PATRICK
SHERLOCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS,
LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S.
HOLDINGS, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE
& RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC;
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES
1-100, Case No. 5:24-cv-02923 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2024) seeks
damages and injunctive relief over Defendants' alleged violations
of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.
The Plaintiffs bring this action over Defendants' alleged
involvement in a price-fixing agreement that allowed them to set
the prices of tires in the United States. The alleged conspiracy
enabled Defendants to implement sudden and dramatic price increases
beginning February 2021 up to the present, causing injury to
Plaintiffs and Class members and all other consumers who purchased
tires from Defendants.
Headquartered in Hannover, Germany, Continental AG is a global
automotive supplier and tire manufacturer. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1140 Sixth Avenue, Ninth Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (602) 230-6324
Facsimile: (602) 230-6360
E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
Sydney Read, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3385
E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
sread@kellerrohrback.com
CORE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR LOPEZ; MARIANNE PERALTA; MARIA GUADALUPE MARINES; and MARIA
ELVIRA MONTOYA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CORE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC; PAUL DAVIS
RESTORATION INC.; COREY A. HOVLAND; and SALVADOR GOVEA, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00355 (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2024)
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a cleaning laborer.
CORE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC is a private equity, real estate and
investments group located in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE, &
HOOGERWOERD PLLC
2745 Ponce de Leon Blvd
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Email: pmh@rgph.law
CROWN HEIGHTS: Rodriguez & Trujillo Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ and ARTURO MEJIA TRUJILLO, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CROWN HEIGHTS
PIZZA LLC (D/B/A CROWN HEIGHTS PIZZA), ALEKSANDR ISAKHAROV (AKA
BRUNO), and JOHN IEZZI JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02848
(E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Trujillo worked at Defendants' pizzeria
and were paid in fixed amount of cash for their wages. However,
Defendants' pay practices resulted in Plaintiffs not receiving
payment for all their hours worked, and resulted in Plaintiffs'
effective rate of pay falling below the required minimum wage rate,
says the suit.
Crown Heights Pizza LLC owns, operates, or controls a pizzeria,
located at 563 Lincoln Pl, Brooklyn,
NY 11238, under the name "Crown Heights Pizza". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
DG PREMIUM BRANDS: Davidson Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON DAVIDSON, on behalf of the State of California v. DG PREMIUM
BRANDS, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09682 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 17, 2024) asserts claims under the Private Attorneys
General Act for Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on October 5, 2023.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants' violations include, among
others, failing to pay overtime compensation, failing to provide
meal and rest periods, and failing to provide accurate and itemized
wage statements.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, DG Premium Brands, LLC is a
private label apparel manufacturer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and -
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (818) 456-6168
Facsimile: (888) 505-0868
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
DOXIMITY INC: Faces Kissler Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------
PETER A. KISSLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DOXIMITY, INC., JEFFREY TANGNEY, and ANNA
BRYSON, Case No. 3:24-cv-02281 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act).
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose to investors material
adverse facts about Doximity's business prospects and the
sustainability of its growth and profitability. When Defendants
finally admitted that the company underperformed and revenue growth
was much weaker than touted, the price of the company's common
stock declined. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered
significant damages due to Defendant's unlawful conduct and now
seeks damages and other relief for Defendant's violation of the
Exchange Act.
Based in San Francisco, CA, Doximity, Inc. operates as an online
networking service for medical professionals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Jonathan Z. Naji, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
jnaji@ktmc.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Guery Sues Over Deceptive Risk-Free Bet Promo
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Guery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02921 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 17, 2024) accuses the Defendant of deceptive business
practices, in violation of the New York General Business Law.
This action arises from Defendant's alleged use of misleading
promotions to lure new users into opening betting accounts. One
such promotion was the "Risk-Free Bet" wherein new customers were
led to believe that their first bet would be risk free. That was
not the case, as new users, including Plaintiff, who availed of the
promotion were still required to bet with their own money and were
only credited with a "Free Bet" that was far less valuable than the
same figure in US dollars. Furthermore, the Free Bets have no cash
value and are non-transferrable and non-refundable. If the customer
loses their initial bet, it is not returned to them. Hence, the
transaction is not risk free as promoted, the Plaintiff alleges.
DraftKings is a gambling and entertainment company based in Boston,
MA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave., 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) -643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street Sixteenth Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-9500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Christopher V. Le, Esq.
Brian Drockton, Esq.
BOIES BATTIN, LLP
4041 University Drive, 5th Floor
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 764-8700
E-mail: cle@boiesbattin.com
bdrockton@boiesbattin.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Laura M. Matson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 South Washington Avenue Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
ENLOE MEDICAL: Lovgreen and Cuneo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN LOVGREN and GINA CUNEO, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24CV00200, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of Butte to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on April 16, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-at-00471 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful employment practices
that violated several provisions of the California Labor Code, the
California Business & Professions Code, and the Fair Employment and
Housing Act.
Enloe Medical Center is a 298-bed independent, non-profit hospital
located in Chico, CA. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq.
Douglas L. Ropel, Esq.
Lauren J. Orozco, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 830-7200
Facsimile: (916) 561-0828
E-mail: bblackburn@littler.com
dropel@littler.com
lorozco@littler.com
EQUINITI TRUST: Steamfitters Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIHAEL H. POLYMEROPOULOS,
RICHARD W. DUGAN, STEPHEN RAY MITCHELL, PHAEDRA CHROUSOS, ANNE
SEMPOWSKI WARD, TAGE HONORE, and EQUINITI TRUST COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants, and VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Nominal Defendant, Case
No. 2024-0416 (Del. Ch., April 22, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duty by adopting the Pill with overbroad definitions of "Beneficial
Ownership" and "Acting in Concert" that was not a proportional
response to any reasonably perceived and legally cognizable threat
to corporate policy and effectiveness. These provisions of the Pill
were adopted with the purpose, and have the effect of, inequitably
entrenching the Defendants and coercing stockholders not to mount
challenges to the Defendants' incumbency. The continued maintenance
of the Pill with these provisions is causing all stockholders
imminent and irreparable harm as it inequitably chills and
potentially even precludes the fair exercise of the Vanda
stockholder's franchise, says the suit.
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund is a pension fund based in
Pennsylvania.
Equiniti Trust Company, LLC is a transfer agent doing business in
Delaware.
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
Email: nweinberger@labaton.com
mwagner@labaton.com
- and -
Domenico Minerva, Esq.
John Vielandi, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
- and -
Joel Fleming, Esq.
Amanda Crawford, Esq.
EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP
101 Arch Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 468-8602
- and -
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
FUTURE US: Motiani Alleges Violation of Data Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
DIGVIJAY MOTIANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURE US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02931 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2024) alleges violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a
website, TechRadar.com (the "Website"). When users visit the
Website, the Defendant causes three Trackers, the TripleLift
Tracker, GumGum Tracker, and Audiencerate Tracker (the "Trackers"),
to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant
then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' IP
addresses.
Because the Trackers capture Website visitors' "routing,
addressing, or signaling information," the Trackers constitute a
"pen register". By installing and using the Trackers without the
Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, the Defendant
violated CIPA, says the suit.
FUTURE US LLC operates as a publishing and broadcasting company.
The Company offers digital, print, endorsement licensing, content
syndication, sales, and distribution services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Jasperson et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL JASPERSON, ALBERT WADDINGTON, and DINA CROCETTOWADDINGTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GREYLOCK MCKINNON ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-11003-DJC (D. Mass., April 16, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable security
and privacy measures to protect Plaintiffs' personally
identifiable information (PII) and personal health information.
On or around April 5-8, 2024, the Plaintiffs each received a breach
notification from Defendant indicating that their PII and PHI was
compromised during the data breach. However, Defendant failed to
contact affected persons about the breach until eleven months after
discovering the breach on May 30, 2023.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, invasion privacy,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of
the California Consumer Records Act, California Unfair Competition
Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, New Jersey Customer Security
Breach Disclosure Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Headquartered in Boston, MA, Greylock McKinnon Associates, Inc.
provides economic analysis and litigation support to a diverse
group of domestic and international clients in the legal
profession, the business community, and government agencies. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: 215-592-1500
Facsimile: 215-592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Burgard Sues Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL BURGARD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-02885 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate
Plaintiff and other similarly situated executive assistants in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected in a common pattern
and practice of denying executive assistants payment for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation. In addition, the Defendant
also unlawfully required Plaintiff and other executive assistants
to work through their unpaid meal breaks, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Armonk, NY, International Business Machines
Corporation is a technology company that provides computer
solutions and offers application, technology consulting and
support, process design and operations, cloud, digital workplace,
and network services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott G. Grubin, Esq.
Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
GRUBIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 23A
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 653-0631
E-mail: sgrubin@grubinlaw.com
ahartzband@grubinlaw.com
- and -
LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Faces Chaffin Suit Over Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN CHAFFIN, JENNIE KIM, LORI SINGER, MICHELLE IRWIN, ROXANNE
SIMS, and DAWN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC, dba THE
COFFEE BEAN & TEA LEAF, Case No. 2:24-cv-03132 (C.D. Cal., April
17, 2024) seeks damages over Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil
Rights Act.
The Plaintiffs are customers of Defendant's coffee shops who suffer
from lactose intolerance and milk allergies. The Plaintiffs ordered
drinks that included milk as part of the regular menu item. Because
of their condition, Plaintiffs requested to substitute milk for
Non-Dairy Alternatives, in particular, oat milk or almond milk. The
Defendant required Plaintiffs to pay a surcharge for the Non-Dairy
Alternatives but did not impose an additional charge for modifying
regular beverage offerings for customers with other disabilities
and health conditions, such as those with diabetes. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant's conduct is in violation of ADA and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and constitutes common law
unjust enrichment.
Based in Los Angeles, CA, International Coffee & Tea, LLC operates
coffee stores in California and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William M. Aron, Esq.
ARON LAW FIRM
15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 217
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-1768
E-mail: bill@aronlawfirm.com
- and -
Bogdan Enica, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C.
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 375
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (305) 306-4989
E-mail: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C.
490 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 1
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Telephone: (630) 677-6745
E-mail: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
JJMB OPERATING: McCarroll Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN MCCARROLL, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JJMB OPERATING LLC d/b/a UNION
MESA a/k/a UNION MESA RESTAURANT & CANTINA, Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-00139-SPS (E.D. Okla., April 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and
unlawful retention.
The Plaintiff worked as a bartender and head bartender at the
Defendant's Union Mesa Restaurant & Cantina located at 777 Casino
Way, Thackerville, Oklahoma from approximately October of 2022 to
approximately January of 2023.
JJMB Operating LLC, doing business as Union Mesa, also known as
Union Mesa Restaurant & Cantina, is a restaurant owner and operator
located in Thackerville, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Burton, Esq.
Michael P. Hill, Esq.
BURTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
308 N.W. 13th, Ste. 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (800) 257-5533
Facsimile: (405) 232-0555
Email: brandon@burtonlaw.com
mike@burtonlaw.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
LEIDOS INC: Pittman Sues Over Worker Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------
MILFORD MAURICE PITTMAN III, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEIDOS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00276 (E.D. Va., April 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other damages from Leidos, Inc. pursuant to the Virginia
Code and Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant Leidos misclassified
Plaintiff Pittman and other employees as independent contractors,
despite Leidos not satisfying the Internal Revenue Service
guidelines for evaluating independent contractor status. In
addition, Leidos uniformly applies its illegal straight time for
overtime pay scheme to Pittman and its other straight time
employees regardless of any individualized differences, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Reston, VA, Leidos provides government support
services and holds contracts for civilian and defense agencies,
including acquisition, delivery, and quantity agreements. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson,Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
LO SEWING: Hernandes et al. Sue Over Illegal Pay Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
RUFINA HERNANDES, REYNA MEZA, JOSE GABRIEL SANGURIMA, MARIA REYES,
and MARIA ZUMBA QUINDE on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LO SEWING, INC., MARIA GALLEGOS, and SELIN
LNU, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02883 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2024),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs work more than 40 hours per week, but are not paid
at a rate of one and a half times their standard rate for all hours
worked above 40. Among other things, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs timely wage payments as required by the NYLL and
supporting Department of Labor Regulations, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek compensatory, liquidated and punitive
damages, unpaid overtime wages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
Headquartered in New York, Lo Sewing, Inc. offers alterations and
redesign services for clothing items. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
- and -
Elissa Devins, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl St 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5000
E-mail: devins@nylag.org
LO SEWING: Hernandes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
RUFINA HERNANDES, REYNA MEZA, JOSE GABRIEL SANGURIMA, MARIA REYES,
and MARIA ZUMBA QUINDE on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. LO SEWING, INC., MARIA GALLEGOS, and SELIN LNU, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02882 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of multiple wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Allegedly, Defendants have consistently failed to pay Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees at the required federal and state
minimum wage, have not paid overtime compensation, and have not
provided wage notices and statements. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief under the FLSA and NYLL.
Lo Sewing, Inc. is a sewing company headquartered in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
- and -
Elissa Devins, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl St 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5000
MDL 3047: M.G. v. Meta Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "M.G. v. Meta
Platforms, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−01861 from the U.s.
District Court for the District of Oregon to the Northern District
of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in "In re: Social Media Adolescent
Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
3047.
As in many actions in the MDL, the M.G. plaintiff alleges she
started using Meta's social media platforms as an adolescent,
experienced problematic use and addiction, and consequently
suffered sleep deprivation, anxiety, depression, self-harm,
suicidal ideation, exploitation and abuse, and sex trafficking. She
alleges individual defendant Mr. Saidstuart contacted her through
Meta's platforms, resulting in her abuse and trafficking.
Plaintiff does not dispute that her action and the actions in MDL
No. 3047 share common factual questions. Instead, in support of her
motion to vacate the transfer, plaintiff argued that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over her action is lacking, and that
her pending motion for remand to state court should be decided
before transfer.
The panel is not persuaded by this argument and held that such
jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to
transfer.
Plaintiff also alleges that transfer would be inconvenient for
plaintiff, her witnesses, and defendant Mr. Saidstuart. "[T]ransfer
of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if
it might inconvenience some parties to that action," rules the
panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3080: Krasner v. Eli Lilly Consolidated in Insulin Pricing Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania Ex Rel Lawrence S. Krasner v. Eli Lilly and
Company, et al.," C.A. No. 2:23−04645, (E.D. Pa.) to the District
of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
Judge Brian R. Martinotti for inclusion in coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: Insulin Pricing
Litigation," MDL No. 3080.
In the panel's order establishing this MDL, it held that
centralization was warranted for actions alleging a "scheme between
insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers to artificially
and fraudulently inflate the price of insulin and other diabetes
medications."
In opposition to transfer, plaintiff principally argues that
inefficiencies would result from having the transferee court
resolve plaintiff's motions for remand to state court because
case-specific and state law issues are involved. But transferee
courts routinely manage remand motions, even when case-specific
issues are involved. Moreover, the Panel has held, including in
this MDL, that a pending motion for remand is not an impediment to
transfer.
Plaintiff also objects to transfer on the ground that its action is
distinctive with respect to the relief sought -- exclusively civil
penalties under state law -- which allegedly will raise unique
legal issues. However, the Panel often has transferred actions
involving allegedly unique factual and legal issues to an MDL based
on a common factual core with the MDL actions. Here, the
Pennsylvania complaint arises from the same alleged "insulin
pricing scheme" as the actions in the MDL and will involve many of
the same factual questions and discovery of the insulin
manufacturers and PBMs, notwithstanding an allegedly unique request
for relief, adds the Panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3080-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3080: Panel Denies Transfer of Hawai'i v. CaremarkPCS
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denied the transfer of the case captioned
"State of Hawai'i, Ex. Rel. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General v.
CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 1:23−00464, (U.S.
District Court for Hawaii) to "In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation,"
MDL No. 3080.
Defendants CaremarkPCS Health, LLC and Optum Rx, Inc. moved for the
transfer of said action while plaintiff opposed the motion.
In the panel's order establishing this MDL, it was stated that
centralization was warranted for actions alleging a "scheme between
insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers to artificially
and fraudulently inflate the price of insulin and other diabetes
medications." It has been observed that the alleged insulin pricing
scheme involves the same participants: "insulin manufacturers Eli
Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC,
and, on the pharmacy side, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Optum Rx,
and their various corporate affiliates” -- as well as the same
central factual allegations concerning the pricing of insulin and
other diabetes medications.
In contrast, the State of Hawai'i action alleges a scheme to
inflate the list price of all "brand-name prescription drugs," a
substantially larger universe of drugs, manufacturers, and business
practices than those at issue in the MDL. Considering the
differences between this action and the MDL, transfer would not
serve the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, rules the
panel.
"Informal coordination of the State of Hawai'i action with the MDL
appears practicable and preferable to transfer," it adds.
"Defendants in State of Hawai'i -- Caremark, Express Scripts, and
Optum Rx -- are defendants in the MDL. They are represented by
overlapping national counsel in both matters, and are
well-positioned to coordinate discovery across the actions.
Additionally, plaintiff State of Hawai'i represents that it is
willing to informally coordinate overlapping discovery with the
governmental plaintiffs in the MDL and already has undertaken
efforts to do so. We encourage the parties to pursue these and
other cooperative efforts to minimize the risk of duplicative
discovery and inconsistent rulings."
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3080-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-24.pdf
MDL 3083: Six Data Breach Suits v. MoveIt Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: MoveIt Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3083, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers 2 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California and one each from the Central District of
California, Southern District of Indiana, District of Kansas, and
Western District of Texas, all to the District of Massachusetts
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Allison D.
Burroughs for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
All actions can be expected to share factual questions arising from
allegations that a vulnerability in Progress Software Company's
"MOVEit Transfer" and "MOVEit Cloud" file transfer services was
exploited by a Russian cybergang in May 2023, which to date is
estimated to have compromised the personally identifying
information (PII) of over 55 million people. On May 31, 2023,
Progress posted a notice on its website stating it had discovered
an SQL injection vulnerability in its MOVEit file transfer services
and a related breach in its network and systems. Plaintiffs are
individuals whose PII was potentially compromised who bring largely
overlapping putative nationwide or statewide class actions on
behalf of persons impacted by the exploitation of the MOVEit
software vulnerability, notes the panel.
"The actions before us arise from the MOVEit data breach and thus
fall within the MDL's ambit," the panel opines. "The parties also
mistakenly assume in their convenience-based arguments that they
will be required to travel to the transferee district, but the
Panel has long held that because "Section 1407 transfer is for
pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the parties
and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for depositions
or otherwise.""
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3083-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3089: 4 Suits Consolidated in Decongestant False Labeling Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In case "In re: Oral Phenylephrine Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation," MDL No. 3089, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers four
actions from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to the Eastern District of New York and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to Judge Brian M. Cogan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. (JJCI), The Procter & Gamble Company, Haleon US
Holdings LLC, and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. moved to transfer the actions
while plaintiffs opposed transfer.
The crux of the four complaints is that the "Maximum Strength"
labeling on defendants' oral phenylephrine nasal decongestant and
pain relief products is false and misleading because the
decongestant ingredient -- phenylephrine -- is not as strong as
other over-the-counter decongestants, such as
pseudoephedrine-containing products, as demonstrated by studies
finding that pseudoephedrine is "superior to" and "far more
effective" than oral phenylephrine. The four complaints further
allege that, as to pain relief, other over-the-counter drugs have
higher acetaminophen dosages.
In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs argue that their amended
complaints focus on the "comparative effectiveness" of oral
phenylephrine in treating nasal decongestion symptoms, which they
assert is not at issue in the MDL. They attempt to draw a
distinction between "comparative effectiveness" (i.e., a drug's
performance compared to other treatment options) and "efficacy,"
i.e., "a drug's performance under ideal and controlled
circumstances," and assert their actions fall on one side and the
MDL actions on the other.
"But this distinction is illusory given that comparative
effectiveness includes not working at all, which is the central
allegation in the MDL actions," rules the panel. Indeed, the
amended complaints continue to rely on scientific analyses about
the effectiveness of oral phenylephrine which are cited in the
actions in the MDL. Thus, transfer will facilitate the efficient
conduct of overlapping pretrial proceedings given the shared
factual questions about the use of oral phenylephrine to relieve
nasal congestion, the panel opines.
Moreover, at least one action asserting a "Maximum Strength" false
labeling claim is now pending in the MDL, on behalf of a nationwide
class of consumers that substantially overlaps with the proposed
classes of Sudafed PE and Vicks Nyquil and Dayquil consumers in two
of the Maximum Strength Actions. Indeed, the proposed nationwide
classes of consumers in all four Maximum Strength Actions are
subsumed by the proposed classes in the MDL. Transfer will
streamline proceedings on class certification and avoid
inconsistent pretrial rulings, adds the panel.
Plaintiffs' objections to transfer based on their allegedly
different damages model also is unpersuasive. The Panel generally
has transferred actions even if the type of relief sought or
specific damages model differs from the actions in an MDL, the
panel rules.
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3089-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3097: 5 Suits Consolidated in Concrete Additive Antitrust Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: Concrete and Cement Additives Antitrust Litigation," MDL
No. 3097, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers four cases from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
one case from the Southern District of New York, all to the
Southern District of New York and assigning them to Judge Lewis J.
Liman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Said actions share common questions of fact arising from an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy among suppliers of concrete and cement
additives (CCA) which are added to concrete, cement, and mortar
before or during the aggregate's mixing with water in order to give
the finished product certain qualities, such as reducing the amount
of water needed for the aggregate to set, reducing (or increasing)
set time, reducing shrinkage, stabilizing or preventing cracking,
and inhibiting corrosion. All actions propose overlapping putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers of CCAs.
According to the panel, centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, which will be international in scope; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly as to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. The Southern District of New York
presented a convenient and accessible venue for this nationwide
litigation, and it is geographically central to the involved
domestic and international parties. In addition, relevant documents
and witnesses could be found in or near the Southern District of
New York.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3097-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3098: 31 Suits Consolidated in 23andMe Customer Data Breach Row
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In "In re: 23andMe, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation," MDL No. 3098, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers 29
cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and one case each from the Central District of
California and the Northern District of Illinois, all to the
Northern District of California and assigning them to Judge Edward
M. Chen for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Said actions share common questions of fact arising from
allegations that 23andMe failed to take adequate measures to
prevent and mitigate the consequences of a 2023 data security
breach that compromised the personally identifiable and genetic
information of some seven million 23andMe customers. Plaintiffs
seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class
actions of 23andMe customers, and assert virtually identical claims
for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violation of state consumer protection and privacy laws.
Discovery in all actions will focus on how 23andMe's system was
breached, how and when the breach was identified, what security
measures 23andMe had in place, and what steps were taken after the
data breach was discovered. Hence, centralization will avoid the
possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with
respect to class certification, ruled the panel.
The panel further held that the Northern District of California is
an appropriate transferee district for this litigation as most of
the involved actions are pending in the district. 23andMe is also
headquartered there, and much of the relevant evidence likely will
be located there, adds the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3098-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MG BUILDING: Faces Alvarez Class Suit Over Time-Shaving Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY ALVAREZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. MG BUILDING MATERIALS, LTD, Case No. 5:24-cv-00400
(W.D. Tex., April 17, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee at its San Antonio location. Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week but was not properly compensated for
all overtime hours worked due to Defendant's alleged time-shaving
scheme. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly and
willfully conducted the practice to reduce the overtime hours of
its hourly employees. Plaintiff seeks damages over Defendant's
failure to pay overtime compensation under the FLSA.
MG Building Materials, LTD is a building materials dealer located
in San Antonio, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Trippett Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02973-DG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
Microcenter.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order,
ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning,
unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of appropriate
alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links
where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Micro Electronics, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
NOMI HEALTH: Dorzie Sues Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
DENISE DORZIE, for herself and others similarly situated v. NOMI
HEALTH, INC., SBP STAFFING AND RECRUITING LLC, SB PORT VENTURES
LLC, and TRIXIE BELO-OSAGIE, Case No. 1:24-cv-21438 (S.D. Fla.,
April 17, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff is a Registered Nurse who was employed by Defendants
as an hourly, non-exempt employee. She worked for Defendants from
approximately March 2021 to May 2022, performing COVID-19 testing
and vaccination at various sites throughout Florida. The Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours per
week to perform their duties as directed by Defendants. They were
entitled to receive overtime wages under the FLSA but were
allegedly not paid at time and one-half their regular hourly rate
of pay, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Orem, UT, Nomi Health, Inc. provides healthcare
testing and treatment services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
PERION NETWORK: Beisner Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG BEISNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERION NETWORK LTD., DORON GERSTEL, TAL
JACOBSON, and MAOZ SIGRON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02860
(S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2024), accuses the Defendants of violating
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.
The securities fraud class action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Perion common
stock during the period from February 9, 2021 through April 5,
2024, inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material facts, including that: (1) Perion's search advertising
business was not a reliable and significant growth driver and was
in fact in decline; (2) Perion's long-term relationship with
Microsoft and search services agreement would not provide stability
for Perion's search advertising business; (3) there was an
increased risk of Microsoft acting to unilaterally change its
advertising pricing and mechanisms to the detriment of Perion while
the search services; and(4) Perion's AI technology and Microsoft's
investment in ChatGPT would not protect or grow Perion's search
advertising revenue. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class Members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Headquartered in Holon, Israel, Perion is a global technology
company that provides digital advertising solutions to brands,
agencies, and publishers in North America, Europe, and
internationally. Its stock trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker
symbol "PERI." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Sarah E. Delaney, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
sarah@blockleviton.com
POINT AUTO: Nunez Sues Over Breach of Vehicle Service Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY LOPEZ NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POINT AUTO SALES, INC. and A.U.L.
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2477-CV-00379 (Mass. Super., Ct., April
22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Massachusetts Law, declaratory judgment, permanent injunction,
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with
provisions of motor vehicle service contract (VSC) with customers
including the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, Point Auto
Sales conspired with A.U.L. Corp., SecureOne, and Westlake to sell
the SecureOne VSC coverage knowing that it would not provide the
coverage Point had represented to its customers. Point knew
Westlake, SecureOne and A.U.L. would not honor its representations
of the coverage of the VSC but still sold VSCs to several
customers, including the Plaintiff. Point is further required to
provide a detailed repair receipt pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws but
failed to do so. Moreover, Point failed to provide written warranty
information and failed to make the needed repairs within three
attempts. As a result of the Defendants' malpractices, the
Plaintiff and the Class suffered significant damages, says the
suit.
Point Auto Sales, Inc. is a used car dealer in Lynn,
Massachusetts.
A.U.L. Corp. is an insurance agency in Napa, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq.
Walter H. Jacobs, Esq.
W. JACOBS AND ASSOCIATES AT LAW, L.L.C.
795 Turnpike Road
North Andover, MA 01845
Telephone: (978) 688-0900
Email: ajacobslaw@gmail.com
wjacobslaw@gmail.com
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY: Arroyo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA ARROYO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE QUALITY CARE, INC., and PROGRESSIVE NORTH
RIDGEVILLE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00693 (N.D. Ohio, April 17,
2024), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio's labor laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee,
frequently working more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants
allegedly failed to properly pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees for all overtime hours worked due to Defendants' practice
of miscalculating employees' regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff
brings claims for violations of the FLSA, Ohio's overtime
compensation statute, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
Based in Ohio, Progressive Quality Care, Inc. provides long-term
care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
Kathleen R. Harris, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
4106 Bridge Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 285-9991
Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Oxman Sues Over Call Center Agents' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA OXMAN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05395 (D.N.J., April 22, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida
Constitution including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a call center agent from
approximately November 2021 until January 2023.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a provider of diagnostic
information services, headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
RAPHAEL INDUSTRIES: Faces Hernandez Wage & Hour Suit in Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RAPHAEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 24-cv-459 (E.D.
Wis., April 17, 2024) seeks relief for Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former hourly-paid non-exempt
employees of Defendants who were allegedly not properly compensated
for all hours worked, including overtime, due to Defendant's
unlawful compensation system. According to Plaintiff, Defendant
willfully engaged in time shaving to underpay its hourly
employees.
Based in West Allis, WI, Raphael Industries, Inc. provides metal
coating services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
SCHENKER INC: Parties Seek to Correct Class Cert Deadline Errors
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC M. WICKHAM, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. SCHENKER, INC., a New
York company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:23-cv-00946-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order correcting the deadlines related to the Motion for Class
Certification to be consistent with the prior Stipulation submitted
on Feb. 23, 2024.
The Parties erroneously calculated the dates for the deadlines to
file Opposition and Reply to Motion for Class Certification as
follows:
Erroneous Corrected
Submitted Dates:
Dates:
Last day to file Opposition May 31, 2024 (60 June 21, 2024
–
to Motion for Class days after actual 60
days
Certification filing of Motion after filing
of
for Class Motion for
Class
Certification)
Certification
Last day to file Reply to July 15, 2024 Aug. 5, 2024
–
Motion for Class (45 days after actual 45
days
Certification filing of after filing
of
Opposition to Opposition to
Motion for Class Motion for
Certification) Class
Certification
The Plaintiff filed the Motion for Classification on April 23,
2024,
consistent with the Stipulation and Order .
Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pQ1mTP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
Jamie Y. Lee, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone (213) 443-4300
Facsimile (213) 443-4299
E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
jylee@littler.com
SENSIO INC: Brandon Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers
--------------------------------------------------------
DELANA BRANDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SENSIO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02859 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2024) seeks to remedy the unjust
business practices of Defendant with respect to the marketing and
sales of its Sensio Pressure Cookers.
Allegedly, these pressure cookers have a dangerously defective
lid-locking assembly, which allows a pressure cooker's lid to open
while the cooker's contents are still under pressure. The defect
can cause the super-heated contents to erupt from the cooker (in
violation of UL Standard for Safety for Pressure Cookers, UL 136)
and to scald consumers with second- and third-degree burns
Headquartered in New York County, New York, Sensio Inc. designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and
leases pressure cookers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
SHORT SQUEEZE: Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) reconsidering its November 13, 2023, Order denying class
certification, based upon a change of law;
(2) certifying the following class:
"All persons or entities who held common stock in AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc. ("AMC"), Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
("BBBY"), BlackBerry Ltd. ("BB"), Express Inc. ("EXPR"),
GameStop Corp. ("GME"), Koss Corp. ("KOSS"), Tootsie Roll
Industries Inc. ("TR"), or American Depositary Shares of
foreign-issuers Nokia Corp. ("NOK") and trivago N.V.
("TRVG")
(collectively "the Affected Stocks") as of the close of
trading
on Jan. 27, 2021, and sold any such shares between Jan. 28,
2021, and Feb. 4, 2021."
Excluded from the class are those who suffered no damages,
the
Defendants, the officers and directors of the Defendants,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity
in
which the Defendants or any excluded persons have or had a
controlling interest;
(3) appointing Abraham Huacuja, Ava Bernard, Blue
Laine-Beveridge,
Brendan Clarke, Brian Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Doi Nguyen,
Joseph Gurney, Marcel Poirier, Sandy Ng, Santiago Gil
Bohorquez, and Thomas Cash as Class Representatives; and
(4) appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qB87yh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq.
Michael A. Cohen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
SHOWS CALI: Calogero Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRIS CALOGERO, et al., v.
SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06709-BWA-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
an extension of time, to May 6, 2024, to reply to the Defendants'
anticipated opposition to the Plaintiffs' pending renewed motion
for class certification.
The submission date for the motion is May 2, 2024. By order dated
April 24, 2024, this Court granted the Defendants until May 1st to
file an opposition. Normally under Local Rule 7.5, the Plaintiffs
would have at least six days, until two days before the submission
date, to file their reply; but because the submission date is only
one day after the Defendants' brief falls due, that schedule cannot
be met.
The Plaintiffs request a shortened period, until May 6, 2024, to
file their reply. Undersigned counsel contacted Defense Counsel
David Daly, who has no opposition to this motion.
Shows is a company that operates in the legal services industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s4t7Mr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Margaret E. Woodward, Esq.
1229 N. Tonti Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 301-4333
Facsimile: (504) 301-4365
E-mail: mewno@aol.com
- and -
Jennifer C. Deasy, Esq.
JENNIFER C. DEASY, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1500
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 582-2300
Facsimile: (504) 582-2310
E-mail: jd@jenniferdeasy.com
- and -
Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
LAFLEUR & LABORDE, LLC
612 Andrew Higgins Blvd., Suite 3001
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 356-9056
Facsimile: (800) 983-3565
E-mail: keren@lalalawfirm.com
- and -
O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
300 N. State Street, Suite 5320
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (708) 774-4022
E-mail: randbragg1@gmail.com
SKYONE FEDERAL: Pronos Sues Over Improper Charging of Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE R. PRONOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case 2:24-cv-03211 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant improperly charges and collects "Returned Items
Unpaid" fees.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by charging the
Returned Items Unpaid fees, the Defendant unfairly targeted its
members with financial penalties for faulty checks the members had
no hand in issuing. There was nothing Plaintiff could do to avoid
-- or even anticipate -- a Returned Items Unpaid fee assessed by
SkyOne at the time the deposit was returned.
By charging its members significant fees in situations where the
customer did nothing wrong and could not have avoided the fee
through reasonable diligence, SkyOne acted in a manner that is
unfair, oppressive, and against public policy, says the suit.
SKYONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is an American credit union that focus
on employees working in the aeronautics and space sector and their
relatives. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
700 S. Flower St., Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
SMART TORTILLA: Quinayas Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------
GINNA QUINAYAS, Plaintiff, v. SMART TORTILLA LLC (DBA SMART
TORTILLA - SER VALIENTE, and CARLOS IVAN REYES, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02823 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2024),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New
York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
Plaintiff Quinayas was employed by Defendants from approximately
March 2022 until September 2023 and she was assigned a variety of
tasks including cleaning and maintenance at the Defendant company's
facilities. In addition, she worked as a saleswoman in a mobile
unit located on public roads, actively offering and marketing the
products and services of the Defendants company to potential
customers, often working extended hours. However, Defendants failed
to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at a rate of one and
one-half times the regular rate for work performed in excess of 40
hours per work week. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, liquidated damages, spread of hours pay, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the FLSA and NYLL.
Based in Lawrence, NY, Smart Tortilla manufactures specialty
products including tortillas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
www.StillmanLegalPC.com
SPL WISCONSIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacobsen Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
GERI JACOBSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPL WISCONSIN, LLC; SV NORTH, LLC; SV SOUTH,
LLC; and PARTNERS IN COMMUNITY ELDERCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00461-WCG (E.D. Wis., April 18, 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 Jacobsen was employed by the Defendants as a resident
assistant.
SPL WISCONSIN, LLC provides nursing and/or health-related care to
patients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
TRANS UNION: Saucedo Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04891-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to continue the class
certification deadline until the Court rules on Plaintiff's
forthcoming motion to narrow the class definition.
The Plaintiff will file that motion in the next few days.
This case involves Defendant, Trans Union LLC's ("TU's"), failure
to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), with regard to accuracy of the information reported and
to perform a reasonable investigation with respect to consumer
disputes.
The Plaintiff was the victim of a Flagstar Bank data breach in
2021. As a result of the data breach, fraudsters obtained a $31,081
loan with Lending Point using the Plaintiff's stolen information.
The class would be limited to those whose experience with TU was
the same as Plaintiff's.
Here are the classes currently alleged:
-- Nationwide Class
"All individuals residing in the United States (1) who, during
the applicable limitations period, opened disputes with
Defendant
which Defendant failed to investigate and (2) whom Defendant
informed that the disputed credit reporting item was accurate
and
no further investigation would be undertaken."
-- Nationwide Subclass
"All individuals residing in the United States (1) who, during
the applicable limitations period, opened disputes with
Defendant
which Defendant failed to investigate, (2) whom Defendant
informed
that the disputed credit reporting item was accurate and no
further investigation would be undertaken, and (3) whose credit
reports, with the disputed credit reporting item, were
published
to third parties."
-- California Class
"All individuals residing in the State of California (1) who,
during the applicable limitations period, opened disputes with
Defendant which Defendant failed to investigate and (2) whom
Defendant informed that the disputed credit reporting item was
accurate and no further investigation would be undertaken."
-- California Subclass
"All individuals residing in the State of California (1) who,
during the applicable limitations period, opened disputes with
Defendant which Defendant failed to investigate, (2) whom
Defendant informed that the disputed credit reporting item was
accurate and no further investigation would be undertaken, and
(3)
whose credit reports, with the disputed credit reporting item,
were published to third parties."
Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DtDkLM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 846-3862
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Dan Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: stanm@TheMMLawFirm.com
hectorm@TheMMLawFirm.com
dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Financial Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVIDSON, & JOHN RESTIVO, & NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY
RESEARCH, Plaintiffs v. GARY GENSLER, in His Official Capacity as
Chairman, U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, & U.S.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION & CONSOLIDATED AUDIT TRAIL, LLC,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00197 (W.D. Tex., April 16, 2024) is a class
action challenging the Defendants' unprecedented scheme to
unilaterally set in motion one of the greatest government mandated
mass collections of personal financial data in United States
history: the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).
Without any statutory authority, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) adopted a regulation, Rule 613, that forces
brokers, exchanges, clearing agencies, and alternative trading
system to capture data on every investor's trades, from inception
to completion. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that SEC entirely lacks
the authority, history, or special oversight structure that permits
it to engage in the seizure and surveillance of private
information, says the suit.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, SEC is an independent federal
agency that sets and enforces the rules that govern the securities
markets and its participants in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark D. Siegmund, Esq.
CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PLLC
400 Austin Avenue Suite 903
Waco, TX 76701
Telephone: (254) 732-2242
E-mail: MSiegmund@CJSLAW.com
- and -
Margaret A. Little, Esq.
Andrew J. Morris, Esq.
Margot J. Cleveland, Esq.
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 869-5210
E-mail: peggy.little@ncla.legal
andrew.morris@ncla.legal
margot.cleveland@ncla.legal
UNITED SUGAR: Corbos Deli et al. Sue Over Price Fixing of Sugar
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORBOS DELI SOUTHSIDE, LLC; and CORBO CORNER DELI, WEST LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION, AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., AND RICHARD WISTISEN,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01370 (D. Minn., April 16, 2024),
arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 16 of the
Clayton Act, as well as the antitrust, unfair competition, and
consumer protection laws of various states.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their co-conspirators
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices for granulated sugar sold throughout the United States. As a
result of Defendants' conduct, granulated sugar prices in the
United States have been artificially inflated throughout the class
period, causing Plaintiffs and other commercial, industrial, and
institutional indirect purchasers to suffer overcharges.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
Headquartered in Edina, MN, United Sugar Producers manufactures and
sells granulated sugar primarily under the brand name Crystal
Sugar. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
- and -
Brian Murray, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Gregory Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Michele Carino, Esq.
GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOC.
881 Lake Ave.
Greenwich, CT 06831
Telephone: (203) 622-6001
E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com
UNITED SUGAR: Sam Restaurants Sues Over Price Conspiracy of Sugar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAM RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a CAROLINA'S DINER, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SUGAR
PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION,
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
DOMINO FOODS, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY, AND COMMODITY
INFORMATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00326 (M.D.N.C.,
April 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize prices for granulated sugar sold throughout the United
States and asserts claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act,
and consumer protection laws.
In furtherance of the said conspiracy, among other things, the
Defendants engaged in price signaling and exchanged competitively
sensitive information about prices, capacity, sales volume, and
demand. As a result of Defendants' combination and conspiracy,
granulated sugar prices in the United States have been artificially
inflated throughout the Class period, causing Plaintiff and other
commercial, industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to
suffer overcharges, says the suit.
Based in Edina, MN, United Sugar Producers manufactures and sells
granulated sugar primarily under the brand name "Crystal Sugar."
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq.
TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
400 Bellemeade Street, Suite 800
P.O. Box 2888 - 27402
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 271-5246
Facsimile: (336) 274-6590
E-mail: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, P.C.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 854-4060
MJR Direct: (215) 704-2524
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: mreuben@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
VEGAN ON THE FLY: Trippett Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VEGAN ON THE FLY, CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02976 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, Veganontf.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccessible contact information,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, lack of descriptive alt-text on graphics, the
denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Vegan On The Fly, Corp. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
WELLS FARGO: Bishop Sues Over Unlawful Product Enrollment
---------------------------------------------------------
TERRY BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02269-RFL (N.D. Ohio, April 16,
2024) alleges violations of laws, including the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, state unfair and deceptive trade practices laws,
common law conversion, and unjust enrichment.
Allegedly, Wells Fargo unlawfully converted, transferred, and
obtained fees, interest, penalties, and other benefits from its
unauthorized enrollment of Plaintiff and Class members in its
various products and services, including Sign/Drive Bonus, Health
Protector Bonus, or Home Warranty products. Accordingly, Plaintiff,
through this litigation, seeks to obtain a true and accurate
accounting of Wells Fargo's unlawful activities and the money it
extracted from customers or otherwise obtained at their expense to
make them whole.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo & Company is a
financial services company that provides banking, insurance,
investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance through
more than 5,200 branches, 13,000 ATMs, and the Internet. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANNLAW, ESQ.
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether
and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting
in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IwLTfU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jenkins Bros. $23MM Asbestos Verdict Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for mesothelioma.net, reports that
earlier this year, a New York jury awarded an 81-year-old
mesothelioma victim $13 million for past pain and suffering and $10
million for future pain and suffering after hearing evidence of
negligence on the part of valve manufacturer Jenkins Brothers.
Though the company appealed the verdict and award, the Supreme
Court of New York's Appellate Division affirmed the jury's decision
and allowed the verdict to stand.
The original mesothelioma lawsuit was filed by James McWilliams, a
career union steamfitter who installed and removed flange gaskets,
valve flange gaskets, and valves from 1960 to 1996. He blamed his
pleural mesothelioma on exposure to asbestos in those parts, many
of which were made by Jenkins Brothers and that the company had
known of the dangers of the material yet failed to discontinue its
use or issue any warnings to those who came into contact with
them.
After the jury awarded the mesothelioma victim $23 million in
damages, the company sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict,
a new trial, or a reduction of the verdict. In its review of the
case, the Appellate Division's First Department refused the
company's request for several reasons. They said that the victim
had met his burden to establish asbestos exposure, that the trial
court had appropriately exercised discretion regarding evidence,
and that the company had failed to preserve its challenge to the
jury's verdict.
The justices of the appellate division noted the company's
complaints about comments that were made by the mesothelioma
victim's counsel but said that "any improprieties in the summation
were not so egregious or pervasive as to warrant reversal, in light
of the strength of plaintiff's case. For all of those reasons, they
concluded that the trial court had been correct in its decisions
about the jury's award, that the verdict did not "deviate
materially from what would be reasonable compensation," and should
be allowed to stand.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane to Pay Widow $1.75MM in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for mesothelioma.net, reports that
following a one-week trial heard in a Spartanburg, South Carolina,
courtroom, a jury has awarded mesothelioma widow Melba Bolton a
total of $1.75 million in compensation following the death of her
husband, Curtis. Mrs. Bolton successfully accused John Crane, Inc.
of negligence in his death from the asbestos-related disease.
The widow had accused John Crane, Inc. of negligence in the June
2022 mesothelioma death of her husband. She specifically pointed to
his exposure to John Crane, Inc. gaskets during the years that he
worked as a maintenance worker at the Celanese fiber plant in
Spartanburg between 1971 and 1977.
John Crane, Inc. is frequently named as a defendant in mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related disease lawsuits. Despite its knowledge
of asbestos' dangers, the company continued to manufacture many of
its products with the carcinogenic material. Though the company
argued that the man's fatal illness had been caused by other
asbestos-contaminated products he was exposed to within his work
environment, the jury discounted that theory.
The mesothelioma widow had asked the jury to consider several
charges against the asbestos manufacturer: she accused them of
negligence as well as of strict liability and breach of implied
warranty. Though they agreed with her that they had been negligent,
they did not provide an award for strict liability or breach of
implied warranty. They also found that the company had not engaged
in willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, which eliminated the
possibility of her receiving punitive damages.
The final resolution of the case saw Mrs. Bolton receiving $608,783
on survival claims, $532,433 for Mr. Bolton's wrongful death from
mesothelioma, and $608,783 for her loss of consortium.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Defends 7,000 PI Claims as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp.'s certain subsidiaries and
numerous other unrelated companies, as of December 31, 2022, were
defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 7,000 claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Plaintiffs' claims alleged personal injuries
caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers
formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn Elkay's subsidiaries.
Those subsidiaries did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos
components. Instead, they were purchased from suppliers. These
claims were handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by
insurers.
"In prior years, the asbestos liability was developed based on
actuarial studies and represented the projected indemnity payout
for current and future claims. There were inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As of December 31, 2022, the estimated
potential liability for the asbestos-related claims described
above, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten
years, was approximately $79.0 million which was recorded in the
reserve for asbestos claims within the consolidated balance
sheets.
"In prior years, the Company also recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers, which corresponded to the amount of this
potential asbestos liability that was covered by available
insurance and was determined to be probable of recovery. However,
there was no assurance the Company's insurance coverage would
ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability would not
ultimately exceed the coverage limits. Factors that could cause a
decrease in the amount of available coverage or create gaps in
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes and settlements with the carriers regarding the scope of
coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's
carriers. As of December 31, 2022, management estimated that the
available insurance to cover the ten-year estimated potential
asbestos-related liabilities was $72.1 million. During the year
ended December 31, 2022, the Company recorded $6.9 million for the
amount that the estimated potential liability exceeded a gap in the
Company's estimated available insurance coverage. This expense was
recorded in other income (expense), net within the consolidated
statements of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=woZp2Z
*********
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 ***