/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240513.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 13, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 96
Headlines
10 ROADS EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Removed to N.D. California
49TH STREET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ABM GENERAL: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California
ADVARRA INC: Sued Over Failure to Secure Sensitive Information
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Filing of Bid to Amend Complaint Due May 25
ALLY FINANCIAL: Mahoney Sues Over Unlawful Eavesdropping
AMAZON PRIME: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 9, 2025
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Rizvanovic Suit
AMROCK LLC: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Sept. 28
APPLE INC: Crucco Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopolization
ARC REALTY: 1925 Hooper Sues Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Dismissal of Javelin Suit Under Appeal
ASCENDTEK LLC: Morris Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Marek Sues Over Illegal Price Fixing
AT&T INC: McGee and Eisen et al. Sue over Unprotected Private Info
AT&T MOBILITY: Sued Over Failure to Secure Personal Information
AUTO CLUB: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Barkel-Williams
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Coan Securities Class Suit
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend KL Kamholz Class Suit
BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Trust Suit
BRADFORD-SCOTT DATA: Webster Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
CAMPBELL SOUP: Squeo False Ad Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
CAPITAL ONE: June Hearing on Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Set
CARMAX INC: Arbitration in Bendure Suit Set for July 23
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Intervene in MacClelland Suit Denied
CHABAD OF PORT: Faces Gonzalez and Tinocco Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: Suit Seek to Supplement Declarations
CINEMARK USA: Waldrop Sues Over Deceptive 24-Ounce Cups
CLARK COUNTY, IL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Herrera Suit Alleges
CLEAN HARBORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fogg Due June 21
COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Bayer Suit Moved to Ohio Court of Common Pleas
CONSUMER CREDIT: Pinn Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Padro Alleges
CORTEVA INC: Seeks to Sever Newton in Cockerill Suit
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Harrison Suit Seeks to Certify ERISA Class
GILEAD SCIENCES: Myers Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
GOOGLE RTB: Filing of Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due Sept. 13
GREATPLAINS FINANCE: Loses Bid for Reconsideration in Ransom Suit
GUAMA II: Commercial Property Discriminates Blind, Pardo Alleges
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Baque Sues Over Improper Sales Tactics
ILLINOIS: 7th Circuit Affirms in Part Judgment in Montoya v. IDOC
INTEL CORP: Faces Quille Suit Over 9.2% Stock Price Drop
KANSAS, MO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
KING.COM LTD: Court Grants Bids for Arbitration in Montoya Suit
MACY'S RETAIL: Sykes Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
MDL 3004: Fortenberry Suit Consolidated in Paraquat Liability Row
MDL 3044: Porta Suit Consolidated in Exactech Product Liability Row
MDL 3076: Lahav Consolidated in FTX Cryptocurrency Collapse Row
MDL 3076: Panel Denies Transfer of Onusz Suit to S.D. Fla.
ME RESTAURANT: Faces Figueroa Suit Over Illegal Pay Practices
MENASHA PACKAGING: Faces Logan Suit Over Biometric Info Collection
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2025
MISAHARA JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Alleges
NONSTOP ADMIN: Court Extends Case Management Deadlines
NORTHEAST WORK: Fact Discovery in Obermeier Due Nov. 15
OREGON: Wyatt B.'s Bid to Modify Protective Order Granted in Part
PATHWAY MANAGEMENT: Dukes et al. Sue Over Biometric Data Collection
PITTSBURGH REGIONAL: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by May 20
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 9th Cir. Affirms Arbitration in Charles Suit
PRECISION TUNE AUTO: Maves Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
PREMIER SHOP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley ADA Suit Alleges
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Seal Exhibit OK'd in Ambrosio Suit
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY: Dorn Sues Over Lack of Breaks & Unpaid OT
PROLIANCE SURGEONS: Hill Sues Over Undisclosed Wage Scale
RICOLA USA: Cowit & Rhoades Sue Over Deceptive Sale of Cough Drops
RLI CORP: Lakatos Insurance Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Suit Seeks Class Certification
ROSEBUD MINING: Chapaloney Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches
SALEM HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 28, 2025
SAN MARIA PIZZA: Anasco Sues Over Multiple Labor Law Violations
SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT: Dykstra Sues Over Unlawful Covenants
SOUTHSTAR BANK: Faces Connelly Suit Over Private Data Breach
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial Sought
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Scheduling Order Entered in Barot Class Suit
STONECO LTD: Continues to Defend Ray Securities Class Suit
TEMPUR SEALY: Anyasulu and Zhuravel Sue Over Misleading Sale on Web
TEN BRIDGES: Bids to Amend Judgment in Taie Suit Granted in Part
THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIV: Vincent Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
TRUEACCORD CORP: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
TWITTER INC: Bid to Dismiss Zeman's 1st Amended Complaint Denied
UNIBARNS TRADING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 5
UNION COLLEGE: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
UNION PACIFIC CORP: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Documents
UNITED SERVICES: Capps Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
VIA RENEWABLES: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Feb. 27, 2025
VISA INC: MWSI Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Conditional Transfer Order
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bolyard Sues Over Acne Treatment's False Ads
WATERS CORP: Bid to Dismiss Daggett's Amended Complaint Denied
WATSON REALTY: 1925 Hooper et al. Allege Sherman Act Violations
WELLNESS CARE: Franco Sues Over Nonpayment of Proper Wages
WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Consumidores Class Suit
YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT: Morrison Balks at Disclosure of Personal Info
*********
10 ROADS EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Jr. Dominguez, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 10 ROADS EXPRESS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; STEVEN BAILEY, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV063043 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 23, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 4:24-cv-02409.
The Complaint alleges 10 underlying violations of the California
Labor Code: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Periods;
Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to
Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code;
and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Raymond A. Greene, III, Esq.
BURNHAM BROWN
A Professional Law Corporation
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 105
Walnut Creek, CA 94598-2537
Email: rgreene@burnhambrown.com
49TH STREET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO FLORES MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 49TH STREET PIZZA CORP. and RAYMANGANO 7TH
AVE. PIZZA CORP. d/b/a FAMOUS ORIGINAL RAY’S PIZZA and TONY
MANGANO and ROSOLINO MANGANO, as individuals, Case No.
1:24-cv-03450 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for
failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 52 hours per week.
However, the Plaintiff was paid by the Defendants a flat hourly
rate of $10.50 per hour for all hours worked from August 2022 until
December 2023, the suit asserts.
As a result of the violations, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person, dishwasher, and
stocker while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants, from August 2022 until December 2023.
49TH Street Pizza is a family-owned pizzeria and restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
ABM GENERAL: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luis Castro, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ABM GENERAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05110
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-03336.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Failure
to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and
Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at
Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Failure to Produce
Requested Employment Records; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Omar M. Aniff, Esq
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
omar.aniff@ogletree.com
ADVARRA INC: Sued Over Failure to Secure Sensitive Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oren Dowdy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ADVARRA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01306-GLR (D. Md., May 3, 2024),
is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive "personally
identifiable information" or "PII--which they entrusted to
Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect
it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach. Advarra collected and maintained
certain personally identifiable information and protected
information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are
(or were) customers at Defendant.
The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber
criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who
target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack.
The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless
manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by
Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon
information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and
potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on
notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from
those risks left that property in a dangerous condition.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps
to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach.
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant
collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data
thieves, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers at
Defendant.
The Defendant is one of the largest clinical research companies in
the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: tpacheco@milberg.com
- and -
William "Billy" Peerce Howard*
Amanda J. Allen
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Truist Place
Tampa, FL. 33602
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALIGN
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's
administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5,
to partially file under seal the following:
-- Portions of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for
class
certification and opposition to Daubert motion to preclude
expert
testimony;
-- Expert Report of Narasimha Mummalaneni, Ph.D. (January 5,
2024);
and
-- Exhibits 44-46 to the Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support
of
the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class
certification
and opposition to Daubert Motion to preclude expert testimony.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PUtiPM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Theodore Wojcik, Esq.
Joseph M. Kingerski, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tedw@hbsslaw.com
joeyk@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.com
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Filing of Bid to Amend Complaint Due May 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal quarterly ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2024 that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York gives
plaintiffs 30 days to file their motion for leave to amend their
complaint or appeal the decision of the Court.
On December 14, 2022, four individual participants in the Profit
Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein L.P., (the "Plan")
filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
against AB, current and former members of the Compensation and
Workplace Practices Committee of the Board, and the Investment and
Administrative Committees under the Plan.
Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of all participants in
the Plan from December 14, 2016 to the present, allege that
defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged in
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), by including
proprietary collective investment trusts as investment options
offered under the Plan.
The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and other
equitable relief.
On March 25, 2024, the Court granted AB's motion to dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiffs were given 30 days to file a motion for leave to amend
their Complaint or appeal the Court's decision.
To date, the Company haven't received notice of any subsequent
Court filings made by the Plaintiffs.
While the ultimate outcome of this matter is currently not
determinable, it doesn’t believe this litigation will have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or liquidity.
AllianceBernstein L.P provides diversified investment management,
research, and related services based in Tennessee.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Mahoney Sues Over Unlawful Eavesdropping
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mahoney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02392-DMR (N.D.
Cal., April 22, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") for unlawful
eavesdropping on communications.
The Defendant aids, employs, agrees with, or otherwise enables
third parties, including LogRocket, Inc., Content Square, Inc.,
Datadog, Inc. ("Datadog"), Qualtrics, LLC (collectively, the
"Session Replay Providers"), and Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook")
(collectively, along with the Session Replay Providers, the "Third
Parties"), to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by
Plaintiff and Class Members. These include communications that
contain sensitive and confidential information – i.e., "nonpublic
personal information." By failing to procure consent before
enabling the Third Parties to intercept these communications,
Defendant violated the CIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff created a Facebook account.
The Defendant offers banking services at over 43,000 Allpoint ATMs
throughout the United States, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
AMAZON PRIME: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 9, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court
granting their stipulated motion and order regarding discovery and
class-certification briefing schedule.
Event Proposed Date
Close of Fact Discovery: April 25, 2025
Close of Expert Discovery: July 11, 2025
Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery: Aug. 25, 2025
Deadline for Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2025
Certification:
Deadline for Amazon's Opposition to Nov. 24, 2025
Class Certification Motion:
Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Dec. 15, 2025
in Support of Motion for Class
Certification:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aI8dVx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, II, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643‐0500
E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303‐0552
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682‐5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
Thomas J. Tobin, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
MWebster@perkinscoie.com
TTobin@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in Rizvanovic Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability
company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01804-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer Thurston entered an order granting in part and denying in
part motion to dismiss or motion to strike the Plaintiff's class
allegations:
(1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion
to
Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations is granted in part and
denied in part:
a. The motion to dismiss the claims for failure to provide a
timely, good faith, interactive process, and unfair
business
practices is denied.
b. The motion to dismiss the claims for disability
discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent
discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable
accommodation, for injunctive relief and for punitive
damages is granted.
c. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff's class allegations is
granted. The motion to strike Plaintiff's class
allegations
is denied.
(2) Within 21 days, the Plaintiff may file an amended Complaint.
Failure to timely file an amended Complaint indicates that
the
Plaintiff wishes to continue litigation based on the instant
Complaint.
(3) Both parties' requests for judicial notice are denied as
moot.
Michelle Rizvanovic is a former employee at one of Amazon.com
Services, LLC's Fulfillment Centers in California. She brings this
putative class action on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, alleging several theories of disability discrimination,
retaliation, and wrongful termination, pursuant to California's
Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code sections 12940 et
seq.
The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral
argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
In October 2020, Plaintiff began her employment with Amazon as a
Fulfillment Associate at one of Amazon's California Fulfillment
Centers.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUTTzO at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMROCK LLC: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Sept. 28
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COPPOLA et al v. AMROCK,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11639 (D. Mass., Filed July 21, 2023), The
Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order granting parties' joint
request to amend the current scheduling order deadlines as follows:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Sept. 28. 2024
-- The Plaintiff's trial expert must be Oct. 22, 2024
designated and Rule 26(a)(2) information
disclosed by:
-- Defendant's Trial Experts must be Nov. 12, 2024
designated and Rule 26(a)(2) information
disclosed by:
-- Trial expert depositions completed by: Nov. 26, 2024
-- Any dispositive and class motions must Jan. 7, 2025
be filed by:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Amrock is an American provider of title insurance, property
valuations and settlement services.[CC]
APPLE INC: Crucco Sues Over Smartphone Market Monopolization
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CRUCCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05281 (D.N.J., April 18, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
alleged monopolization of smartphone market in the United States
and asserts claims for violations of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiff Crucco alleges that Apple has preserved a monopoly of the
smartphone market by restraining five main technologies that
otherwise would have boosted competition: super apps, cloud
streaming game apps, messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital
wallets. The Plaintiff claims that Apple deters competition by
designing iPhones to block cross-platform technologies between
iPhones and Android smartphones in order to solidify, establish,
and/or increase Apple's smartphone monopoly. As a result of Apple's
anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and other customers were
overcharged on iPhones, says the suit.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple is a technology company that
designs, manufactures, and sells smartphones, personal computers,
tablets, wearables and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
Law Office Of Francis J. Flynn, Jr.
6057 Metropolitan Plz
Los Angeles CA 90036
Telephone: (314) 662-2836
E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
ARC REALTY: 1925 Hooper Sues Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
1925 HOOPER LLC; ROBERT J. ARKO; and ANDREW M. MOORE; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARC
REALTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00495-ACA (N.D. Ala.,
April 18, 2024) alleges a nationwide conspiracy by and between the
National Association of Realtors and residential real estate
brokerages orchestrated to increase broker compensation at the
expense of home sellers, including the Plaintiffs.
Allegedly, the Defendant has required home sellers to shoulder both
the commission of their listing agents and the commission of the
buyer's agent when properties are listed on the ubiquitous Multiple
Listing Service. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has
advanced the conspiracy by annually ratifying the NAR rules,
including the Compensation Rule, and by participating in councils
and committees that ensured compliance with the NAR rules.
Moreover, the conspiracy obliged sellers to bear excessive costs
for services rendered by buyer brokers to the seller's opponent,
artificially inflated buyer brokers' compensation, and promoted and
abetted “steering” and similar practices that thwart innovation
and stifle competition, says the suit.
ARC Realty is an Alabama limited liability company and real estate
brokerage. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathan D. Chapman, Esq.
Joshua Y. Joel, Esq.
KABAT, CHAPMAN, & OZMER LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 400-7303
(404) 400-7300
E-mail: nchapman@kcozlaw.com
jjoel@kcozlaw.com
- and -
Bryan M. Knight, Esq.
Jonathan M. Palmer, Esq.
KNIGHT PALMER, LLC
One Midtown Plaza
1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 1201
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 228-4822
Facsmile: (404) 228-4821
E-mail: bknight@knightpalmerlaw.com
jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Dismissal of Javelin Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024, that
plaintiffs filed notice of appeal on the dismissal of the
consolidated Javelin class suits.
ine putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the tender offer and merger for JAVELIN alleging, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duties and seeking equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
transactions, or rescind or unwind the transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.
On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.
On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling.
The Court deferred ruling on the Motion to Dismiss several times.
On February 14, 2024, the Court issued an order granting
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed all of plaintiffs’
claims with prejudice, and without leave to amend.
On March 11, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's order of dismissal.
Armour Residential REIT, Inc. is an investment advisor based in
Maryland.
ASCENDTEK LLC: Morris Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Morris, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ASCENDTEK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:24-cv-00565 (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant in violation
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Washington Minimum Wage
Act (WMWA), and the Washington Wage Rebate Act (WWRA).
Like the other Hourly Employees, the Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant does not pay them
for all the hours they work. Instead, the Defendant requires the
Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees to work significant time "off
the clock." Specifically, the Defendant prohibits the Plaintiff and
the other Hourly Employees from clocking in when arriving at the
Defendant's shop.
Instead, the Defendant requires them to locate and gather necessary
tools and equipment and receive instruction and information
regarding the day's job(s) and permits them to clock in only upon
departing from the shop to the first jobsite of the day. the
Defendant further requires the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees
to complete daily reports and take and make phone calls after the
Defendant requires them to clock out upon arriving back at the the
Defendant shop.
The Defendant thus requires the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees
to arrive at its shop, locate and gather necessary tools and
equipment for the workday, receive instruction on the day's job(s),
complete daily reports, and take and make phone calls "off the
clock" and without compensation (the Defendant's "jobsite pay
scheme").
Additionally, the Defendant fails to provide the Plaintiff and the
Hourly Employees with bona fide meal periods. And the Defendant
fails to provide the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees with bona
fide rest periods. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff
and the Hourly Employees to remain on-duty throughout their shifts
and continuously subjects them to interruptions during their "meal
periods" and "rest periods" and the Defendant continuously subjects
them to work interruptions during any attempted "meal periods" and
"rest periods." In addition to failing to pay its Hourly Employees
for all their hours worked, the Defendant also fails to pay them
overtime at the proper premium rate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Foreman in Kent,
Washington from October 2019 until November 2023.
AscendTek holds itself out as "leading the way with 5G
installations around the country while also providing its
foundational services to upgrade, maintain and build cell
towers."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206.682.6711
Email: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Marek Sues Over Illegal Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Marek, Debbie Hale, Stephen Reeves, Tammy Tacito, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS,
INC.; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; COMMODITY INFORMATION,
INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-03216 (N.D. Ill.,
April 22, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act as a result of illegally fixing the price
of sugar.
Higher sugar prices are the result, in part, of collusion among the
sugar industry to illegally fix the price for white, refined, table
sugar ("Granulated Sugar") throughout the United States ("Relevant
Market"). Using Defendants Commodity and Wistisen as the conduit of
communications, the Producing Defendants are able to fix the price
of Granulated Sugar in the Relevant Market through the exchange of
detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information regarding
Granulated Sugar prices, capacity, sales, volume, supply and
demand.
As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct – which conduct
violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as state antitrust laws
– indirect end-user purchasers of Granulated Sugar in the United
States and its territories, including Plaintiffs and the Class
members, paid supracompetitive prices for Granulated Sugar sold by
the Producing Defendants in the United States and its territories
beginning no later than January 1, 2019, and running through the
time that the unlawful conduct alleged herein ceases (the "Class
Period"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have made numerous purchases of Granulated Sugar in
Illinois produced by Defendants.
ASR Group claims to be "the world's largest refiner and marketer of
cane sugar."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.741.1019
Fax: 312.264.0100
Email: beth@feganscott.com
AT&T INC: McGee and Eisen et al. Sue over Unprotected Private Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL McGEE and PHIL EISEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00954-D (N.D. Tex., April 18, 2024) arises out of
AT&T’s failure to secure its customers’ sensitive personal
information asserts claims for breach of contract, negligence, and
for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, California's
Customer Records Act and Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, AT&T has since provided data breach
notices to its customers, acknowledging that based on its
investigation to date, the data appears to be from June 2019 or
earlier. But AT&T has not disclosed how the data was stolen or why
it took almost three years to confirm the data in question belonged
to its customers so it could provide notice. As a result of AT&T's
failure to honor its contractual commitment to consumers,
Plaintiffs and the Class face a heightened, imminent risk of harm
in the future, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T Inc. is a telecommunication
company that operates in wireless services, wireline services,
media and entertainment, business solutions and advertising. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8830
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: srabin@susmangodfrey.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Sued Over Failure to Secure Personal Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mildred Kinchen and James Kinchen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02451 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2024), is brought
against AT&T for its failures to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiffs' and similarly situated individuals' private and
confidential information, including but not limited to names,
mailing addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, usernames, account numbers, PIN numbers, and
passwords ("Personal Information") and is brought on behalf of all
citizens of all states in the United States who are the victims of
a targeted cyberattack on Defendants that occurred on March 17,
2024 (the "Data Breach").
In 2019, AT&T learned that a well-known threat actor claimed to be
selling a database containing the Personal Information of over 73
million AT&T customers. This Personal Information included
customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security
numbers, passcodes, and dates of birth, among other information.
Instead of investigating the cause of this massive data breach at
the time, AT&T denied the allegations, ignored the issue, and
continued with its operations.
In August 2021, the threat actor resurfaced with the claim to have
stolen millions of AT&T customers' data, publishing a small sample
of the leaked records online. When questioned at the time, AT&T
turned a blind eye to pending disaster, saying that the leaked data
"does not appear to have come from our systems," and AT&T chose not
to speculate as to where the data had originated or whether it was
valid.
Only when, three years later, the contents of the database were
publicly leaked on the dark web and independently verified, did
AT&T admit the breach occurred and, purportedly, began an
investigation. It took until March 2024, when an online data seller
published the full 73 million alleged AT&T records on a known
cybercrime forum--allowing for a detailed analysis of the leaked
records--for AT&T to admit the authenticity of the breached
records. At this point, AT&T reset the passcodes of at least 7.6
million existing customers and notified all current and former
customers whose Personal Information was compromised.
On April 10, 2024, AT&T began notifying U.S. state authorities and
privacy regulators that a security incident had occurred, and
Defendants confirmed that the millions of customer records that
were posted online by threat actors in March 2024 were indeed
authentic. Notices sent directly to Plaintiffs and other Class
Members and notices sent to state attorneys general offices will be
collectively referred to as "Notice." On April 11, 2024, AT&T began
mailing Notice of the data security incident to Plaintiffs and
other Class Members. According to the Notice, entitled "Important
Information," AT&T wrote that "after a thorough assessment, AT&T
has determined that "some of Plaintiffs'" personal information was
compromised.
As a result of Defendants' inability to properly secure Plaintiffs'
and the Class Members' private Personal Information, data thieves
were able to access and obtain the Personal Information of
Plaintiffs and Class Members as early as 2019. For nearly five
years, AT&T had knowledge of this threat and did not meaningfully
act upon it until it publicly announced the veracity of the threat
actor's claims in March 2024 and told individual customers about
the vulnerability as late as mid-April 2024, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs entrusted their Personal Information to the
Defendants.
AT&T Inc. is a multinational telecommunications company that
markets a range of consumer products including internet, telephone,
and wireless services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
Pierce H. Stanley, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 433-3200
Email: kmoody@bermantabacco.com
pstanley@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com
AUTO CLUB: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Barkel-Williams
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BARKEL-WILLIAMS, et
al., v. AUTO CLUB GROUP, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10403-DPH-APP
(E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to
file Exhibits E and KK to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Lead
Counsel under seal because they contain confidential inter-company
agreements and financial information.
The Defendants met and conferred with the Plaintiffs pursuant to
the First Amended Stipulated Protective Order entered in this
matter regarding the sealing of the documents.
The Plaintiffs do not concur in this motion, but will not oppose it
either.
Auto Club Group offers products such as vehicle insurance, travel
booking services, and financial services like auto loans and credit
cards.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GMEbQO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen E. Glazek, Esq.
Melonie L.M. Stothers, Esq.
BARRIS SOTT DENN & DRIKER, PLLC
333 West Fort Street Suite 1200
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 965-9725
E-mail: sglazek@bsdd.com
mstothers@bsdd.com
- and -
Lori McAllister, Esq.
Andrew Kolozsvary, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
Capitol View Bldg.
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 374-9150
E-mail: lmcallister@dykema.com
akolozsvary@dykema.com
- and -
Elaine I. Harding, Esq.
Thomas J. Dombrowski, Esq.
KRAMER, CORBETT, HARDING &
DOMBROWSKI
Royal Oak, MI 48068-9907
Telephone: (248) 712-0602
E-mail: eiharding@acg.aaa.com
tjdombrowski@acg.aaa.com
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Coan Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2024 that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Coan securities class suit in
the U.S. Federal District Court, Central District of California.
On January 24, 2024, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed by Mike Coan in U.S. Federal District Court, Central
District of California, against the Company, Bryant Riley, Tom
Kelleher, and Phillip Ahn ("Defendants").
The purported class includes persons and entities that purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between May 10, 2023 and
November 9, 2023.
The complaint alleges that (a) the Company failed to disclose to
investors that (i) Brian Kahn, had been implicated in a conspiracy
to defraud third party investors, and (ii) the Company financed
Brian Kahn and others in connection with a going private
transaction involving FRG, and (b) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company engaged in securities fraud in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company believes the claim is meritless and intends to defend
this action.
B. Riley Financial, Inc. offers diversified financial services. The
Company provides investment banking corporate finance research,
sales, and trading, as well as advisory, valuation, and wealth
management services. B. Riley Financial serves high net worth
individuals and public and private companies worldwide. [BN]
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend KL Kamholz Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2024 that the Company
continues to defend itself from the KL Kamholz class suit in U.S.
Federal District Court, Central District of California.
A putative class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal District
Court, Central District of California, on March 15, 2024 by the KL
Kamholz Joint Revocable Trust ("Kamholz").
This complaint asserts similar allegations as the Coan complaint
and covers an alleged class period between February 28, 2022 and
November 9, 2023.
The Kamholz complaint further alleges that Defendants knew or
should have known that Brian Kahn was engaged in illegal
activities, including a conspiracy to commit fraud, and nonetheless
proceeded with the FRG going-private transaction.
The Company believes the claim is meritless and intends to defend
this action.
B. Riley Financial, Inc. offers diversified financial services. The
Company provides investment banking corporate finance research,
sales, and trading, as well as advisory, valuation, and wealth
management services. B. Riley Financial serves high net worth
individuals and public and private companies worldwide. [BN]
BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Trust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 23, 2024 that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Reckstin Family securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three
additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action
styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al.,
No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i)
C3.ai., Inc. ("C3 AI"), (ii) certain of C3 AI's current and/or
former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the
C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and (iv) the Company,
and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the
board of C3 AI).
The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between
December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held
equity investments in C3 AI.
The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
On February 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims against the
Company.
However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, reasserting their claims against the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act.
At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
proceedings.
Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a
diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the
energy and industrial value chain.
BRADFORD-SCOTT DATA: Webster Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradford-Scott Data,
LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Webster, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Bradford-Scott Data, LLC doing
business as: Sharetec, Case No. 1:24-cv-00117-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.,
March 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.
Bradford-Scott Data, LLC doing business as Sharetec stays abreast
of the latest technological trends in delivering efficient software
solutions to meet the needs of credit unions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
CAMPBELL SOUP: Squeo False Ad Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOE SQUEO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 24CV432063, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 16, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-02235-SVK to the proceeding.
In this putative class action under the Unfair Competition Law,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for breach of express warranty,
the Plaintiff claims that Campbell affirmatively misrepresented the
nature and characteristics of Campbell's Cape Cod branded products
that bear the label statement "No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or
Preservatives" and contain citric acid.
Campbell Soup Company produces soups and other canned foods, baked
goods, beverages, and snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dale J. Giali, Esq.
Keri E. Borders, Esq.
Rebecca B. Johns, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 W Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4355
Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
E-mail: dgiali@kslaw.com
kborders@kslaw.com
rjohns@kslaw.com
CAPITAL ONE: June Hearing on Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Funding LLC disclosed in its Form 10-D report for March
31, 2024, that a motion for preliminary approval of settlement was
filed in March 2024 and a hearing will be held in June 2024 with
regards to a 2005 putative antitrust class action filed by retail
merchants against Mastercard International and Visa U.S.A., Inc.
and several issuing banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Capital One, National
Association.
Suit seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages for an
alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of interchange
fees. The networks and issuing banks have entered settlement and
judgment sharing agreements allocating the liabilities of any
judgment or settlement arising from all interchange-related cases.
The lawsuits were consolidated before the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and
were settled in 2012. The class settlement, however, was
invalidated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in June 2016, and the suit was bifurcated into separate
class actions seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively.
In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012
settlement.
The monetary relief class action settled for $5.5 billion. The
settlement received final approval from the district court in
December 2019. The Second Circuit affirmed the settlement in March
2023, and it is now final. Some of the merchants that opted out of
the monetary relief class have brought cases, and some of those
cases have settled and some remain pending. Visa created a
litigation escrow account following its initial public offering of
stock in 2008 that funds the portion of these settlements
attributable to Visa-allocated transactions.
Capital One Funding LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital
One, National Association and is the depositor of the issuing
entity. Capital One Funding also structures the transactions of
Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust c/o Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Delaware.
CARMAX INC: Arbitration in Bendure Suit Set for July 23
-------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 15, 2024, that on July 9, 2021, the case
captioned "Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores California,
LLC et al.," was filed in the Superior court of California, County
of San Bernardino. Bendure filed a demand on October 16, 2023 for
an individual arbitration. This arbitration is scheduled for July
23, 2024.
The Bendure lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the
Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages,
interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and
special damages.
Bendure subsequently decided not to proceed with an individual or
putative class claim, but rather filed and served a PAGA-only
complaint in the Superior court of California for the County of San
Bernardino on December 7, 2021, based on the same allegations pled
in the original complaint. CarMax filed a motion to compel
arbitration. The court has stayed all discovery until after it
rules on CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.
CarMax is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Intervene in MacClelland Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Proposed Intervenors' motion to
intervene in the lawsuit styled TERESA MACCLELLAND, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-08592-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
In this action, California Verizon Wireless customers sued Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Verizon Communications, Inc.
(collectively "Verizon") alleging that Verizon engaged in false
advertising by failing to disclose an administrative charge for
wireless services and misrepresenting that the fee is a tax or
government regulation. Verizon moved to compel arbitration, which
the Court denied. Subsequently, Class Counsel filed several
additional actions in New Jersey state and federal court, adding
plaintiffs from states across the nation (Verizon is headquartered
in New Jersey, so courts in New Jersey have jurisdiction over
claims of plaintiffs from other states).
The parties settled for $100 Million for the class, which covered
all states. Class Counsel filed a separate action in New Jersey
Superior Court to approve the settlement; the action is entitled
Esposito, et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, et
al., MID-L-6360-23, No. LCV2024273558 ("Esposito"). The motion to
approve of the settlement is now pending in the New Jersey Superior
Court.
In Esposito, Class Counsel seeks an attorneys' fee award of 33.3%.
An award of up to 33.3% is permissible in New Jersey, but in the
Ninth Circuit, attorneys' fee awards are presumably capped at 25%.
Several unnamed Plaintiffs in the New Jersey cases ("Proposed
Intervenors") have filed the present Motion to intervene in the
case before the Court. The Proposed Intervenors allege that Class
Counsel breached its fiduciary duty to the class by engaging in
settlement negotiations in New Jersey, as opposed to California, to
obtain a higher fee award. The Proposed Intervenors argue this will
unjustly enrich Class Counsel and that the Court should order
disgorgement of Class Counsel's impermissibly high fee award.
The Proposed Intervenors did not file to opt-out from the Esposito
settlement and did not file an objection to the settlement. Both
deadlines have since passed. Other members of the class did object
to Class Counsel's proposed fee award in Esposito.
In particular, several class members, represented by counsel,
objected arguing "that Class Counsel breached a fiduciary duty to
the class by filing the Esposito settlement action in New Jersey
state court and by requesting an award of attorneys' fees under the
New Jersey standard of 33% instead of the purported Ninth Circuit
standard of 25%," an argument similar, if not identical, to that
made the Proposed Intervenors here. The New Jersey Superior Court
has these claims before it in the Fairness Hearing on the proposed
settlement and proposed award of fees but has not issued its
decision yet.
The Proposed Intervenors have moved to intervene via Rule 24(a)'s
mandatory intervention and Rule 24(b)'s permissive intervention.
The Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene in the Court to dispute
Class Counsels' attorneys' fee award request, but the settlement
and contested fees are being adjudicated in the New Jersey Superior
Court.
Judge Chen holds that the Proposed Intervenors have no interest in
the action in this Court because there is no proposed settlement
before this Court for consideration. The action under Rule 24(a)
and "the main action" under Rule 24(b) is before the New Jersey
Superior Court, not this Court.
Judge Chen opines that the Proposed Intervenors have not cited a
single case in which intervenors were allowed to intervene to
object to subject matter that was being contested in another case.
The cases the Proposed Intervenors cite all involve launching
objections in the court which has jurisdiction over the subject
settlement.
The Proposed Intervenors cite no authority endorsing the
proposition that one can seek relief by asking one court to impose
conditions or otherwise effectively contravene an order
adjudicating a settlement in another court, Judge Chen opines.
Indeed, given the context here, the Proposed Intervenors seek to
have this Court affect the potential judgment of the New Jersey
state court, which raises serious federalism concerns.
In any event, even if Rule 24 could conceivably be applied here,
Judge Chen says the Proposed Intervenors' interests are being
represented by other parties in the Esposito litigation as
demonstrated by the objections made therein, which parallel their
claims here. As a practical matter, the Proposed Intervenors do not
need another way to protect themselves because they had a forum to
do so: they could have filed an objection in the New Jersey
Superior Court.
Thus, Judge Chen holds, the denial of this Motion does not raise
the risk that Proposed Intervenors were unfairly deprived of their
rights because of the alignment of the parties--the thrust of Rule
24.
This Order does not preclude the Proposed Intervenors from
asserting an independent claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
Class Counsel, perhaps in a proceeding separate from the fairness
adjudication in New Jersey, Judge Chen notes. In so noting, this
Order does not opine on whether any such independent action (as
distinct from the attempt to intervene in this Court) is likely to
succeed against the probable defenses that may be raised.
In sum, Judge Chen says, there is no basis in text or policy for
intervention here. The Proposed Intervenors had an opportunity to
object in the New Jersey fairness proceedings--the proper forum for
doing so. Yet, they declined to do so. Their only stated reason for
not so participating is that they do not want to participate in the
New Jersey Superior Court fairness hearing because they believe
that the court is acting ultra vires, by failing to comply with 28
U.S.C. Section 1715, CAFA's notice obligations.
However, Judge Chen says, this notice obligation is only required
for "class actions," which is defined as class actions brought
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in federal
court. The Proposed Intervenors' assertion that Section 1715
applies to the New Jersey Superior Court is dubious. In any event,
their excuse for not asserting objections in the court is
meritless--they could and should have included that basis for
objecting to approval of the settlement in that court.
Thus, Judge Chen denies the Proposed Intervenors' Motion. This
Order disposes of Docket Nos. 89 and 90.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mry752a4 from PacerMonitor.com.
CHABAD OF PORT: Faces Gonzalez and Tinocco Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATTY GONZALEZ and JONATHAN TINOCCO, Plaintiff v. CHABAD OF PORT
WASHINGTON, INC., and RABBI SHALOM M. PALTIEL, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02922 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2024) is a
class action seeking to recover, among other things, unpaid
overtime wage compensation for the Plaintiffs, former employees of
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes,
Rules, and Regulations.
Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by Defendant from approximately
October 2019 until April 10, 2024 and Plaintiff Tinocco was
employed from approximately October 2019 until April 10, 2024. As a
result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiffs have suffered an
injury in fact, including financial loss, impaired ability to
assert their rights under wage and hour laws, and significant
mental distress due to the Defendants' failure to provide written
notice of wage rates and maintain accurate records. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys fees and
costs pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.
Chabad of Port Washington is a religious institutions company based
in Port Washington, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: Suit Seek to Supplement Declarations
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., et al., v.
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Granting the Plaintiffs leave to supplement the declarations of
Tracey Field, Daryl Chansuthus, Dr. Theodore Cross, and Dr.
Bryan
Victor filed in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; and
-- Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and proper in the circumstances.
The parties met and conferred; however, they were unable to reach
agreement on this issue. The Defendants do not assent to the relief
requested in this Motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bDoW3K at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle Wangerin, Esq.
Kay E. Drought, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
154 High Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone: (603) 431-7411
Facsimile: (603) 431-8025
E-mail: mwangerin@nhla.org
kdrought@nhla.org
- and -
Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
18 Low Avenue
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-5591
E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
henry@aclu-nh.org
- and -
Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.
Kayla J. Turner, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER-NH, INC.
64 North Main Street, Suite 2
Concord, NH 03301-4913
Telephone: (603) 228-0432
Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
E-mail: jennifere@drcnh.org
kaylat@drcnh.org
- and -
Ira Lustbader, Esq.
Kathleen Simon, Esq.
Carolyn Hite, Esq.
Aarti Iyer, Esq.
Rebecca Ritchin, Esq.
Madeleine MacNeil Kinney
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, INC.
88 Pine Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 683-2210
Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
ksimon@childrensrights.org
chite@childrensrights.org
aiyer@childrensrights.org
rritchin@childrensrights.org
mkinney@childrensrights.org
- and -
Konrad L. Cailteux, Esq.
Sarah Ryu, Esq.
Kathleen Stanaro, Esq.
Katheryn Maldonado, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: Konrad.Cailteux@weil.com
Sarah.Ryu@weil.com
Kathleen.Stanaro@weil.com
Katheryn.Maldonado@weil.com
CINEMARK USA: Waldrop Sues Over Deceptive 24-Ounce Cups
-------------------------------------------------------
SHANE WALDROP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CINEMARK USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00321-ALM (E.D. Tex., April 16, 2024) is a consumer
protection action arising from the alleged deceptive and otherwise
improper business practices that Defendant Cinemark USA, Inc.
engaged in with respect to the packaging and serving size of its
24-ounce (oz) drink containers in violation of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the 24 oz plastic drink containers
Defendant sells at its movie theater locations are marked as "24oz"
on the bottom -- but which cannot not hold 24 oz of liquid. The
Defendant markets and sells 24 oz drinks at a premium price,
despite the containers being physically incapable of holding that
amount of liquid. Despite the advertised value, Defendant's 24 oz
drink container only holds 22 oz of liquid and is incapable of
providing the marketed and labeled amount of liquid sold, says the
suit.
Cinemark USA, Inc. is an American movie theater chain that started
operations in 1984.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Eddy L. De Los Santos, Esq.
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
700 Milam Street, Suite 800
Houston, TX 77002-2806
Telephone: (713) 222-4021
E-mail: edelossantos@munsch.com
CLARK COUNTY, IL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Herrera Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Herrera, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Clark County, Illinois, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01137 (S.D. Ill., April 18, 2024) alleges violations of
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff Herrera is employed as an emergency medical technician
for Defendant, with such employment beginning July 10, 2016. The
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week when
factoring in both regular hours and hours classified as on-call
hours, but Defendant has failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff
for overtime hours worked.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendant from withholding
minimum and overtime wages and seeking damages, including back-pay,
restitution, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief that the court
deems equitable and just under the circumstances.
Clark County is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garth E. Flygare, Esq.
SMALLHORN LAW, LLC
600 Jackson Avenue
Charleston, IL 61920
Telephone: 217-348-5253
E-mail: gflygare@smallhornlaw.com
- and -
Jacob N. Smallhor, Esq.
SMALLHORN LAW, LLC
600 Jackson Avenue
Charleston, IL 61920
Telephone: (217) 348-5253
E-mail: jsmallhorn@smallhornlaw.com
CLEAN HARBORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fogg Due June 21
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FOGG v. CLEAN HARBORS
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-07626-MCA-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered an order the
following:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification
and the Defendant shall file its motion for collective
decertification by June 21, 2024. Responses to such motions
shall be filed by July 15, 2024. Replies, if any, shall be
filed
by July 22, 2024. The motions shall be returnable on Aug. 5,
2024.
2. All depositions of opt-in Plaintiffs shall be completed by
May
31, 2024.
3. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference with the
parties on Aug. 21, 2024 at 11:00 AM. Counsel for the
Defendant
shall initiate the call.
Clean Harbors is an American provider of environmental and
industrial services, including hazardous waste disposal for
companies, small waste generators and federal, state, provincial
and local governments.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1JAxCA at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Bayer Suit Moved to Ohio Court of Common Pleas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEREMY BAYER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY INSURANCE CO.
d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03876-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, issued an Opinion and Order remanding the case to the
Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff Jeremy Bayer brings two claims for breach of contract and
one claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing against Community Mutual Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem
Blue Cross and Blue Shield. He originally commenced this action in
the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio.
Mr. Bayer brought this case as a putative class action on behalf of
Ohio consumers, who purchased insurance from Anthem through the
Affordable Care Act ("ACA") marketplace during open enrollment
periods 2018–2023. The gravamen of the Complaint is that Anthem's
directory of "in-network" healthcare providers is a "ghost network"
because many of the listed providers are not currently in Anthem's
network, are not accepting new patients, or do not practice the
specialty described by Anthem. The Complaint alleges that ghost
networks are prohibited by both the ACA and Ohio law, and it quotes
several provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Ohio
Administrative Code in support.
The Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from Anthem during the
2021 open enrollment period. As part of the enrollment process,
Anthem presented him with a Certificate of Coverage, which he
alleges required Anthem to offer a network of providers in
compliance with the ACA and Ohio law. Instead, according to Mr.
Bayer, Anthem provided a materially smaller network of providers
than advertised in its directories by misrepresenting providers'
network status and failing to maintain an accurate network
directory.
Mr. Bayer claims that through this conduct, Anthem breached its
contract with him and other subscribers in that it breached its
promise to comply with federal law (Count I) and its promise to
comply with state law (Count II). He also asserts that Anthem
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count
III).
Anthem timely removed the action to this Court, asserting that
removal was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446 and
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Anthem contends that
this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Grable &
Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005),
because one of Mr. Bayer's breach of contract claims is premised on
the allegation that Anthem violated federal law.
To assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the Complaint
implicates a substantial question of federal law. Following review
of the parties' briefs and the case law, this Court remands the
case due to lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Morrison finds that the Complaint does not necessarily raise
a stated federal issue. Judge Morrison explains that the resolution
of Mr. Bayer's action does not necessarily depend on the resolution
of a question of federal law. Thus, the proper construction of the
Complaint is that Mr. Bayer maintains only one breach of contract
claim with two distinct theories as to the source of Anthem's
liability.
Judge Morrison also finds that the federal issue is not
substantial. Judge Morrison explains that no federal agency is part
of this action, and there is no allegation that a federal agency
action violated the law. Rather, Mr. Bayer's dispute is premised on
a state-law claim for breach of contract between nongovernmental
entities. Hence, there is no comparable federal interest in this
case.
The lawsuit is more appropriately maintained in state court, Judge
Morrison points out. Mr. Bayer's breach of contract claims are
state-law claims, and his alleged violation of state law may be
dispositive. Proceeding in federal court would, therefore, disturb
the federal-state balance approved by Congress.
For these reasons, Judge Morrison remands the case to the Franklin
County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The Clerk is directed to
terminate all pending motions and close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 18,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcsj8yd from
PacerMonitor.com.
CONSUMER CREDIT: Pinn Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY PINN, an individual,
on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING FOUNDATION, INC., NATIONAL BUDGET
PLANNERS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Florida corporations, and
ISHWINDER JUDGE, an individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
4:22-cv-04048-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending her time to move to certify a class
against the Defendants under Civil Local Rule 6-3 and Federal Rule
6.
The Plaintiff Pinn moves to continue the class certification
deadline, and to reset such deadline after the Court rules on
Pinn's pending discovery letter. The Defendants decline to
stipulate to this relief.
The Defendants have not yet produced the discovery Pinn needs to
have a fair chance at certifying a class.
In January 2023, the Court set July 25, 2024 as the last day for
hearing the class certification motion.
Under Local Rule 7-2, Pinn's deadline to move for class
certification is June 20, 2024.
In sum, the Withheld Emails show that Defendants have access to
call records from DMS which have not been produced, and that these
call records are likely to identify sufficient class members to
certify a class.
Pinn seeks this relief more than a month before her deadline to
move for class certification.
Consumer Credit offers personalized credit counseling, debt
management solutions, and financial education programs.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cqdm0w at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan Preston, Esq.
PRESTON LAW OFFICES
4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (972) 564-8340
Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
E-mail: ep@eplaw.us
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Padro Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO PADRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05850
(D.N.J., May 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated current and former patients' sensitive information,
including protected health information and other personally
identifiable information, like names and dates of birth.
On April 29, 2024, the Defendant announced that an unauthorized
actor gained access to certain systems in its network between Oct.
18, 2023, and Oct. 19, 2023, and accessed or acquired certain files
stored on those systems during that time.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of the
Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn the Plaintiff and Class
Members of the Defendant's inadequate information security
practices; and (iii) effectively secure its network containing
protected Private Information using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.
As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered injury, including: (i) invasion of privacy;
(ii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iii) lost
time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (iv) loss of benefit of
the bargain; (v) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails;
and (vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their
Private Information, the suit asserts.
The Defendant is a provider of health management and patient care
coordination services to healthcare organizations and health
insurers that work with Consensus Medical Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: 215-888-3214
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
CORTEVA INC: Seeks to Sever Newton in Cockerill Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM NEWTON, OLIVER MAJOR, and DARRELL D. BENSON,
SR., individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT SPECIALTY
PRODUCTS USA, LLC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE BENEFIT PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.),
the Defendants move the Court to sever Christopher William Newton
from this lawsuit because:
(1) he is not a member of either class and his claims are
factually distinct from the claims of all other Plaintiffs;
(2) severance would promote judicial economy; and
(3) no party will be prejudice by severing of Newton's claims.
Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed
company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bqxdRv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nipun J. Patel, Esq.
Cory A. Thomas, Esq.
Todd D. Wozniak
Kayla Pragid
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
One Liberty Place, Suite 3300
1650 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 252-9600
E-mail: Nipun.Patel@hklaw.com
Cory.Thomas@hklaw.com
Todd.Wozniak@hklaw.com
Kayla.Pragid@hklaw.com
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Harrison Suit Seeks to Certify ERISA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARRISON and GRACE
HEATH, on behalf of themselves, the ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING,
INC. ESOP, and all other similarly situated individuals, v.
ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION
MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE,
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES,
NICOLE JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER KHAN, and LORI SPAHN, Case No.
1:21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying an ERISA class under Federal Rule 23.
The Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC) asserts ERISA claims
for prohibited transactions (Counts I & III); breaches of fiduciary
duties (Counts IV-V); co-fiduciary liability (Count VI); knowing
participation in unlawful conduct (Count II); and unlawful
indemnification of fiduciaries (Count VII).
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
"All participants in the Envision ESOP on or after Sept. 1,
2017
who vested under the terms of the ESOP, and those
participants'
beneficiaries."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, directors of Envision,
recipients of warrants or stock appreciation rights in
Envision
stock, and immediate family members of those excluded
individuals.
Both Plaintiffs are former Envision employees and current ESOP
participants who have vested Envision stock in their ESOP accounts.
Envision is a Colorado corporation that provides diagnostic imaging
services like MRIs, CT scans, and ultrasounds.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EzCudF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
cbressman@cohenmilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: Myers Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMELIA MYERS and FATOUMATA BARRY YAPO, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. AND KITE PHARMA,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02668 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2024) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the supporting United
States Department of Labor regulations, as well as the California
Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No.
9-2001 ("Wage Order 9"), and the Unfair Competition Law.
The Defendants miscalculated and underpaid the overtime
compensation it paid to the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective
Members by excluding supplemental renumeration from the calculation
of their "regular rates," the Plaintiffs assert.
During the course of their employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs, California Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members
regularly work in excess of 40 hours in each workweek but are not
compensated at one and one-half times their respective regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over forty in each workweek, the
suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants
who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the collective
action provision of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to remedy violations
of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by the Defendants that
have deprived the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated of their
lawfully earned wages.
Plaintiff Myers was employed as a Cell Therapy Specialist by the
Defendants from May 2021 to August 2023 in Santa Monica,
California.
Plaintiff Yapo was employed by the Defendants from June 25, 2018 to
February 2, 2024 in El Segundo, California.
Gilead is a research-based biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative
medicines.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Jennifer Davidson, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
jswartz@outtengolden.com
GOOGLE RTB: Filing of Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due Sept. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order setting schedule and
vacating case management conference as follows:
Event Date
Google to complete its production of data July 15, 2024
in response to RFP 141:
Plaintiffs to file renewed motion for class Sept. 13,
2024
Certification:
Google to file its opposition to renewed Nov. 8, 2024
motion for class certification:
Plaintiffs to file reply to renewed motion Dec. 12, 2024
for class certification:
Hearing on plaintiffs' renewed motion for TBD
class certification:
Opening Merits Expert Reports: Jan. 31, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Reports: March 14,
2025
Close of Expert Discovery: April 11,
2025
Deadline to file summary judgment/Daubert May 2, 2025
Motions:
Deadline to file oppositions to summary June 13, 2025
judgment/Daubert motions:
Deadline to file replies to summary July 11, 2025
judgment/Daubert motions:
Hearing on summary judgment/Daubert motions: Aug. 26, 2025
The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders
are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OpGxNN at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREATPLAINS FINANCE: Loses Bid for Reconsideration in Ransom Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denies the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration in the lawsuit titled RAJSHONNA RANSOM, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V.
GREATPLAINS FINANCE, LLC d/b/a CASH ADVANCE NOW, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01344-WJM-JBC (D.N.J.).
In this putative class action against Defendant GreatPlains
Finance, LLC d/b/a Cash Advance Now ("GPF" or "Defendant") for
engaging in usurious payday loans, the Defendant moves for
reconsideration of the Court's Jan. 22, 2024 Opinion and Order
("Jan. 22 Op.") pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(1). The Court decides
the matter without oral argument.
Plaintiff Rashonna Ransom obtained two separate high interest loans
from online lender GPF -- one on Oct. 26, 2015, for $300 at an
Annual Percentage Rate ("APR") of 652.36% and another on April 18,
2016, for $450 at an APR of 54239%. In brief, GPF is owned by the
Fort Belknap Indian Community ("Tribe" or "FBIC") and was initially
managed by Dater Portfolio Management LLC, a non-tribal entity,
from its inception in 2012 until 2017. Since about 2017, GPF has
been exclusively managed by the Fort Belknap Planning and
Development Corporation, d/b/a Island Mountain Development Group
("IMDG"), the economic development arm of the Tribe.
On Nov. 23, 2021, GPF executed a Loan and Security Agreement to
borrow $10 million from various non-tribal lenders acting under the
administrative agent Newport Funding, LLC ("NF"). Under that Loan
Agreement, the Tribe is prohibited from taking certain actions
without triggering an Event of Default. When an Event of Default
occurs, the administrative agent is authorized to assume immediate
control over certain of GPF's financial accounts and to maintain
aspects of managerial control over GPF while the Event of Default
remains in effect.
In its Jan. 22 Opinion, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding
that GPF was not entitled to sovereign immunity as an arm of the
Tribe. To decide that question, the Court examined five of the
factors used in Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chuckchansi
Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010), and concluded
that two of the factors favored a finding of immunity, but that
three of the factors weighed against arm of the tribe immunity,
including the factor at issue in this reconsideration motion -- the
structure, ownership, and management of the entity, which includes
the amount of control the Tribe has over GPF.
The Court found that this factor weighed against arm of the tribe
immunity because pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the administrative
agent, NF, had declared an Event of Default on Jan. 20, 2023, and
had asserted "immediate control" over aspects of GPF's financial
accounts until NF determined the Event of Default cured.
The Defendant now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling because
it alleges new, previously unavailable evidence: on Jan. 29, 2024,
after the Court's Jan. 22 decision, NF executed a Waiver Agreement
as to Events of Default that occurred on or about Jan. 20, 2023
("Specified Events of Default"). The Defendant insists that the
Waiver Agreement restores fall tribal management of GPF and, thus,
entitles it to arm of the tribe sovereign immunity.
The Court disagrees.
At the outset, the Loan Agreement requires that no amendment,
waiver or consent will affect the rights or duties of the
Administrative Agent under this Agreement or any other Facility
Document unless it is in writing and signed by the Administrative
Agent.
Curiously though, Judge Martini notes, the name and signature of
the Administrative Agent on the Waiver Agreement are redacted. The
Court, therefore, cannot determine whether the Waiver Agreement was
even properly executed.
In any event, the Court rejects a finding that would rest the
Court's power to hear a case on NF's decision to waive or later
reinstate the Specified Event of DefauIt. The Court's subject
matter Jurisdiction cannot be subject to change based on GPF's
default status.
Indeed, despite the Defendant's repeated reference to the Waiver as
"irrevocable," the Defendant does not identify what provision in
the Waiver Agreement precludes NF from reinstating the Event of
Default, Judge Martini observes. In contrast, elsewhere in the Loan
Agreement, where terms are irrevocable, it is expressly so stated.
Even if the Waiver Agreement is valid and irrevocable, Judge
Martini finds that NF has not waived any future defaults. In short,
Judge Martini points out, setting aside the Specified Event of
Default, NF still retains its ability to exercise immediate control
in the "Event of a Default" over GPF's financial accounts.
At the time of the Jan. 22 decision, because NF had asserted
"immediate control" over GPF's financial accounts upon declaring an
Event of Default on Jan. 20, 2023, Judge Martini says it was
unnecessary for the Court to examine additional facts relevant to
the determination of the structure, ownership, management, and
control over GPF. However, since the Event of Default has been
waived and the Defendant has requested an update to the Court's
analysis and the factual record for purposes of a potential appeal,
the Court addressed other arguments raised by the Defendant in its
motion to dismiss relating to the leadership structure of the
entity claiming Immunity, including the entity's governing
structure, the extent to which it is owned by the tribe, and the
entity's day-to-day management.
In considering the balance of these factors, the Court finds the
structure, management, and control of GPF do not weigh in favor of
finding that the Defendant is entitled to tribal sovereign
immunity. The Defendant has not met its burden of proof or shown
new previously unavailable evidence that requires reconsideration
and reversal of that decision.
For these reasons, the Court finds that GPF is not an arm of the
tribe entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Defendant's
motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(1) is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4szv6znj from PacerMonitor.com.
GUAMA II: Commercial Property Discriminates Blind, Pardo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. GUAMA II, LLC, and BKKH, INC.
d/b/a FOOD PLUS 2013, Case No. 1:24-cv-21718-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 3,
2024) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181,
et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28 U.S.C. sections
2201 and 2202.
The Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have
been denied access to, and have been denied full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities privileges, benefits,
programs and activities offered by the Defendants' commercial
property and commercial market business within the commercial
property; and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged
by the Defendants because of the Defendants' ADA violations, the
lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the subject
commercial property. These barriers have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have
endangered his safety. The barriers to access have likewise posed a
risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. In order to remedy this
discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of
the Defendants' place of public
accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of
non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
Plaintiff further requests a remediation plan and the opportunity
to participate in the crafting of the remediation plan.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited
use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require
tight grasping or twisting of the wrist.
Guama owned and operated a commercial retail shopping plaza at 6900
W. 16th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida 33014.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Baque Sues Over Improper Sales Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yuliet Jiminez Baque, Devora Brown, Maria Salazar Chavez, Carolina
Claros-Argueta, Del Rio Confesor, Diego German Osorio Cruz, Luz
Escobar, Yesica Bravo Fiandenese, Diosdado Leon Gonzai, Elizabeth
Horizonte Hemandez, Miriam Marin Carrera, Maria Laura Mejia Pineda,
Angel Penazola, Michael Lester Parker, Medardo Isaac Alva Rivas,
Luis Alva Rivas, Fernando Luis Morales, Rosana Roblero, Maribel
Sanchez Romero, Angel Raymundo Rojas, Anna Saman, Juan Guillermo
Campuzano Sanin, Margarita Sanchez Suarez, Giancarlo Saman
Tramonte, Kelly Lopez Villada, Lucila Wences, Richardo Chiche
Aguilar, Karla Vanessa Alvarado Bonilla, Yanoris Banilla-Diaz,
Samir Zedan, Jordan Baylon, and Ider Quintero, Sebastian Eustacio
De La Cruz, Maribel Sanchez, Jeison Colindres Alvarado, Maick
Colindres Alvarado, Jorge Garcia Cantera, Ricardo Aguilar Chiche,
Margarita Sanchez, Maria Sanchez, Confesor DelRio on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HENDRICK
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC f/k/a HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, HENDRICK
CORPORATION, LLC fk/a HENRICK CORPORATION, HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP, LLC d/b/a HENDRICK TOYOTA NORTH CHARLESTON, HENDRICK TOYOTA
NORTH CHARLESTON, and RESC TYT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2024CP1001979 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial, Charleston Cty., April
16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for racial
discrimination, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud in the inducement,
fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, and violations of public
policy, the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Federal
Trade Commission Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
On January 15, 2022, and since that date, the Defendants were in
the business of car sales to the general public. In processing
those sales, they allegedly targeted Latinos, including Plaintiffs,
and those who used English as a second language, and were engaged
in improper sales tactics and Financial Agreements with
misrepresentations in the deals and sales agreements that resulted
in conversion, misappropriation of funds, packing with hidden
charges, and material changes to sales agreements with the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs allege and believe that the Latino clients were
targeted due to the language barriers and due to the presumed fear
of deportation if any of the customers complained and were
potentially in the United States illegally. They allege and believe
the Defendants would alter the price of vehicles sold to them from
the advertised price without disclosing it. They also assert that
Defendants failed to provide the Buyer's Guide in Spanish, which
was supposed to be on site and available to the Plaintiffs and no
contracts were available in Spanish and the failure to provide the
documents in Spanish was intentional to allow for the Defendants to
further take advantage of the Plaintiffs.
Hendrick Automotive Group, LLC offers new and pre-owned vehicles,
financing, warranties, automobile parts, accessories, service and
body repair.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jarrel L. Wigger, Esq.
WIGGER LAW FIRM
8086 Rivers Avenue, Suite A
North Charleston, SC 29406
Telephone: (843) 553-9800
E-mail: jwigger@wiggerlawfirm.com
ILLINOIS: 7th Circuit Affirms in Part Judgment in Montoya v. IDOC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CELINA MONTOYA, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. ROB JEFFREYS, Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-2791 (7th Cir.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms in
part and reverses in part the judgment entered largely for the
Defendant-Appellee.
The Appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 1:18-cv-01991,
assigned to Judges John Robert Blakey and Gary Feinerman.
Plaintiffs Celina Montoya, Jennifer Tyree, Ronald Molina, and
Zachary Blaye brought a class action lawsuit against the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) challenging an IDOC policy
restricting contact between a parent convicted of a sex offense and
her minor child while the parent is on mandatory supervised release
(MSR). The Plaintiffs alleged that this policy violates Fourteenth
Amendment procedural and substantive due process.
The district court entered judgment largely for IDOC. Though the
Appellate Court agrees with the district court that IDOC's policy
does not violate procedural due process, the Panel holds that
IDOC's ban on phone contact violates substantive due process. On
this record, call monitoring is a ready alternative to the
phone-contact ban that accommodates the Plaintiffs' right to enjoy
the companionship of their children at a de minimis cost to IDOC's
penological interests.
The Panel concludes that IDOC's policy is unconstitutional insofar
as it presumptively prohibits parent-child phone contact while a
parent awaits a final contact determination and reverses the
phone-contact ban.
The Panel, therefore, affirms in part and reverses in part.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Opinion dated April 18,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2dmav3nt from
PacerMonitor.com.
INTEL CORP: Faces Quille Suit Over 9.2% Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA QUILLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, PAT GELSINGER, and DAVID ZINSNER,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02683 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2024) is a class action
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities between Jan. 25,
2024 and Apr. 25, 2024, inclusive, pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On Oct. 11, 2022, Gelsinger announced the Company would shift to an
"internal foundry model."
On April 25, 2024, after the markets closed, Intel released its
first quarter 2024 financial results, the first quarter reporting
the Company's results under the Foundry model; the results revealed
the Company's Foundry segment declined 10% compared to the same
quarter last year, to a revenue of $4.4 billion.
On this news, Intel's stock price fell $3.23, or 9.2%, to close at
$31.88 per share on April 26, 2024, on unusually heavy trading.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose to investors: (1) the growth of Intel Foundry Services was
not indicative of revenue growth reportable under the Internal
Foundry segment; (2) the Foundry experienced significant operating
losses in 2023; (3) that the Foundry experienced a decline in
product profit driven by lower internal revenue; (4) as a result
the Foundry model would not be a strong tailwind to the Company's
IFS strategy; and (5) that the Defendants' positive statements
about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the Plaintiff asserts.
Intel designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells computing
and related products and services worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, 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: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
KANSAS, MO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roderick Roberson, Michael
Hudson, Dylon White, Caleb Schmitt, Justin Berberich, Chris Ulrich,
and Ron Collins, individually and on behalf of the proposed class,
v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an extension of time to submit
a reply brief in support of class certification, to May 31, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have not previously requested any extension of this
deadline.
On March 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On April 26, 2024, the Defendant filed its opposition to class
certification.
The parties have set a full-day mediation of this case on May 7,
2024. The parties seek to focus on mediation in leading up to that
date and potentially in the days that follow.
The Plaintiffs' counsel have upcoming deadlines in several
unrelated cases that will place significant demands on their time
over the next few weeks. The requested extension would permit
Plaintiffs' counsel to devote the necessary time to the Plaintiffs'
reply brief.
Kansas City Southern Railway was an American Class I railroad.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RkEi95 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
Colin Reeves, Esq.
Emma Freeman, Esq.
APOLLO LAW LLC
333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
colin@apollo-law.com
emma@apollo-law.com
- and -
Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
Mark Thomson, Esq.
CASEY JONES LAW
525 Junction Rd., Suite 6500
Madison, WI 53717
Telephone: (757) 477-0991
E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law
mthomson@caseyjones.law
- and -
Steven L. Groves, Esq.
GROVES POWERS LLC
One U.S. Bank Plaza
505 N. 7th St., Suite 2010
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 696-2300
E-mail: sgroves@grovespowers.com
KING.COM LTD: Court Grants Bids for Arbitration in Montoya Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SORINA MONTOYA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING.COM LIMITED, KING
DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PLC, and ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00314-REP (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E.
Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division, grants:
(a) Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.'s motion to compel
mandatory alternative dispute resolution; and
(b) Defendants King.com, Limited, and King Digital
Entertainment PLC's motion to compel mandatory alternative
dispute resolution.
In March through April of 2023, the Plaintiff participated in the
Candy Crush All Stars 2023 Tournament. Candy Crush is a popular
match-making puzzle game played on mobile devices. The game
involves "crushing" candies by matching three or more of the same
candy icons in consecutive order to clear them from the game board
and earn points.
King.com Limited is the developer of Candy Crush. Its affiliate is
King Digital Entertainment PLC, and their parent corporation is
Activision Blizzard, Inc. (collectively "Defendants").
In March 2023, the Defendants launched the Candy Crush All Stars
2023 Tournament, which allowed Candy Crush players from around the
world to compete for a chance to win $250,000 in prizes and an
expense-paid trip to London. The Tournament consisted of multiple
rounds, and participants had to advance to the final round in order
to win the top prizes. To help them succeed, participants could
purchase in-game boosters and extra lives with real money.
After spending over $3,000 and close to one-hundred hours on the
Tournament, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against
the Defendants alleging three counts: (1) violation of the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. Section 59.1-200(14), (2)
fraud, and (3) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff says that the
Defendants omitted or actively misrepresented certain information
to Tournament participants, which caused them to overestimate their
chances of success and spend more than they otherwise would have on
in-app purchases to boost their competitiveness.
The Plaintiff says that information included (1) the number of
players advancing through each Tournament stage, (2) that some
competitors gain an unfair advantage by cheating, (3) that some
competitors have an unfair advantage because they have unlocked
game modes that give them enhanced abilities ("Super Users"), and
(4) that some users can play offline, which masks their running
scores.
The Defendants argue, inter alia, that the Plaintiff agreed to
arbitrate those types of claims when she agreed to King's Terms of
Use. The Defendants say that the Plaintiff agreed to King's Terms
of Use in two ways: (1) by accepting that she agreed to the Terms
of Use before playing Candy Crush, and (2) by agreeing to the Terms
of Use when she registered for King's Community Forum.
The Defendants also determined that the Plaintiff agreed to the
Terms of Use when she registered for King's Community Forum, which
is a website built for Candy Crush players to get help, connect
with other players worldwide, and obtain information.
Judge Payne notes that King's Terms of Use include a binding
arbitration clause. Importantly, the arbitration agreement includes
a delegation clause. In addition to King's Terms of Use, King
created a separate set of Tournament Rules to govern Tournament
play and activities.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on May 9, 2023. On Aug. 1, 2023,
Activision Blizzard Inc. filed a motion to compel mandatory
alternative dispute resolution, a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, a motion to dismiss for improper venue, a
motion to transfer the case, and a motion to dismiss claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief. On Aug. 15, 2023, King and King
Digital also filed a motion to compel mandatory alternative dispute
resolution, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
a motion to dismiss for improper venue, a motion to transfer the
case, and a motion to dismiss claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief.
On Sept. 19, 2023, the Court held a telephonic conference with the
parties and decided to resolve the motions to compel mandatory
alternative dispute resolution first. The parties were permitted to
conduct discovery and to submit supplemental briefings on that
issue. Additional proceedings and discovery were stayed pending
resolution of those motions. The Defendants submitted their
supplemental brief on Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her
response on Dec. 15, 2023, and the Defendants filed their reply on
Dec. 22, 2023.
The Court finds that the parties formed a valid arbitration
agreement. The Court also finds that the Plaintiff agreed to the
delegation clause in the arbitration agreement and holds that the
delegation provision is valid.
For these reasons, the Court holds that the Plaintiff did agree to
King's Terms of Use and the arbitration agreement therein. The
Court also holds that the arbitration agreement includes a valid
delegation clause which clearly and unmistakably gives the
arbitrator exclusive authority to decide whether the Terms of Use,
and its arbitration provision, apply to a particular dispute.
Whether Plaintiff's claims fall under the Terms of Use or the
Tournament Rules is a question of applicability the Plaintiff has
agreed to arbitrate.
Thus, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, the parties' dispute
must proceed to arbitration, and the arbitrator will consider
whether the Plaintiff's claims are covered by the arbitration
agreement in the Terms of Use. Accordingly, the Defendants' motions
are granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 18,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u6nrbz4 from
PacerMonitor.com.
MACY'S RETAIL: Sykes Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SYKES, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, dba
MACY'S, an Ohio Limited Liability Company; MACY'S, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV06543
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay all wages due
including both regular and overtime wages; failure to provide meal
periods or compensation; failure to provide rest periods or
compensation; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
upon payment of wages; failure to reimburse for necessary
expenditures; and failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees.
Plaintiff Sykes is a California resident that worked for Defendants
as a sales associate from October 19, 2023 to December 1, 2023.
Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC owns and operates department
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
Artur Tunyan, Esq.
TUNYAN LAW, APC
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 285
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 410-5050
E-mail: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
- and -
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0802
E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com
sahag@majarianlawgroup.com
MDL 3004: Fortenberry Suit Consolidated in Paraquat Liability Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Paraquat Products
Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3004, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers the case styled as "Fortenberry, Sr. Estate, et al. v.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:24−00024, W.D.
La.) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois and assigning it to Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel for
inclusion in coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
With the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 3004, the panel
held that the Southern District of Illinois was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that exposure to the herbicide paraquat caused
plaintiffs to suffer Parkinson's Disease.
Plaintiffs in the Fortenberry action allege that the decedent's use
of paraquat caused him to develop Parkinson's Disease. The action,
thus, falls squarely within the MDL's ambit, rules the panel.
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-3004-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3044: Porta Suit Consolidated in Exactech Product Liability Row
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Exactech
Polyethylene Orthopedic Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
3044, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned
"Porta v. Exactech, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 3:24-00009, from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the
Eastern District of New York and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis for inclusion in coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff opposed transfer based on his contention that federal
court jurisdiction is lacking. However, the panel consistently have
held that jurisdictional objections, including objections to
removal, are not relevant to transfer and that he can present his
remand arguments to the transferee court.
According to the panel, the action involves common questions of
fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 3044.
Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in our
order directing centralization. In that order, it held that the
Eastern District of New York was an appropriate Section 1407 forum
for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations
concerning the design, manufacture, testing, marketing, packaging,
and performance of the polyethylene components of certain Exactech
devices. Plaintiffs allege that oxidation of the polyethylene used
in the Exactech hip, knee, and ankle devices (sold under the names
Connexion GXL, Optetrak and Truliant, and Vantage, respectively)
causes inflammatory responses when implanted, generates
polyethylene debris, cracks, and loosening of the device, all of
which in turn require revision surgery. Plaintiff brings claims
regarding his Exactech knee replacement device (a Truliant device),
which he contends was defective and required removal surgery. The
action thus falls squarely in the MDL’s ambit.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3044-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3076: Lahav Consolidated in FTX Cryptocurrency Collapse Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: FTX Cryptocurrency
Exchange Collapse Litigation," MDL No. 3076, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers the case captioned "Lahav v. Binance Holdings
Limited, et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−05038 (N.D. Cal.) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Judge K. Michael Moore for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
This litigation arises out of the collapse of the FTX
cryptocurrency exchange in November 2022 and the subsequent
bankruptcy of FTX Trading Ltd. and its U.S. affiliate FTX US.
Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that FTX executives
fraudulently withheld or misrepresented information with respect to
customer assets on the FTX platform and that the professional
services firms and celebrity promoters who worked with FTX were
complicit in or otherwise bear responsibility for the alleged fraud
-- for example, by concealing FTX's financial problems or promoting
FTX products with knowledge or willful blindness of the alleged
fraud. The MDL plaintiffs are FTX customers and investors seeking
to recover their losses, either individually or on behalf of
putative global, nationwide, and statewide classes. Defendants are
individuals and entities that allegedly facilitated FTX's wrongful
conduct.
Lahav, in its opposition to transfer, argues that the core factual
questions in its case materially differ from those in the MDL;
class certification proceedings would be complicated by transfer;
and transfer would be inefficient.
These arguments are unpersuasive, rules the panel. The main
question in Lahav involves the cause of the collapse of the FTX
cryptocurrency exchange. In Lahav, plaintiff alleges that FTX
competitor Binance -- allegedly, the world’s largest
cryptocurrency exchange -- made false and misleading statements on
social media in November 2022 that caused, or partially caused, a
run on deposits on FTX platforms, directly leading to FTX's
collapse. These statements, made by Binance’s then-CEO, allegedly
concerned liquidation of certain Binance holdings in FTX and a sham
proposal to acquire FTX.com that was suddenly withdrawn -- all in
an effort to remove FTX as a competitor in the cryptocurrency
market. While plaintiff in Lahav attributes the cause of FTX's
collapse to other actors than the MDL plaintiffs do, Lahav
necessarily will involve a complex factual inquiry into the cause
of FTX's collapse -- the same factual inquiry that is the subject
of the MDL.
"Thus, it is immaterial that the Binance entities are not currently
defendants in the MDL," the panel opines. "Plaintiff's advancement
of a competing theory of causation in Lahav makes transfer all the
more important to avoid inconsistent rulings. Moreover, transfer
does not require a complete identity of factual issues, and the
presence of additional facts or differing legal theories is not
significant when, as here, the actions arise from a common factual
core."
The involvement of overlapping classes of FTX customers and
investors also supports transfer, the panel notes.
"We do not believe the alleged procedural differences among the
actions warrant exclusion of Lahav," the panel relates. "In fact,
all matters are at similar stages. Lahav, like the actions in the
MDL, is at the pleading stage, and motions to dismiss are pending
or anticipated in both. Given the relatively early stage of
proceedings of both matters, we are confident Lahav can be
efficiently integrated into the MDL proceedings. Additionally,
federal securities claims subject to the PSLRA regularly are
included in MDLs involving non-securities claims for centralized
pretrial proceedings. We see no persuasive reason to treat Lahav
differently."
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3076-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3076: Panel Denies Transfer of Onusz Suit to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: FTX Cryptocurrency
Exchange Collapse Litigation," MDL No. 3076, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, denies the transfer of case captioned "Onusz, et al. v.
West Realm Shires Inc., et al., Bky. Adv. No. 1:22-50513," (D.
Del.) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel in MDL No. 3076 moved for
transfer of said the Onusz bankruptcy adversary proceeding while
defendant Samuel Bankman-Fried supports the motion.
According to the panel, the Onusz action undoubtedly shares common
factual questions with the actions in the MDL concerning the
collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange and the alleged fraud
and misconduct of defendants Bankman-Fried, Wang, Singh, and
Ellison. But Onusz is intertwined with the FTX bankruptcy, In re
FTX Trading Ltd., No. 22-11068 (Bankr. D. Del.), which includes
debtors FTX Trading Ltd., West Realm Shires Services Inc., and
Alameda Research LLC -- all of whom are defendants in Onusz. The
primary claims in Onusz are the claims against the debtor
defendants concerning (1) whether customer deposits are property of
the FTX debtors' estates, a central issue in the FTX bankruptcy;
and (2) if so, what priority FTX customers have in the distribution
of the estates' assets. The record indicates that the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court likely will resolve these questions in the context
of the proposed Chapter 11 Plan. In particular, the Onusz
plaintiffs represent that, in late 2023, they reached a settlement
of the customer property issue with the FTX debtors, the Committee
of Unsecured Creditors, and the Ad Hoc Committee of Non-US
Customers of FTX.com, which is embodied in a Settlement and Plan
Support Agreement filed in the lead FTX bankruptcy case, subject to
confirmation by the bankruptcy judge in connection with the
debtors' proposed Plan of Reorganization.
The panel further notes that, "Movants' arguments in support of
transfer rest mainly on the factual overlap between Onusz and the
MDL and our authority to transfer bankruptcy adversary proceedings
under Section 1407. But they fail to account for the inefficiencies
that likely would be caused by separating Onusz from the rest of
the proceedings in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court."
The proposal by defendants Wang, Singh, and Ellison to separate the
claims against them for transfer to the MDL and retain the claims
against the debtor defendants in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court is
not practicable, 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-3076-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-24.pdf
ME RESTAURANT: Faces Figueroa Suit Over Illegal Pay Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ME RESTAURANT OF BUCKHEAD LLC, KARAM
ENTERPRISES, LLC, and JOSEPH KARAM, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01649-LMM (N.D. Ga., April 18, 2024) seeks damages and
other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked overtime during his employment by
Defendants. Beginning in September 2021, however, Defendants
conspired to schedule Plaintiff in such a way that limited or
eliminated the hours that each entity would pay as overtime by
splitting his working time between Karam Enterprises and ME
Restaurant of Buckhead, LLC. Moreover, the Defendants willfully
failed to properly compensate Plaintiff Figueroa and similarly
situated current and former hourly Red Pepper cooks for overtime,
says the suit.
ME Restaurant of Buckhead LLC owns and operates multiple Red Pepper
Taqueria restaurant locations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. McCabe, Esq.
Graham White, Esq.
THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
3355 Lenox Road Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 250-3233
Facsimile: (404) 400-1724
E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com
MENASHA PACKAGING: Faces Logan Suit Over Biometric Info Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Logan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Menasha Packaging Company, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03604
(N.D. Ill., May 3, 2024) alleges that Defendant is engaged in
unlawful collection, obtainment, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information, in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Menasha Packaging employees, including the Plaintiff, are required
to undergo biometric authentication each shift in order to receive
compensation. Allegedly, Menasha Packaging has collected and stored
the facial geometry of each employee who was required to use the
fingerprint scanning technology as part of Menasha Packaging's
timeclock procedure. Each fingerprint scan that Menasha Packaging
extracts is unique to a particular individual in the same way that
fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies a particular
individual, the suit says.
Furthermore, Menasha Packaging had no written policy, made
available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying biometric information when
the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such biometric
information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the
individual's last interaction with Menasha Packaging, whichever
occurs first, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of herself and all
members of the following Rule 23 Class:
"All individuals who had their biometric information collected
by Menasha Packaging in Illinois at any point in the five (5)
years preceding the filing of this Complaint."
The Plaintiff began working at Menasha Packaging's facility located
at 11601 Central Avenue, Alsip, Illinois 60803 as an assembly line
worker from 2020 through the present.
Menasha provides graphic consumer packaging, merchandising
solutions, contract packaging and fulfillment services, corrugated
packaging, food packaging and shipping container.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street,
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order setting trial date
and related dates (class action) as follows:
Trial Date: Nov. 2, 2026
Deadline to submit joint ESI May 17, 2024
Protocol and Protective Order,
or alternatively, disputes regarding
the same:
Deadline to join additional parties: May 29, 2024
Deadline to amend pleadings: June 28, 2024
Substantial completion of document Sept. 20, 2024
Discovery:
Close of fact discovery: Dec. 1, 2024
Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion Jan. 31, 2025
for class certification and serve
class certification expert reports:
Deadline for Defendants to file April 11, 2025
opposition to motion for class
certification, serve any class
certification expert reports, and file
any Daubert motions regarding Plaintiff's
class certification experts:
Settlement conference held no later than: April 17, 2026
Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars
in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RgqpIG at no extra
charge.[CC]
MISAHARA JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Misahara Jewelry, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03444
(S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Misahara Jewelry provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://www.misahara.com.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
jewelry on Misahara.com. After evaluating the company's offerings,
she selected the Diamond Charms. Yet, when trying to make a
purchase, she allegedly encountered many difficulties navigating
the website due to its accessibility issues, such as ambiguous link
texts, lack of landmarks, which made the purchasing process
challenging, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Misahara Jewelry's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Misahara is an online seller of fine and designer jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
Hicksville, NY 11801
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
NONSTOP ADMIN: Court Extends Case Management Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PRUTSMAN, AMIRA
MARTZ, SIMCHA RINGEL, NAIOMI MARDEN, ALANA BALAGOT, CORINNE WARREN,
SUNNY LAI, AND DAVID KLEIN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION AND INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC., Inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01131-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order extending the Case
Management Deadlines as follows:
-- Class Certification Primary Expert July 12, 2024
Disclosures due by:
-- Deadline to amend the pleadings is: July 19, 2024
-- Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Aug. 9, 2024
Disclosures due by:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NzyYFz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Van Note Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
221 W Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
jnelson@milber.co
The Defendant is represented by:
Jill H. Fertel, Esq.
CIPRIANI & WERNER PC
1011 Mumma Road Suite 201
Lemoyne, PA 17043
NORTHEAST WORK: Fact Discovery in Obermeier Due Nov. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Obermeier v. Northeast
Work & Safety Boats, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00046 (D. Conn.,
Filed Jan. 11, 2023), the Hon. Sarala V. Nagala Judge entered an
order amending the scheduling order and adopting the following
schedule:
-- Plaintiff shall submit an updated damages Sept. 14,
2024
analysis by:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Nov. 15, 2024
-- The first status report, due: Aug. 15, 2024
-- The second status report, due: Nov. 22, 2024
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to move Feb. 14,
2025
for Rule 23 class certification, and
for Defendants to move to decertify the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective,
is:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Northeast Work provides rescue, inspection work boats and work
platforms and barges.[CC]
OREGON: Wyatt B.'s Bid to Modify Protective Order Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene, grants in part the Plaintiffs' request to modify
the protective order entered in the lawsuit entitled WYATT B., et
al., Plaintiffs v. TINA KOTEK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-00556-AA (D. Or.).
The class action lawsuit comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs'
request to modify the protective order in this case, submitted by
letter on April 10, 2024. The Defendants submitted their letter
responding to the Plaintiffs' request on April 16, 2024.
The Plaintiffs seek two substantive modifications to the Amended
Stipulated Protective Order in this case. The first of the proposed
amendments would modify Paragraph 1 of the Amended Stipulated
Protective Order and would allow fact witnesses bound by state and
federal confidentiality provisions to testify in this matter. The
parties have reached a stipulated resolution of this issue and have
presented language modifying Paragraph 1 in Exhibit 1 of the
Plaintiff's letter.
The Court has reviewed the proposed amendments to Paragraph 1 and
finds that they are reasonable and will authorize the proposed
amendments.
The Plaintiffs also seek clarification from the Court concerning
public filings and testimony derived from documents marked
"Confidential" and "Attorney Eyes' Only." Under the proposed
amendment to Paragraph 1(b), the use of such information would be
permitted with the use of pseudonyms and redactions, consistent
with the Court's Opinion and Order of Sept. 12, 2019.
The Defendants have proposed an additional amendment to Paragraph
1(b), which would add the following sentence to the end of the
paragraph: "The parties must also file copies of the same pleadings
under seal without pseudonyms or redactions so the opposing party
receives the 'Confidential' or 'Attorneys' Eyes Only' information
subject to this Protective Order."
The Court concludes that this proposed insertion is reasonable and
permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(f) and will be allowed.
The second set of proposed amendments would alter Paragraphs 2,
7(c), and 8 of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order to allow
state court dependency counsel for the children whose files have
been produced in this case to have access to "Confidential" and
"Attorneys' Eyes Only" information produced in discovery in this
case. The proposed amendment to Paragraph 2 would also allow the
dependency attorney to use that "Confidential" and "Attorneys' Eyes
Only" information for purposes unrelated to this litigation. The
Defendants object to these proposed amendments.
The Court declines to authorize the proposed amendments to
Paragraphs 2, 7(c), and 8. Judge Aiken opines that Oregon state
court dependency proceedings are overseen by judges, who are
empowered to made determinations concerning the disclosure of
information in those cases. This Court will not allow the rulings
or the authority of the dependency courts to be evaded by
permitting dependency counsel, who are not before this Court, to
use discovery in this case to gain access to information that they
would not otherwise be entitled to receive.
If dependency counsel needs or desires access to that information,
Judge Aiken says they must seek it through the ordinary state court
processes.
In addition, the Defendants have presented evidence that the
material subject to disclosure under the Plaintiffs' proposed
amendments would include sensitive information concerning
individuals, who are not represented by the dependency counsel, who
would gain access to the information. This would potentially
include information about caregivers, confidential reporters,
siblings, parents, and other family members of the children
represented by dependency counsel.
The proposed amendments to Paragraphs 2, 7(c), and 8 do not provide
sufficient protections or limitations on the use of such sensitive
information, Judge Aiken points out. The Court will, therefore,
deny the Plaintiffs' request to modify Paragraphs 2, 7(c), and 8 of
the Amended Stipulated Protective Order.
Judge Aiken holds that the proposed amendments to Paragraph 1 of
the Amended Stipulated Protective Order, including the Defendants'
proposed amendment concerning the filing of unredacted documents
under seal, are granted. The proposal to amend Paragraphs 2, 7(c),
and 8 is denied. The parties are to submit a proposed Second
Amended Stipulated Protective Order conforming with this ruling
within three (3) days of the date of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 18,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3un77v from
PacerMonitor.com.
PATHWAY MANAGEMENT: Dukes et al. Sue Over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKITA DUKES, DARWIN THOMAS, JIHAN THOMAS, LATISHA BAKER, CASSANDRA
REED, TRENA ELLIS, TIERRA SEAY, CANDYCE HINES, and JACQUELINE
HUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PATHWAY MANAGEMENT WESTMONT, LLC d/b/a
ASPIRED LIVING OF WESTMONT; PATHWAY SENIOR LIVING, LLC; PATHWAY
MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a PATHWAY TO LIVING; VICTORY CENTRE OF SIERRA
RIDGE, LLC; VICTORY CENTRE OF GALEWOOD; VICTORY CENTRE OF PARK
FOREST, LLC; and VICTORY CENTRE OF SOUTH CHICAGO, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2024LA000475 (Fla. Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., April
18, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiffs collectively worked for Defendants between 2016 and
2019. Each time Plaintiffs began and ended a workday, Defendants
required a scan of Plaintiffs' fingerprints. However, Defendants
never informed Plaintiffs of the specific limited purposes or
length of time for which they collected, stored, or used
fingerprints. Among other things, Defendants also failed to obtain
informed written consent from them and its other employees before
acquiring their biometric data, say the Plaintiffs.
Based in Illinois, Pathway Management LLC manages senior living and
independent care facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St Louis, MO 63101
E-mail: BWise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C.
200 E. 5th Ave., Ste 115
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
docketing@fishlawfirm.com
PITTSBURGH REGIONAL: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by May 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE(S) AND JANE
DOE(S) v. PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736 (W.D.
Pa., Filed Dec. 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered
an order granting consent motion for extension of time to file
response/reply to plaintiffs' motion to certify class action.
-- The Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs May 20,
2024
motion to certify class action on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs Reply Brief, if any, shall be June 3,
2024
filed by:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights (Employment
Discrimination).
Pittsburgh Regional Transit is the second-largest public transit
agency in Pennsylvania and the 20th-largest in the United
States.[CC]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: 9th Cir. Affirms Arbitration in Charles Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BENJAMIN CHARLES, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-35613
(9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's order compelling arbitration.
The Appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, and assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00955-YY (Marco A. Hernandez,
Chief District Judge, Presiding).
In 2008, Benjamin Charles opened a credit card account with U.S.
Bank ("USB"). In 2015, Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
("PRA") purchased Charles' account from USB and initiated a
collection action against Charles in Oregon state court to recover
an unpaid balance.
After the collection case was closed, Charles filed a putative
class action in federal court alleging that PRA violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") in prosecuting its state
court case against him. PRA moved to compel arbitration and stay
the proceedings, relying on an arbitration clause contained in
Charles' credit card agreement. The district court granted PRA's
motion and the matter was arbitrated. Eventually, the district
court dismissed the action without prejudice.
Mr. Charles appeals the district court's order compelling
arbitration. The Panel affirms.
The Panel finds that the district court properly concluded that
Ohio law governs the validity of the arbitration agreement and that
an enforceable arbitration clause exists. Charles' use of his
credit card and account constitutes assent to the credit card
agreement, including the arbitration clause contained within it.
The district court did not err in holding that PRA could enforce
the arbitration clause, the Panel also finds. Charles contends PRA
only purchased the debts, not the contract rights, associated with
his account. Not so. In the sale agreement, USB assigned to PRA all
rights, title, and interest in Charles' account. This broad
language encompasses the right to enforce agreements associated
with the account, including the arbitration clause, the Appellate
Court explains.
In his complaint, Charles alleges that PRA committed unfair debt
collection practices by providing him with false information and
using requests for admissions to make misleading implications about
PRA's ability to take valuable property.
The Panel opines that the factual allegations underlying such
claims relate to how PRA collected the unpaid balance that Charles
incurred on his account. Given the presumption of arbitrability and
the broad language of the arbitration clause, the Panel holds that
Charles' FDCPA claims are arbitrable.
Affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated April 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8ka6rt from PacerMonitor.com.
PRECISION TUNE AUTO: Maves Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precision Tune Auto
Care, Inc. The case is styled as Geoff Maves, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Precision Tune Auto Care,
Inc.Case No. 1:24-cv-00511-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., March 28, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Precision Tune Auto Care -- https://www.precisiontune.com/ --
specializes in preventative car services & maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 934-6377
Fax: (703) 934-6379
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
The Defendant is represented by:
Renee Knudsen
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 861-1599
Email: rknudsen@bakerlaw.com
PREMIER SHOP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley ADA Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Premier Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03445 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Premier Shop provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://www.watchwarehouse.com.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
watch on Watchwarehouse.com. After reviewing the available
products, she selected the Seiko Quartz Silver Unisex Watch based
on its design and craftsmanship. Even though she was able to find
the desired product, the Plaintiff encountered numerous
accessibility issues that prevented her from proceeding to the
checkout page and finalizing the purchase, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Premier Shop's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and
enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of
Watchwarehouse.com, the Plaintiff and the class have suffered an
injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and
is a direct result of Defendant's conduct, the suit adds.
Ms. Riley is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Premier provides to the public a website known as
Watchwarehouse.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view watches,
bracelets, earrings, necklaces, charms, belts, wallets, pens,
sunglasses, organizers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
Hicksville, NY 11801
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Seal Exhibit OK'd in Ambrosio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elliott Ambrosio, et al.,
v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00342-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered
an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal Exhibit V to their
Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Progressive provides insurances services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7dYjkh at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE QUALITY: Dorn Sues Over Lack of Breaks & Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Dorn, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. PROGRESSIVE QUALITY CARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00797-PAB (N.D.
Ohio, May 3, 2024), is brought challenges policies and practices of
Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a
result of the Defendants failure to provide uninterrupted meal
breaks and failure to pay proper overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were direct
care workers in Defendant's nursing homes within the last three
years and were paid on an hourly basis. Although they may have had
different job titles and some different job duties, the common
element amongst members of the Collective were that they were all
subject to Defendant's policy of taking an automatic 30-minute
deduction from their compensable hours worked for a meal break.
Although Defendant required the automatic deduction of a daily
30-minute meal break, members of the Collective were often unable
to take a meal break or otherwise took a shortened meal break
because they had their meal break interrupted with substantive job
duties. The Defendant did not have an effective process or
otherwise did not properly implement an effective process for
reporting all instances when its employees were unable to take a
bona fide meal break so that meal break deductions were not
applied
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, but
they were not paid an overtime premium for all of hours worked over
40 in a workweek, as a result of Defendant's daily meal break
deduction for meal breaks that were not taken or that were
otherwise interrupted or shortened by work. The Defendant's failure
to compensate members of the Collective, as set forth above,
resulted in unpaid overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee
who was paid on an hourly basis.
The Defendant owns and operates 11 nursing homes in Ohio that
operate under the name The Avenue Care and Rehabilitation
Center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 330-470-4428
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
PROLIANCE SURGEONS: Hill Sues Over Undisclosed Wage Scale
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROLIANCE SURGEONS, INC., P.S., a Washington
professional service corporation; and DOES 1-20, Case No.
24-2-05722-6 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., March 14, 2024), is
brought on behalf of individuals who applied to job openings with
the Defendant where the job postings did not include the wage scale
or salary range being offered in direct violation of Revised Code
of Washington (RCW).
Effective January 1, 2023, employers must disclose, in each posting
for each job opening, the wage scale or salary range and a general
description of all of the benefits and other compensation being
offered to the hired applicant. The Washington legislature finds
that "despite existing equal pay laws, there continues to be a gap
in wages and advancement opportunities among workers in
Washington."
From January 1, 2023 to the present, Plaintiff and more than 40
Class members applied to job openings with Defendant for positions
located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage
scale or salary range being offered. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff
applied for a job opening in King County, Washington with
Defendant. The posting for the job opening did not disclose the
wage scale or salary range being offered.
The Plaintiff applied to work for Defendant in good faith with the
intent of gaining employment, so long as the wage scale or salary
range, which remains unknown, meets his and his family's needs. The
Plaintiff and the Class lost valuable time applying for jobs with
Defendant for which the wage scale or salary range was not
disclosed to them.
As a result of Plaintiff's and Class members' inability to evaluate
the pay for the position, negotiate that pay, and compare that pay
to other available positions in the marketplace, Plaintiff and the
Class suffered economic and non-economic harm. As a result of
Defendant's actions and omissions, Plaintiff and the Class have
been economically and non-economically damaged in amounts to be
proven at trial, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff applied to work for the Defendant at its surgical
center.
Proliance Surgeons, Inc., P.S. is a Washington professional
services corporation that regularly transacts business in King
County, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
RICOLA USA: Cowit & Rhoades Sue Over Deceptive Sale of Cough Drops
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP COWIT, and MATTHEW RHOADES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICOLA USA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00734 (D. Conn., April 18, 2024),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
To appeal to consumers who value authenticity and products
associated with places known for quality, Ricola USA Inc. sells
"Original Herb Cough Drops," promoted as "Made With Swiss Alpine
Herbs," identified by pictures of peppermint, elder, wild thyme,
horehound, hyssop, mallow, thyme, lemon balm, linden flower, sage,
for the purposes of acting as a "Cough Suppressant and Oral
Anesthetic." However, Plaintiffs allege that the said product is
misbranded and misleading to consumers because its efficacy is not
derived from herbal ingredients grown in the Alps of Switzerland,
but menthol, a chemical compound extracted from herbs, grown on the
plains of India.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
product is sold at a premium price, approximately $3.49 for 21
lozenges, and higher prices when sold in larger quantities,
excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented
in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for
absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the
suit.
Ricola USA Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that manufactures and
sells herbal lozenges under the Ricola brand. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
777 W Putnam Ave Ste 300
Greenwich CT 06830
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com
RLI CORP: Lakatos Insurance Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JON LAKATOS, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated,
v. RLI CORP., dba RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation;
MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation; DOES 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. 2024CUFR022363 (Filed March 21, 2024) was
removed rom the Ventura County Superior Court, State of California,
to the United States District Court, Central District of
California, Western Division, on May 3, 2024
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-03678 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that RLI issued to Plaintiff Personal Umbrella
Liability Policy No. PUP1399126, in effect May 12, 2021 to May 12,
2022, with underinsured motorist limits of $1 million, in excess of
all Underlying Insurance.
The Complaint also alleges that RLI determined that there was no
excess UIM coverage under the RLI Umbrella Policy because the
collision did not result from an underinsured motor vehicle, as
defined by the underlying Mercury policy, which definition is
incorporated into the RLI Umbrella Policy.
Although not alleged in the Complaint, RLI also declined UIM
coverage because excess coverage is not available unless or until
the primary Mercury policy exhausts by payment of damages or
settlement.
On May 17, 2021, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle
collision resulting in injuries exceeding the $250,000 per person
policy limits paid to the Plaintiff under the tortfeasor's
automobile liability policy, says the suit.
RLI is an American insurance company specializing in property
insurance and casualty insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Rikos, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE RIKOS
555 W. Beech Street, Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 342-9161
Facsimile: (858) 724-1453
E-mail: George@georgerikoslaw.com
- and -
Santo Riccobono, Esq.
Tobin Ellis, Esq.
ELLIS RICCOBONO LLP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 260
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (424) 901-1202
Facsimile: (310) 861-8540
E-mail: info@ertriallawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven M. Crane, Esq.
Peter J. Marcus, Esq.
BERKES CRANE SANTANA & SPANGLER LLP
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 955-1150
Facsimile: (213) 955-1155
E-mail: scrane@bcsslaw.com
pmarcus@bcsslaw.com
ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART, and JUAN
CARLOS VAZQUEZ, v. ROBERT LUNA, SHERIFF, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court for
an order granting class certification and appointment of class
counsel in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bdBXLY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Dominic Price, Esq.
JDP PC
1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 451-2222
E-mail: jdp@jdpfirm.com
ROSEBUD MINING: Chapaloney Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD CHAPALONEY, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSEBUD MINING COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00590 (W.D. Pa., April 18, 2024) challenges
Defendant's policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
During their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated coal miners regularly worked more than 40 hours
per workweek. However, they were not paid for all time worked at
the beginning and end of their shift, including for time spent
donning and doffing required clothing and equipment that occurred
when they were required to be on Defendant's premises and that was
and is integral and indispensable to their principal activities of
coal mining, says the suit.
Headquartered in Kittanning, PA, Rosebud Mining Company is a
producer of low, mid, and high volatile metallurgical coals in
Pennsylvania, and steam coals in Pennsylvania and Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten L. Connon, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: 330-470-4428
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
SALEM HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 28, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.R. v. Salem Health
Hospitals and Clinics, Case No. 6:23-cv-01691 (D. Or., Filed Nov.
15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order:
-- Scheduling for Motion for Class Certification Feb. 28,
2025
to be filed by:
-- Response is due by: April 29,
2025
-- Reply is due by: June 27,
2025
The nature of suit states breaches of contract
Salem Health is a not-for-profit health system.[CC]
SAN MARIA PIZZA: Anasco Sues Over Multiple Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACINTO AÑASCO, Plaintiff v. SAN MARIA PIZZA CORP (DBA WHITEPOINT
PIZZA) and ANTONINO CURCURU, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02921 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2024) is a class action accusing
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 Anasco was employed by Defendants from approximately July
2020 until April 14, 2024, where his primary work duty was as a
cook, he prepared pizzas and helped in the kitchen. Allegedly,
Defendants systematically failed to pay Plaintiff the applicable
overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. Among other things, Defendants failed to provide a
compliant hiring notice and accurate wages statements as mandated
under NYLL, says the suit.
San Maria Pizza Corp. owns and operates a pizzeria in Queens, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT: Dykstra Sues Over Unlawful Covenants
----------------------------------------------------------
Dylon Dykstra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA ECOSHIELD MANAGEMENT
CO, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Case
No. 24-2-05701-3 KNT (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., March 14, 2024),
is brought against the Defendant on behalf of its current and
former employees who entered into noncompetition covenants
prohibiting them from having an additional job, supplementing their
income by working for another employer, working as an independent
contractor, and from being self-employed in direct violation of
Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Effective January 1, 2024, Washington's minimum wage was $16.28 per
hour. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and Class members less than
twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage, which was $27.38
per hour in 2021, $28.98 per hour in 2022, $31.48 per hour in 2023,
and $32.56 per hour in 2024. The Defendant required Plaintiff and
Class members to enter into noncompetition covenants that
prohibited them from having additional jobs during their employment
with Defendant. Plaintiff earned less than twice the applicable
state minimum hourly wage throughout his employment with Defendant.
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant ended in approximately May
2023. As a result of Defendant's actions and omissions, Plaintiff
and the Class have been damaged in amounts to be established at
trial, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in King County, Washington as a
Pest Control Technician.
The Defendant provides commercial and residential pest control and
extermination services throughout Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
SOUTHSTAR BANK: Faces Connelly Suit Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
RYANT CONNELLY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHSTAR BANK, S.S.B., Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-00009 (S.D. Tex., April 18, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable procedures and
protocols necessary to protect its customers' personal
information.
Between October 27, 2023, and November 6, 2023, an unknown and
unauthorized criminal actor gained access to Defendant employees
email account and exfiltrated, at a minimum, customer names in
combination with one or more of the following elements: Social
Security number, financial account information, and credit or debit
card numbers. However, Defendant did not notify any victims until
four months later on or around March 26, 2024. Accordingly,
Plaintiff Connelly asserts claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.
Based in Moulton, TX, SouthStar Bank provides financial services
throughout Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN and SAMANTHA
ROOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of order denying class certification.
Southwest's new material evidence, presented only after testimony
in another case revealed that Southwest had presented inaccurate
evidence to this Court, supports reconsideration of this Court's
determination regarding adequacy of representation, which
determination alone resulted in denial of certification.
That contradictory evidence undercuts the conclusion that the
Plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the COC's incorporation of
Southwest's Website T&Cs and its class action waiver.
The Plaintiffs did not, in fact, have "direct" access via
"hyperlink"
On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Class Cert. Motion. On
June 13, 2020, Southwest filed its opposition.
On Sept. 9, 2023, after oral argument, this Court issued its Order,
making the single determination that Plaintiffs are "inadequate
class representatives."
On March 13, 2024, Southwest filed its Notice to Clarify, after
Southwest employee Elizabeth Behrens was deposed in another case
that Southwest is defending.
Southwest Airlines is a major airline in the United States that
operates on a low-cost carrier model.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEh0y4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
nswartzberg@pwfirm.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER
& SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Kristen L. Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 West Las Olas Blvd. Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Scheduling Order Entered in Barot Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barot v. St. John's
University, Case No. 1:22-cv-04823 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered a scheduling order as
follows:
The parties must be prepared to discuss their proposed briefing on
Plaintiff's expected motion for class certification, as well as the
apparent conflicts between:
(1) their proposed schedules for expert discovery; and
(2) their briefing on Defendant's expected motion for summary
judgment.
The nature of suit breaches of contract.
St. John's is a private Catholic university in Queens, New York
City.[CC]
STONECO LTD: Continues to Defend Ray Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
StoneCo Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Ray securities class suit.
On November 19, 2021, Ronald F. Ray filed a putative securities
class action against StoneCo Ltd., Thiago dos Santos Piau, Lia
Machado de Matos, Rafael Martins Pereira and Marcelo Baldin.
On December 7, 2021, Landon Depue filed a substantially similar
complaint against the same parties.
On January 18, 2022, six potential class members moved for
consolidation of both actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff
(Tulsi Chaulagain, Indiana Public Retirement System, Audrey
Holdings Group Limited, Bandana Neupane Poudel, Tan Seh Yii, and
Paul Foden).
On May 2, 2022, the Court consolidated the related actions and
appointed Indiana Public Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 7, 2022.
The Amended Complaint added as Defendants Andre Street de Aguiar
and Eduardo Cunha Monnerat Solon de Pontes.
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants
made misrepresentations regarding the risks and profitability of
its credit product and failed to disclose changes to our credit
check process.
Lead Plaintiff alleges that these purportedly material
misstatements and omissions artificially inflated the value of our
stock.
The Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 7,
2022.
The motion has been fully briefed since February 13, 2023, and the
parties are now awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss.
There were no updates regarding this class action until the date of
the filing of this 20-F.
The total amount at issue is not currently determinable at this
stage of the lawsuit.
The Company believe the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
itself against all claims, although it cannot predict the outcome.
StoneCo is a provider of financial technology solutions. StoneCo's
services allow merchants and other vendors to conduct electronic
commerce across in-store, online, and mobile channels, primarily in
Brazil. Starting in 2019, StoneCo expanded its offerings to include
credit solutions to its customers. The Individual Defendants are
officers of the company.[BN]
TEMPUR SEALY: Anyasulu and Zhuravel Sue Over Misleading Sale on Web
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HARRIET GENEVIEVE ANYASULU and ALINA ZHURAVEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR
SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SEALY ECOMMERCE,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; TEMPUR-PEDIC NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SEALY
TECHNOLOGY LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company; THE
STEARNS & FOSTER BEDDING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV072341 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., April 18, 2024) seeks to remedy Defendants' unlawful
and deceptive practices with respect to misleading sale promotions
advertised on Defendants' website.
The Defendants' website prominently advertises sales on its
website. These advertisements include site-wide percentages off
purported "regular" prices, purported discounts, and a countdown
timer that purportedly shows when the sale will end. However,
Defendants advertised "regular" prices are not the prevailing
regular prices, and the sales Defendants advertise are not really
time-barred sales. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law.
Tempur Sealy International manufactures, markets, advertises,
and/or sells mattresses, bedding,
bases, frames, and/or other sleep-related products. It sell its
products online through its website,
https://www.cocoonbysealy.com/. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-763
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
TEN BRIDGES: Bids to Amend Judgment in Taie Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARY TAIE, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEN BRIDGES
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00526-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle:
(a) grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to amend judgment for prejudgment interest;
(b) grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
cross-motion to amend judgment; and
(c) grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of costs.
According to the Plaintiffs' complaint, Clifford Groves died
intestate in 2010, leaving Plaintiffs Mary Taie, Moyra Coop, and
William Groves as his only heirs. They inherited their father's
home, subject to a deed of trust. In 2014, a foreclosure action was
filed in state court against the estate based on this deed of
trust. Ms. Taie was named a defendant in that action, alongside the
"unknown heirs" of Clifford Groves. After a sheriff's sale of the
Groves home, the surplus foreclosure proceeds of $135,224.51
remained, and were held on deposit in the state court registry.
Defendant Ten Bridges LLC then reached out to the Plaintiffs and
contracted with them to execute quitclaim deeds, selling their
rights to the foreclosure surplus proceeds for $5,000 each.
Defendant Ten Bridges LLC was able to eventually use the quitclaim
deeds to successfully petition King County Superior Court to
release the surplus proceeds to it.
After learning of Ten Bridges' receipt of these surplus funds, the
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ten Bridges and
its principal, Demian Heald, asserting claims under Washington's
Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Voidable Transactions Act,
along with non-statutory claims, namely, conversion, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and abuse of the corporate
form.
Following motions practice, the Court granted summary judgment to
the Plaintiffs as to their unjust enrichment claim and to the
Defendants on the remaining claims. The Court, then, entered
judgment for the Plaintiffs in the amount of $135,224.51--the
surplus proceeds Ten Bridges recovered. The Court now considers the
parties' requests to amend judgment and the Plaintiffs' request for
an award of costs.
Defendant Ten Bridges argues that the amount awarded by the Court
should be paid to the King County Superior Court's registry--not
the Plaintiffs--as only this would restore parties to their state
of affairs prior to the sale of the quitclaim deeds. They further
argue that only the King County Superior Court may disburse the
surplus proceeds to the Plaintiffs.
The Court disagrees. Judge Coughenour opines that there is no need
for the proceeds to be re-deposited with the Superior Court because
the Plaintiffs were entitled to a disbursement of the funds in the
first instance.
As part of the contract for the quitclaim deeds, Defendant Ten
Rivers LLC paid the Plaintiffs a total of $15,000. The Court
previously found this contract void and that allowing the
Defendants to retain the surplus proceeds would be "manifestly
inequitable." However, just as allowing the Defendants to retain
the proceeds of the void contracts would be inequitable, allowing
the Plaintiffs to retain the payments they received as part of the
void contract would result in a windfall for the Plaintiffs and
effectively impose punitive damages against the Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the judgment amount is corrected
to $120,224.51.
In their Motion, the Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to
prejudgment interest. Washington courts typically grant prejudgment
interest solely on claims that are either liquidated or readily
assessable, rather than on unliquidated claims.
The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment
interest because, had the funds remained in the King County
Superior Court, those funds would not have accrued interest. But
given the ruling here, Judge Coughenour says the argument is inapt
and besides the point: the Defendants have enjoyed full use of the
funds and deprived the Plaintiffs of the same since the Plaintiffs
quitclaimed their interest(s) in the property to Ten Bridges.
Thus, Judge Coughenour holds the Plaintiffs are entitled to
prejudgment interest of 12% per annum on their liquidated claim (as
the amount outstanding is a sum certain). And since the Plaintiffs
are entitled to an amended award of $120,224.51, at 12%, this
amounts to prejudgment interest of $81,265.19.
Separately, the Plaintiffs move for an award of $7,279.26 for court
and service fees, deposition costs, and statutory attorney fees.
The Defendants do not oppose this motion.
For these reasons, the Court rules that:
1. The Defendants' motion to amend judgment is granted in part
and denied in part. The Clerk is directed to issue an
amended judgment in the amount of $120,224.51;
2. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend judgment is granted in part
and denied in part. The Clerk is directed to issue an
amended judgment to include $81,265.19 in prejudgment
interest; and
3. The Plaintiffs' motion for costs is granted. The Clerk is
directed to issue an amended judgment reflecting $7,279.26
in costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ytajm9tf from PacerMonitor.com.
THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIV: Vincent Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS VINCENT II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff V. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:24-cv-01561-JLS (E.D. Pa., April 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for damages and restitution resulting from
TJU's retention of the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and the
other putative Class members for in-person education and services
not being provided for the Spring 2020 semester.
In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, TJU, like many other
universities, transitioned to remote online-only education,
canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity
events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus.
Specifically, this lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the prorated,
unused amounts of the fees that Plaintiff and other putative Class
members paid, but for which they were not provided the benefit, as
well as a partial prorated tuition reimbursement representing the
difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for
which they had paid, and the online product that they received.
The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student during the said semester,
paid tuition and fees to enroll in TJU's on-campus, in-person
education program, including all the benefits and services
associated therewith for the entirety of the semester.
Thomas Jefferson University is a private research university
founded in 1824.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
TRUEACCORD CORP: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Sara Moore, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
3:24-cv-00114-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., March 14, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the
industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by
machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S HINDI - FORT LAUDERDALE FL
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Michael Marees, II, Esq.
MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE LTD - JACKSONVILLE FL
12276 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 718
Jacksonville, FL 32223
Phone: (904) 527-1172
Fax: (904) 683-7353
Email: jmarees@messerstrickler.com
TWITTER INC: Bid to Dismiss Zeman's 1st Amended Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled JOHN
ZEMAN, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01786-SI (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff John Zeman is a former employee of Defendant Twitter,
Inc. He alleges that Twitter unlawfully discriminated against him
and other employees aged fifty or older based on age, and that
Defendant X Corp. ("X") has successor liability for Twitter's
unlawful acts. Twitter and X merged in March 2023 and are,
therefore, a single entity. The Defendants are referred to
collectively as "Twitter."
On April 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a collective and class
action complaint against Twitter alleging age discrimination under
the Age Discrimination and Employment Act ("ADEA") and the New York
State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). On Aug. 29, 2023, the Court
granted in part and denied in part Twitter's motion to dismiss the
Complaint.
In relevant part, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's disparate
treatment claim with leave to amend to allege facts that would
support causation. Specifically, the Court noted that the Plaintiff
had not pled that his performance was satisfactory or that the
younger employees, who were retained were similarly situated to the
older employees, who were laid off.
Judge Illston notes that the FAC alleges largely the same facts as
the Complaint. The FAC adds that the Plaintiff was employed by
Twitter as Senior Manager, Communications, and was notified of his
layoff in November 2022, although he officially separated from
Twitter in February 2023.
In April 2022, it was announced that Elon Musk would be purchasing
Twitter, a social media company. Following the purchase in late
October 2022, Musk immediately began a mass layoff or Reduction in
Force ("RIF") that affected over half of Twitter's employees. Most
laid off employees were notified on Nov. 4, 2022, although layoffs
occurred both before and after that date. Of the 4,964 employees
working at Twitter on Nov. 4, 2022, approximately 2,686 were laid
off that day.
The Plaintiff alleges that the decisions regarding which employees
to lay off were made under extremely hurried circumstances, with
little if any regard given to employees' job performance,
qualifications, experience, and abilities. He further alleges that
the majority of the initial layoff decisions were made by a small
group of managers, under close supervision by Musk. Some of these
managers were allegedly brought in from other companies owned by
Musk, and did not have much, if any, knowledge about Twitter's
operations. He alleges that the Nov. 4, 2022 RIF disproportionately
affected older workers.
The Plaintiff was informed of his layoff on Nov. 4, 2022, when he
was 63 years old. He brings this putative collective and class
action, on behalf of himself and other former employees ages 50 and
over who have lost their jobs since Elon Musk took control of
Twitter, claiming disparate impact and disparate treatment pursuant
to the ADEA and the NYSHRL.
The parties disagree on whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently
stated a claim for intentional age discrimination, and whether he
has standing to pursue his claims on behalf of other employees
discharged after Nov. 4, 2022.
Twitter contends that the Plaintiff's allegations do not support a
plausible inference of intentional age discrimination because the
FAC lacks basic performance and comparative allegations.
Judge Illston holds that the cases that Twitter cites at the motion
to dismiss stage are distinguishable. In Fresquez v. County of
Stanislaus, the court dismissed a disparate treatment claim
because, without even a description of what the plaintiff's duties
entailed, it was impossible to determine whether it was plausible
that the plaintiff was qualified for her position, and the
plaintiff did not allege that any similarly situated individuals
outside of her protected classes were treated more favorably.
Here, Judge Illston notes that although the Plaintiff could provide
more specifics about his duties and qualifications, he was
terminated in a RIF and alleges that employees aged 50 or older
were laid off "to a greater extent" than employees under the age of
50.
While a prima facie case of disparate treatment based solely on
statistical evidence must show a stark pattern of discrimination
unexplainable on grounds other than age, Judge Illston finds that
is not all the Plaintiff alleges here. While the Plaintiff's
statistical allegations alone may be insufficient to plead a
disparate treatment claim, they are relevant and strengthen the
plausibility of his claim.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has plausibly
pled a claim of disparate treatment. The Court need not address
whether his allegations are sufficient under a pattern or practice
framework or whether Musk's interview comment fails to support an
inference of intentional age discrimination because the Court finds
the other allegations, alone, sufficient.
Twitter also argues that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his
claims on behalf of employees, who separated "subsequently from" or
"for reasons other than" the Nov. 4, 2022 RIF because he could not
have suffered the same injuries as those employees. Here, the
Plaintiff challenges only the RIF itself, and alleges that the RIF
was a continuing event in which employees were laid off "on,"
"earlier," and "after" Nov. 4, 2022. He also alleges that the RIF
decisions were made "on the basis of age," with little if any
regard given to employees' job performance, qualifications,
experience, and abilities.
As the Court previously stated in its Aug. 29, 2023 order, while
the proposed class is broad and may be narrowed after discovery,
striking the class allegations now would be premature. Dismissal on
the basis of standing is premature, as well, Judge Illston adds.
For these reasons and for good cause shown, the Court denies in its
entirety Twitter's motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 18, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ye65rcn from PacerMonitor.com.
UNIBARNS TRADING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 5
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO JONES v. UNIBARNS
TRADING, INC., d/b/a UNICE HAIR, Case No. 1:23-cv-00594-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time in
light of the joint stipulation agreeing that no additional
discovery will be needed after the ruling on the class
certification motion.
-- The deadline for filing for class Aug. 5,
2024
certification is:
-- The Deadline for the close of discovery Oct. 25,
2024
remains:
Unibarns provides virgin human hair wigs, hair bundles and hair
extensions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vMdWKJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNION COLLEGE: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. UNION COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-03419
(S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure 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 people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its interactive
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.union.edu,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but
not limited to, https://unionathletics.com,
https://unionathleticsgear.merchorders.com and
https://bookstore.union.edu (collectively, the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
UNION COLLEGE, operates the Union College online retail store, as
well as the Union College interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Danalgottlieb@aol.com
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
UNION PACIFIC CORP: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal quarterly ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2024 that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act class suit.
In December 2019, the Company received a putative class action
complaint under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
alleging violation due to the use of a finger scan system developed
and managed by third parties.
Union Pacific and the plaintiff are currently in the discovery
phase.
While it believes that it has strong defenses to the claims made in
the complaint and will vigorously defend ourselves, there is no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome.
Union Pacific is a freight-hauling railroad that operates 8,300
locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west of
Chicago and New Orleans.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, et al., v. United
Behavioral Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their interim administrative motion to consider whether another
party's material should be sealed in portions of plaintiffs' reply
brief in support of renewed motion for class certification.
United provides management services on a contract and fee basis.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3EfEbe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 350S
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 677-4959
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678-5050
Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
UNITED SERVICES: Capps Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lynn Capps: Alex Guerrero; Christopher Gutierrez; Chandradat
Persaud; Jessie Ramos; And Miguel Galarza, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION (USSA); USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; And GARRISON PROPERTY AND CAUSALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 5:24-cv-00455-OLG (W.D. Tex., May 3, 2024), is
brought as a result Of USAA's unfair, deceptive, and misleading
practices and systematic breach of its contractual promise of
membership.
Upon proving a requisite military connection, USAA issues new
customers a member number. So central is membership to USAA that
its website prominently reads: "Member owned. Mission led. We're
run by members, for members." USAA aggressively promotes
membership's importance and value, including most recently through
a national television advertising campaign featuring former NFL
Star Rob Gronkowski.
But for nearly two-thirds of USAA's customers. membership is a
false. unfair, and deceptive promise that USAA has systematically
breached. In truth, USAA reserves real membership and its
concomitant benefits exclusively for customers from the officer
class (in particular. commissioned and senior non-commissioned
officers, officer candidates, and their unmarried widows). USAA
secretly relegates all other customers--in particular. Enlisted
personnel and military family members--to nominal or "fake" member
status.
In its advertising and general and direct communications, USAA
assures enlisted personnel and military family members they are
members while withholding information about their non-member status
and actively misleading them to think they are USAA members with
the same rights and privileges as real USAA members. To further
this scheme and create the illusion of membership for all
customers, USAA interacts with both real and nominal USAA members
through the same advertising. online, telephonic, and mail
channels. all of which are branded with USAA's name and logos.
The result Of USAA's unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices
and systematic breach of its contractual promise of membership is
that Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been and continue
to be denied the benefits of USAA membership, including sharing in
allocations of, and annual distributions from. USAA's unassigned
policyholder surplus, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased USAA automobile insurance from USAA.
USAA advertises, promotes, and sells automobile, home, property,
and other insurance products as exclusively available to those who
qualify for "membership" in USAA through a direct or familial
connection with the United States military or certain
military-related government agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street. 29th Floor
San Francisco. CA 94111
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Email: rheller@lchb.com
ndesai@lchb.eom
- and -
Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
David J. McMorris, Esq.
Christian Uehlein, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM, LLP
84 State Street, 41k Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 720-1333
Email: mthornton@tenlaw.com
dmcmorris@tcnIaw.com
cuehlein@tenlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
James C. Bradley, Esq.
Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
Caleb M. Hodge, Esq.
ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN. LLC
1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd. Bldg. A (29464)
Post Box Office 1007
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Phone: (843) 727-6500
Email: mbrickman@rpwb.com
jbradley@rpwb.com
nfields@tpwb.eom
chodge@rpwb.com
VIA RENEWABLES: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Feb. 27, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CLARK, v. VIA
RENEWABLES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00568-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order regarding class
certification deadlines as follows:
Initial Disclosures: May 2, 2024
Initial Expert Designation re class Sept. 24, 2024
certification:
Deadline to complete ADR ENE session: Oct. 4, 2024
Rebuttal Expert Designation re class Oct. 18, 2024
certification:
Class-focused Discovery Cut-off: Nov. 8, 2024
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: Dec. 9, 2024
Defendant's Class Certification Opposition: Jan. 8, 2025
Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply: Jan. 23, 2025
Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 27, 2025
Via operates as an independent retail energy services company in
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2Wetl at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA INC: MWSI Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Conditional Transfer Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VISA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 23, 2024 that the Mirage Wine class suit
plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the conditional transfer order
of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
On December 14, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by Mirage Wine
+ Spirit's Inc. against Apple Inc., Visa Inc. and Mastercard
Incorporated on behalf of certain merchants in the United States
that accepted Apple Pay as a method of payment at the physical
point-of-sale from December 14, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy under which Apple agreed not to
enter a purported market for point-of-sale payment card networks
services and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees
based on alleged violations of section 1 of the Sherman Act.
On January 5, 2024, Visa requested transfer of the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the MDL.
On February 2, 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered a conditional transfer order conditionally transferring the
case to the MDL.
On February 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order.
Visa Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a global payments
technology company that facilitates global commerce and money
movement across more than 200 countries and territories.
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bolyard Sues Over Acne Treatment's False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA BOLYARD, on behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03138 (N.D. Ill., April 18, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of violating the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law and
asserts claims for breach of implied warranty and unjust
enrichment.
The class action arises from Defendant's manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of Walgreens branded
benzoyl peroxide acne treatment products that contain and/or
degrade to form dangerously unsafe levels of benzene, a known human
carcinogen. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, restitution, other equitable
relief, including an injunction and disgorgement of all benefits
and profits Defendant received from misconduct, says the suit.
Based in Deerfield, IL, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation that owns and operates the website
https://www.walgreens.com/ and markets and distributes dermatology
products, including the BPO products, in the U.S. market. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128
Lincolnshire, IL 60629
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: nlange@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Melissa Meyer, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212-363-7500
Facsimile: 212-363-7171
E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
mmeyer@zlk.com
WATERS CORP: Bid to Dismiss Daggett's Amended Complaint Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the lawsuit titled DAVID DAGGETT,
individually, and as representative of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of the Waters Employee Investment Plan, Plaintiff v.
WATERS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11527-JGD
(D. Mass.).
The case is one brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Plaintiff David Daggett has brought
.suit, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Waters
Employee Investment Plan, against Waters Corporation, Waters
Technologies Corporation (together, "Waters"), the Board of
Directors of Waters Technologies Corporation, and the Employee
Benefits Administration Committee of Waters Technologies
Corporation (the "Plan Committee") (Waters, the Board, and the Plan
Committee are, collectively, the "Defendants") for the Defendants'
alleged breach of certain fiduciary duties owed to the plan under
ERISA.
Waters Technologies Corporation, a subsidiary of Waters
Corporation, is a corporation located in Milford, Massachusetts,
which manufacturers various water-based products, including lab
equipment and instrumentation systems for the research and testing
of water.
By 2021, the Plan held $1,219,718,041 ($1.219 billion) in assets
and had approximately 3,983 participants. It is alleged that,
through these figures, the Plan enrolled "more participants than
99.59%" and "more assets than 99.85%" of the defined contribution
plans on file in the United States for the 2021 Plan year.
David Daggett, a resident of Bellingham, Massachusetts, and an
employee of Waters from 1984 to 2019 was, during the putative class
period, a participant in the Waters Employee Investment Plan (the
"Plan" or "Waters Plan"), a 401(k) retirement plan. He remains a
current participant in the Plan and, by this action, seeks to be
appointed as representative of two Subclasses, which make up the
putative class.
Mr. Daggett's 47-page "Amended Class Action Complaint" brings forth
four (4) counts, asserting "Breach of Duty of Prudence of ERISA"
with respect to "Total RKA Fees" against the Plan Committee (Count
I) (RKA means recordkeeping and administrative); "Breaches of Duty
of Prudence of ERISA" with respect to "Underperforming Fidelity
Freedom Fund Investments" against the Plan Committee (Count II);
"Failure to Adequately Monitor Other Fiduciaries under ERISA" with
respect to "Total RKA Fees" against Waters and the Board (Count
III); and "Failure to Adequately Monitor Other Fiduciaries under
ERISA" with respect to "Underperforming Fidelity Freedom Fund
Investments" against Waters and the Board (Count IV).
The matter is presently before the Court on the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint by which the Defendants seek
dismissal of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). The original complaint in this case was filed on July 7,
2023. The Defendants then brought a motion to dismiss on Sept. 22,
2023. While that motion was pending, Daggett filed the Amended
Class Action Complaint on Oct. 12, 2023. On Nov. 15, 2023, the
Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss, this time in response
to the Amended Complaint.
At the center of this dispute are competing interpretations of many
of the same investment performance reports, plan documents, and
annual disclosures that give rise to the facts of this case. In
support of their motion--and their own interpretation--the
Defendants offer over 350 pages of related exhibits. Daggett does
not dispute the authenticity of these exhibits but instead, at this
early stage, asks the Court to adopt the well-pleaded allegations
that support his own reading of the material.
For all the reasons detailed in this Memorandum of Decision and
Order, and because Daggett's allegations, when taken together,
present a plausible narrative of imprudence, the Court rules that
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied for each asserted
count. The Defendants' arguments, which focus on the merits of
Daggett's claims, are better suited for discussion after further
development of the record, Judge Dein points out.
Judge Dein finds that the Amended Complaint's allegations allow for
the inference that the Plan Committee's conduct in managing the
Waters Plan was imprudent and that the Amended Complaint offers
suitable alternatives to the Challenged Investments. Judge Dein
also finds that the Amended Complaint's allegations allow for the
inference that the Plan Committee employed an imprudent process in
selecting investments.
The comparisons made by Daggett are sufficient to allow for the
inference that the Waters Plan paid excessive Total RKA Fees
relative to comparable plans, Judge Dein points out, among other
things.
For all these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order
dated April 18, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yf2z89tc
from PacerMonitor.com.
WATSON REALTY: 1925 Hooper et al. Allege Sherman Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
1925 HOOPER LLC; ROBERT J. ARKO; and ANDREW M. MOORE; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WATSON
REALTY CORPORATION, FLORIDA HOMES REALTY & MORTGAGE LLC, PREMIERE
PLUS REALTY CO., CHARLES RUTENBERG REALTY, INC., DOWNING-FRYE
REALTY, INC, MVP REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, SMITH & ASSOCIATES REAL
ESTATE, LLC, and MICHAEL SAUNDERS & COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00374 (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2024) involves a nationwide
conspiracy by and between the National Association of Realtors and
residential real estate brokerages orchestrated to increase broker
compensation at the expense of home sellers. Plaintiffs assert
claims for violation of the Sherman Act.
To list a property in an Multiple Listing Service, seller brokers
are required to agree to comply with the NAR rules. During the
Class period, the NAR rules, including the "Mandatory Offer of
Compensation Rule", dictated the conduct of state NAR associations,
brokers, and agents. The NAR's Compensation Rule compelled home
sellers to set the commission of the buyer's agent. By enforcing
this mandate, the NAR established an anticompetitive market where
sellers were coerced into subsidizing the buyer's costs, says the
suit.
Watson Realty Corporation is a Florida Corporation and real estate
brokerage with over 1,400 sales associates across Florida and
Southeast Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathan D. Chapman, Esq.
KABAT, CHAPMAN, & OZMER LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 400-7303
(404) 400-7300
E-mail: nchapman@kcozlaw.com
- and -
Bryan M. Knight, Esq.
Jonathan M. Palmer, Esq.
KNIGHT PALMER, LLC
One Midtown Plaza
1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 1201
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 228-4822
Facsimile: (404) 228-4821
E-mail: bknight@knightpalmerlaw.com
jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com
WELLNESS CARE: Franco Sues Over Nonpayment of Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIA ELIZABETH FRANCO, an individual and class representative on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated non-exempt
former and current employees, Plaintiff v. WELLNESS CARE SENIOR
LIVING, LLC, a California Company; RS STAFFING, LLC, a California
Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV09886 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 18, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code, the
Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders, and the California
Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Franco seeks to recover, among other things, wages and
penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not
limited to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid wages, unpaid and
illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest
period policies, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay all
wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain
required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
Wellness Care Senior Living, LLC is a skilled nursing and senior
living facility in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 814-4940
Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
E-mail: Shoham@soloukisavoy.com
grant@soloukisavoy.com
WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Consumidores Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Consumidores Financieros class
suit in the National Commercial Court No. 19 of Argentina.
In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.
The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages.
The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a
time period.
In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.
The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds.
In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings.
The process for notifying potential class members has been
completed, and the case is in the evidentiary stage.
Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict
the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself
vigorously.
The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency
money movement, payments, and digital financial services,
empowering consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and
governments.
YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT: Morrison Balks at Disclosure of Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-00797-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for
knowingly and intentionally disclosing its users' personally
identifiable information -- including a record of every video
viewed by the user -- to unrelated third parties to further its
marketing and advertising objectives and increase revenue, in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Defendant incorporates the Segment "application programming
interface," an API owned and operated by Twilio, into the Website
and App. The dynamic analysis found that when a user views a video
on the Website App, the Defendant allegedly transmits information
sufficient to permit an ordinary person to identify a specific
person's video-viewing behavior to Twilio via the Segment API.
In September 2023, the Plaintiff Morrison created a Yippee TV
account, paid for a Yippee TV subscription, and accessed Yippee TV
on her web browser. Plaintiff Morrison used a web browser to access
Yippee TV videos through her account until February 2024. During
that time, she regularly used her account to play pre-recorded
videos for herself and her children.
Plaintiff Morrison never consented, agreed, or otherwise permitted
the Defendant to disclose her personally identifiable information
to third parties. Likewise, the Defendant never gave Plaintiff
Morrison the opportunity to prevent the disclosure of her PII to
third parties, the suit claims.
Nevertheless, each time Plaintiff Morrison accessed a video on the
Website, the Defendant disclosed her PII to Twilio via the Segment
API. Specifically, the Defendant disclosed to Twilio via the
Segment API Plaintiff Morrison's: (i) full name; (ii) email
address; (iii) Segment user ID; and (iv) video-viewing information
in the form of the video title and video ID for each specific video
watched by the Plaintiff Morrison, as well as the fact that
Plaintiff Morrison actually watched a specific pre-recorded video,
the Plaintiff asserts.
The Defendant owns and operates Yippee TV, a streaming service
available specializing in "faith based shows" for children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***