/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240514.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 97 Headlines 987 SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ACCESS COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, McKinney Says AERO DIAMONDS: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL: Demaio Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations AGBA GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triller Corp ALDI INC: Bono Sues Over Mislabeled Diced Peaches Products ALLAQUARIA LLC: Tamayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Sivakova Suit Over Defective AEB Systems AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Cooper Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APPLE INC: Aceto Sues Over Smartphone Price Monopoly APPLE INC: Faces Marie Suit Over Monopoly of Smartphone Markets AR KLEAN LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASC REGENITY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Anderson Says AT&T INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Schaefer Suit Alleges AT&T SERVICES: Fails to Pay Planner's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ATO FOODS: Woods Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas AUGUSTA NATIONAL: Disclose Data Without Consent, Labernik Says AUTODESK INC: Barkasi Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price BANK OF AMERICA: Plans to Settle Hidden Fees Class-Action Lawsuit BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Berisha Sues Over Unpaid Wages BGC GROUP INC: Faces Seigel Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Stockholder Suit in D. Del. BNP MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kim Alleges BOLT LAUNDRY SERVICE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOYNE USA: Boyne's Bid for Protective Order Partly OK'd BRIDENT DENTAL: Court Enforces Unsigned Arbitration Agreement BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Consentino Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BULGARI CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says BYTEDANCE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 23 CABLE NEWS NETWORK: Lesh Suit Transferred to S.D. New York CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Aera Energy CANVA US INC: Brown Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CARGILL INC: Aaron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARO HOME LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CASA NOVA: Ochoa Suit Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Claim CAUDALIE USA: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App CENTENNIAL BANK: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII CENTENNIAL BANK: Hughes Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas CENTENNIAL BANK: Whitlock Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas CEPHEID: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHAKLADER PROPERTIES: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violations CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pivot Point Sues Over Data Breach CHARIX LLC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHEWY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHICAGO PUBLIC: Faces Class Suit Over Secret Religious Practices CHICOS FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says CHILDREN'S PLACE: Plaintiffs' Counsel Awarded $246K in Attys' Fees CHUNG LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Li Suit Alleges CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Judson Suit Removed to District of Utah COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Hybrid, Virtual Move Fends Off Class Suit COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Student Sues Over Campus Safety COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Suit Removed to E.D. California COMMUNITY FORWARD SF: Bruno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Seeks to Decertify Optional Retirement Class COSY HOUSE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT: Bolanos Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CRUNCHYROLL LLC: MacPhee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Lehr False Advertising Suit CVS HEALTH: Controls Access to Prescription Drugs, Jones Claims D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says DAIKIN COMFORT: Placentia Suit Removed to S.D. California DE BEERS JEWELLERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DENIS MCDONOUGH: Powers, et al., Win Class Certification Bid DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Court DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Securities Suit in NY Court Over IPO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Suit Seeks Class Certification DOMINION ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arble Alleges DON'T RUN OUT: Starks Suit Removed to C.D. California DROPBOX INC: Coulter Sues Over Preventable Data Breach DTE ELECTRIC: Hughes Suit Seeks Call Center Agents' Unpaid Overtime EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit EL AZTECO INC: Scott ADA Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Continues to Defend Payment Obligations Suit EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Resolution of Consumidores Suit Pending EQUINIX INC: Chan Sues Over Exchange Act Violation EUCLID CHEMICAL: Birdsell Sues Over Concrete Additives Monopoly EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements FAMILY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lindsey Alleges FIRST ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Stayed FITNESS EQUIPMENT: Mangone Sues Over Unlawful Pricing and Sales FLORIDA: Faces Class Suit Over Medicaid Termination Notices FOUR SEASONS: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website FOXTROT RETAIL: Moore Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Duran Suit Removed to C.D. California FULL SAIL LLC: Buxton Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida FULL TRUCK: Settlement Deal Reached in Kohli Suit GEICO CASUALTY: Perkins Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio GENERAL DYNAMICS: Sherman Act-Related Class Suit Dismissed GENERAL MOTORS: Behm Sues Over Unlawful Sale of Drivers' Data GENERAL MOTORS: Drews Sues Over Unlawful Selling of Data GIVENCHY CORPORATION: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says GOLDEN KEY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perazzoli Suit Alleges GOODRX HOLDINGS: Barsuli Sues Over Drop in Share Price GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on June 21 GRAND CENTRAL: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GRMC INC: Roane Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts HALLS CHOPHOUSE: Bogacz Sues Over Failure of Paying Proper Wages HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reid Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri HSNI LLC: Lobello Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective HUMANA INC: Harrison Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky I.D. JEWELRY INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York INK 477: Anastasopoulos Sues Over Improperly Retained Tips INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Allman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts JUVIA'S PLACE: Eyeshadow Contains Unfit Additives, Suarez Alleges JUVIA'S PLACE: Suarez Files Suit in E.D. California KANSAS, MO: Court Extends Filing of Class Cert Reply to May 31 KARS4KIDS INC: Faces Dugger Suit Over Donation Scheme KLOVER HOLDINGS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania LA ESTRELLA TACOS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LENS.COM INC: Gonneville Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts LG ELECTRONICS: Court Closes Hernandez Case LIGHTFOOT FISHING: Martinez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Meade Suit Over 33.2% Stock Price Drop LOTTA DOUGH: Abboud Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas LOWE'S HOME: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California MARVELOUS MARK: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL MASTERCORP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges MDL 2992: Parties in Labor Class Suit Seek to Extend Case Schedule MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025 MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blumrath Alleges MIKEL H. WILLIAMS: Assad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MITEK SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit w/o Prejudice MOELIS & CO: Final Order on Stockholder Suit Still Not Issued MORGANTOWN, WV: Rowand Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Cabezas Class Suit MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Randles Class Suit in Cal. NATIONAL LIABILITY: Neal Files Suit in E.D. Texas NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cassese Sues Over Injuries Caused to Borrowers NEW YORK, NY: Elie Sues Over Due Process Rights Violations NOBLE ENERGY INC: Boulter Files Suit in D. Colorado NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Plaintiffs Ask Court's Prelim OK of $600M Deal NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Powell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arellano Alleges NUOVO ARTISTIC: Dulei Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections NUVISION AUTO GLASS: Therrien Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona NV5 INC: Pascual Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NVIDIA CORP: Court OK's Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits in Tobias Suit NVIDIA CORP: Dubus Sues Over Unlawful Copying of Copyrighted Works OCWEN FINANCIAL: Proposes to Settle Weiner Class Action Suit OHANA MILITARY: Powell Suit Removed to D. Hawaii OIL BAR LLC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ON Q FINANCIAL: Connelly Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ON THE GO LAUNDRY: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PARFIT LLC: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida PASSAGE HEALTH: Perman Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California PAUL NAKASONE: Murbach Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid PG&E CORP: Shareholders' Bid to Intervene in Class Suit Pending PHARMAVITE LLC: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: GMP Revives Respiratory Machine Class Action PLEX INC: Disclose Personal Info to Third Parties, Lee Alleges PRIMACY CAREERS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRIME NOW: Quintero Suit Removed to C.D. California PRISCILLA A. MADRID: Suit Filed in C.D. California PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mirshokri Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RANGE CREDIT BUREAU: Holden Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY: Neubauer Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois REGENT HOLDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Demaio Claims RISAS DENTAL: Beltran Files Suit in D. Arizona RV SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Tague Files Suit in E.D. Missouri SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY: Rios Suit Removed to C.D. California SHADAL LLC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York SIKA AG: Keystone Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York SIKA AG: Lakewood Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Suit Transferred to S.D. New York SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL: Filing of Conditional Cert Bid Extended SOULCYCLE LLC: DiFalco Files Suit in S.D. New York SOUTHERN TIRE MART: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Counsel Seeks Class Action Certification SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE: May Face Class Suit Over RICO Violations SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Hunter Sues Over Deceptive Lending Practices TAILORED SHARED: Marshall Suit Removed to C.D. California TARGET CORPORATION: Carbine Sues Over False & Misleading Packaging TESLA MOTORS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Panossian Alleges TESSENDERLO KERLEY: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA TEXAS LUTHERAN: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TGC PCSC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TORY BURCH LLC: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TQ LOGISTICS INC: Wicklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Oral Argument in Malone Set for June 13 UNITED SEATING: Ducrepin Sues Over Unauthorized Disclosure of PII UNITED STATES: Court Modifies Class Cert Order in Lucas Suit UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE: Unlawfully Collects Debt, Lefevere Says UR JADDOU: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Martirosyan Suit US AVIATION SERVICES: Rivas Suit Removed to C.D. California VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL: Brett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VINCENT K. MCMAHON: PRGERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. VITALITY GROUP: Elias Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts W.K.S. FROSTY CORP: Serrano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO: Dillon Suit Transferred to S.D. New York WELLS FARGO: Haydn Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM: Suit Filed in N.D. Georgia WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Financial Privacy Act Class Suit WESTROCK SERVICE: Acu Suit Removed to C.D. California WILLIAM C. BAILEY: Berry Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama YARDI SYSTEMS: FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ZOETIS INC: Rosen Law Starts Securities Class Action Investigation ********* 987 SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- FULGENCIO TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 987 SUPERMARKET INC. d/b/a LOS VECINOS MEAT MARKET & SUPERMARKET, RAFAEL A. GUZMAN, and ROMAN RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-03089 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked six (6) days per week (Sunday off), and his work scheduled consisted of ten hours per day from 11 :00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Throughout the entirety of his employment, the Plaintiff was paid, in cash, at the rate of $90 per day ($540 per week) straight time for all hours worked. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and as class representative on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants between April 23, 2021 through the date that the opt-in period expires as ultimately set by the Court (the "Collective Action Period"), and who were compensated at rates less than the statutory overtime rate of time and one-half (the "Collective Action Members"). The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt stock person, packer, and delivery person at the Market from Feb. 12, 2021, through Feb. 18, 2024. 987 Supermarket owns and operates a meat market/supermarket doing business as "Los Vecinos Meat Market & Supermarket," located at 987 Amsterdam Avenue, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com ACCESS COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, McKinney Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAKEITA MCKINNEY, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. ACCESS COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:24-cv-03270 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 23, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to pay overtime wages based on the correct regular rate of pay to Plaintiff and other bonus-eligible hourly employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff bonuses, including retention and attendance bonuses, based on the Defendant's Bonus Policy. The Defendant also paid the Plaintiff birthday bonuses, hazard pay, and appreciation bonuses. During the course of her employment by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was directed by the Defendant to work over 40 hours in one or more individual work weeks, the suit alleges. The Defendant's failure to include all of the Plaintiff's earned non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments as part of her gross compensation when calculating her regular rate of pay for overtime purposes resulted in the Plaintiff being paid overtime wages not based on her regular rate of pay, contends the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from November, 2020 to November, 2023. The Defendant operates health centers throughout Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 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 AERO DIAMONDS: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aero Diamonds, LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aero Diamonds, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03162 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aero Diamonds, LLC offers dynamically luminous collection of fashion jewelry handmade in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL: Demaio Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. CACE-24-005722 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 25, 2024), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for "text message solicitations the called party does not consent to receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable of receiving telephone calls. In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Clean Skin Club ("AeroGarden Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives the Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Aerogrow international, inc. is registered as a Florida Limited Liability Company, which sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com AGBA GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triller Corp -------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating AGBA Group Holding Limited (NASDAQ: AGBA), relating to its proposed merger with Triller Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Triller shareholders will own 80% of the post-Merger Group, and AGBA shareholders will own 20% of the post-Merger Group. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] ALDI INC: Bono Sues Over Mislabeled Diced Peaches Products ---------------------------------------------------------- NANCY BONO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03026 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its "Yellow Cling Diced Peaches In 100% Fruit Juice," in single-serving transparent cups ("Product"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, to appeal to the growing number of consumers seeking foods that "use 'real' ingredients, which is to say, those that are recognizable" and "naturally occurring," consisting of components entirely of those ingredients, instead of lesser valued substitutes and manufactured chemical compounds, the Defendant sells the Product visibly filled with peaches and what appears to be "100% Fruit Juice," next to a freshly picked peach with its stem intact, as if it were recently plucked from a tree, and freshly cut peach slices. The Product is "adulterated" and misleads consumers because a "valuable constituent has been [] in part omitted or abstracted," since the amount and/or quantity of peaches and 100% fruit juice is less than it otherwise would be in the absence of the added water, juice concentrates, flavorings, such as captured and/or restored volatile compounds and essential oils, seasonings, and preservatives. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately $2.09 for four 4 oz cups, 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. ALDI INC. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com ALLAQUARIA LLC: Tamayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allaquaria LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Tamayo, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Allaquaria LLC d/b/a Quality Marine, All Aquaria, Case No. 24STCV10467 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Allaquaria LLC doing business as Quality Marine -- https://www.qualitymarine.com/ -- is the pioneer and leader of the trade—best collectors, holding facilities, animal care, and marinelife.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda L. Fazio, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: amanda@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Sivakova Suit Over Defective AEB Systems -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA SIVAKOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03354 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 23, 2024) alleges that the Automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems of all 2019-2022 MY Honda Insight and Honda Passport vehicles have a defect that causes them to falsely engage randomly, causing sudden, unintended braking. The Plaintiff contends that the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect causes the Class Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles, which then automatically triggers the brakes and causing the Class Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop, sometimes in the middle of traffic. Simply put, as a result of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect, Honda's AEB systems are a safety hazard, not a safety feature. The causes of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect are the same for all of the Class Vehicles: namely, Honda's CMBS system is technologically underdeveloped and relies on cheap components that are unable to reliably perform the one job they are intended to do: namely, adequately differentiate common road features with true obstacles that warrant braking activation, the suit claims. Honda is currently investigating the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect in the Class Vehicles and treats it as a collective problem with a common root. Honda also knows that the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect poses serious safety risks. When earlier Honda models were plagued by similar problems, Honda admitted that the problem endangered drivers and recalled the vehicles. With the current Class Vehicles, Honda has issued no recall, even though it is aware that the problems are substantially similar to those that prompted the earlier recalls, added the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf all people the following classes and subclasses: Nationwide class: "all people in the United States who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership." Massachusetts class: "all people who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership in Massachusetts." Plaintiff Sivakova owns a 2021 Passport Sport equipped with Honda's AEB system, which she purchased in Massachusetts. American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Cooper Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Nicholas Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. doing business as: AMC Theaters, Case No. 2:23-cv-02434 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11127-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. -- https://www.amctheatres.com/ -- provides entertainment services. The Company owns and operates movie theatres.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucy McShane, Esq. Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 1656 Washington Street Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anna A. Gadberry, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP - KC/GRAND 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Email: agadberry@shb.com - and - Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq. Tara D. Kennedy, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7777 Email: mwolfe@shb.com tkennedy@shb.com APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against APL Logistics Americas Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Padilla, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. APL Logistics Americas Ltd., APL Logistics Group., APL Logistics Ltd., APL Logistics Warehouse Management Services Inc., Carmichael International Service, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005009 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." APL Logistics -- https://www.apllogistics.com/ -- seeks to be a premier, profitable provider of global supply-chain services to help enable sustainable trade and commerce in key markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com APPLE INC: Aceto Sues Over Smartphone Price Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------- BARBARA ACETO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05663 (D.N.J., April 26, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Apple is engaged in a scheme to monopolize the market for the sale of Smartphones in the United States from at least as early as March 21, 2020, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present (the "Class Period"). Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower Smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook across many technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others. Apple's alleged anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries affected by these restrictions, including financial services, fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more. Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped, it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other markets and parts of the economy. As a result of its anticompetitive conduct, Apple sells iPhone brand Smartphones at supracompetitive monopoly prices to consumers, says the suit. APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital content, cloud and advertising services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: pstphillip@lowey.com vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. Melanie Porter, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 23 Forest St. Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 Facsimile: (702) 983-8673 Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us melanie@classactions.us APPLE INC: Faces Marie Suit Over Monopoly of Smartphone Markets --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN MARIE, SHARLA HILBURN, and NANCY COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05541 (D.N.J., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of various state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws in the U.S. According to the complaint, Apple imposes a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that allowed it to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives. As Apple's power grew, its leverage over third parties reinforced its tight control over how third parties innovate and monetize on and off the smartphone in ways that were anticompetitive and exclusionary. As a result of Apple's anticompetitive and monopolistic practices, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered overcharge damages, says the suit. Apple Inc. is a technology company in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 Facsimile: (856) 263-2450 Email: cjk@njlegal.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com AR KLEAN LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Klean, LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AR Klean, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03158 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AR Kleen lens cleaner is a multi-purpose formulation that is excellent for anti-reflective, glass, and plastic lenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ASC REGENITY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Anderson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC REGENITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03134 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.augustinusbader.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ASC REGENITY, INC. retails cosmetics and personal care products. The Company offers face creams, moisturizers, hair care, and other cosmetics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510 Hicksville, NY 11801 Telephone: +1 929-324-0717 Facsimile: +1 929-333-7774 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com AT&T INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Schaefer Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN SCHAEFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T, INC. and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01752-VMC (N.D. Ga., Apr. 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of their customers. In March 2024, 73 million former and current AT&T customers had their Personally identifiable information (PII) leaked online, including full names, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, AT&T account numbers, and passcodes. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members face a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs, e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that they collected and maintained, and for failing to timely and adequately notify the Plaintiff and other Class Members that (1) their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party, or (2) precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Plaintiff Brian Schaefer is a citizen and resident of Ohio whose PII was compromised by the Defendants in the Data Breach. AT&T is a wireless carrier and internet provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net AT&T SERVICES: Fails to Pay Planner's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK SWANCEY V. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Case No. CACE-24-005616 (Fla. Cir., Apr. 23, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover from the Defendant unpaid minimum wage and/or overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff worked 50 hours a week while working for the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime by the Defendant for any hours worked in excess of 40 weekly, the suit contends. The Defendant had other similarly situated inventory control planners working for the Defendant not paid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on 1999 through July 6,2023 as a non-exempt employee working as an inventory control planner with a main duty of verifying purchase orders. AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE, & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC 2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 E-mail: jremer@rgph.law ATO FOODS: Woods Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Natia Woods, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. ATO FOODS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01311 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on April 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01001-X to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. ATO Foods -- http://atofoods.com/-- is in the food and beverage manufacturing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 The Defendants are represented by: David Robert Schlottman, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 953-6068 Fax: (214) 661-6896 Email: dschlottman@jw.com AUGUSTA NATIONAL: Disclose Data Without Consent, Labernik Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LABERNIK; and SHANE DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUGUSTA NATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03058 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs subscribed to https://masters.com/ (the "Website") operated by the Defendant. The Website provides users with access to video content related to The Masters golf tournament, including pre-recorded video clips, interviews, sports analysts, and more. The Defendant does not disclose on the Website that Subscribers' personally identifying information would be captured by the Meta Pixel utilized by Defendant (the "Pixel"), and then shared with Meta, thereby exposing the Subscribers' PII to any person of ordinary technical skill who received that data. The Defendant purposefully implemented and utilized the Pixel, which tracks user activity on the Website and discloses that information to Facebook to gather valuable marketing data. The Pixel cannot be placed on a Website without steps taken directly by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant (e.g., by a website manager). The Pixel cannot be placed on the Website by Facebook without the knowledge and cooperation of Defendant. The Defendant does not seek, and has not obtained, consent from users or Subscribers to utilize the Pixel to track, share, and exchange their PII with Facebook, says the suit. AUGUSTA NATIONAL, INC. doing business as Masters Golf Tournament, operates as a golf club. The Company conducts golf tournaments. Masters Golf Tournament provides automated teller machines, parking, telephones, and first aid facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq. Colin A. Brown, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17 th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com cbrown@zlk.com AUTODESK INC: Barkasi Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BARKASI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTODESK, INC.; ANDREW ANAGNOST; and DEBORAH L. CLIFFORD, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02431 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Autodesk securities between June 1, 2023 and April 16, 2024, inclusive, Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class Period, the Defendants, individually and in concert, directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false statements in the SEC reports, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The price of Autodesk stock fell $13.32 per share, or 5.83 percent, to close at $214.92 on April 17, 2024. The next day, it fell a further $4.29 per share, or 1.99 percent, to close at $210.63 on April 18, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Defendants' common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. AUTODESK, INC. supplies PC software and multimedia tools. The Company's two-dimensional and three-dimensional products are used across industries and in the home for architectural design, mechanical design, geographic information systems and mapping, and visualization applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Plans to Settle Hidden Fees Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Jordan, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Bank of America is planning to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the financial giant of charging hidden fees for wire transfers, according to court filings by lawyers involved in the North Carolina federal court case. Plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of a $15 fee to have money sent to their accounts through the Charlotte-based bank. Lawyers for the account holders and the bank filed a pending joint notice for a settlement and stipulation with the U.S. District Court of Western North Carolina on April 11. A judge told the parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by May 24. The details of the proposed settlement were not detailed in public court filings yet. The complaint was originally filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court in March 2023 by California resident Aaron Aseltine before it was transferred to federal court in April 2023 for jurisdiction reasons. About the case Lawyers working for Aseltine and other plaintiffs said Bank of America misled customers and hid charges for incoming wire transfers for personal account holders by tacking on "junk" fees, which were unavoidable. Account holders like Aseltine were surprised to see hefty fees for money wired into their accounts, the attorneys claim. They also said the plaintiffs did not have a chance to review and avoid the fee. The complaint also cited that account documents said "fee varies" for incoming or outgoing wire transfers and that it may change at any time. But a customer contract document does not list the $15 for incoming wire transfer fees, according to the attorneys. Lawyers also said Bank of America is an outlier in the industry for the complaint. A disclosure document from Wells Fargo was used an example of a bank letting customers know about the exact fees for wire transfer. The complaint said the fees are also problems because an account holder does not take action or request a service for an inbound wire. "That is why many financial institutions refuse to charge such fees at all, at least for domestic transfers," the lawyers said in the complaint. Some of those financial companies are Ally Bank, Capital One, Discover, Fidelity and Village Bank. Bank of America submitted an answer last year to the court and denied unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice of misleading customers. The bank's attorneys said the bank did not breach account agreements with consumers. The bank declined to comment to The Charlotte Observer, but referred to recent court filings regarding its position in the case. Bank of America has more than 19,000 employees in the Charlotte region, part of 213,000 workers companywide. As of June, it had $2.4 trillion in assets, and was the second-largest bank in the United States. [GN] BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Berisha Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Adriatik Berisha, and Walter Mendez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. BENJAMIN RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, B & B RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a BENJAMIN PRIME, A & B RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a BENJAMIN STEAKHOUSE 41ST STREET, SSAP LLC d/b/a BENJAMIN STEAKHOUSE WESTCHESTER, AP & SS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a SEA FIRE GRILL, BENJAMIN'S AT HOME LLC, ALBAN PRELVUKAJ a/k/a BENJAMIN PRELVUKAJ, SHABAN SINANAJ a/k/a BENJAMIN SINANAJ, and ABNESHE SINANAJ, Case No. 1:24-cv-03202 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit, unpaid overtime wages due to off-the-clock work, unpaid regular and overtime wages due to time-shaving, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs and all other non-managerial employees at the Benjamin Restaurants, including all front-of-the-house and back-of- the-house workers, worked similar hours regularly exceeding 40 hours per week, i.e., between 42 and 60 hours per week, every week. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs and all other non-managerial employees at the Benjamin Restaurants, including all front-of-the-house and back-of-the-house workers, were paid on an hourly basis. Moreover, throughout their employment with Defendants, when Plaintiffs received their paycheck and paystubs each pay period, Plaintiffs noticed that the work hours on the paystubs were substantially less than the time they worked while on the clock. The Defendants' company-wide policies regarding off-the-clock work and time-shaving resulted in Plaintiffs and all other hourly workers at the Benjamin Restaurants not getting paid any overtime wages or being paid significantly less overtime wages than due every week, despite actually working well beyond 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. The Defendants founded, owned and operated an enterprise under the name "Benjamin Restaurant Group," including 4 restaurants in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angela Kwon, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (212) 295-5828 Fax: (718) 795-1642 Email: akwon@bkllawyers.com BGC GROUP INC: Faces Seigel Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court -------------------------------------------------------------- BGC Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 26, 2024, that an alleged company shareholder, Martin J. Siegel, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Cantor Fitzgerald, LP and Howard W. Lutnick in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting that the Corporate Conversion was unfair to Class A shareholders of BGC Partners, Inc. because it increased percentage voting control of stockholder Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. over the company. The suit is captioned "Martin J. Siegel v. Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, C.A., 2024-0146-LWW." BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage and financial technology company servicing the global financial markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others. The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad range of products, including fixed income such as government bonds, corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and commodities, shipping, and futures and options. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 26, 2024, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a purported securities class action lawsuit. On October 22, 2021, said case was filed against the company, its prior Chief Executive Officer, its current and prior Chief Financial Officers, and President of its Worldwide Research & Development in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the company made materially false or misleading statements regarding the drug "BMN 307" by purportedly failing to disclose information about its safety profile, and by purportedly overstating BMN 307's clinical and commercial prospects. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel on January 10, 2022. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 25, 2022. BioMarin filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 25, 2022. On January 19, 2023, the court granted its motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. On February 21, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice at plaintiffs' request. Plaintiffs appealed the court's January 19, 2023 order to the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed their opening brief on June 23, 2023. The company filed its answering brief on August 23, 2023 while plaintiffs filed their reply brief on October 13, 2023. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company that develops and commercializes targeted therapies that address the root cause of genetic conditions. Its commercial portfolio includes ROCTAVIAN, which was granted marketing approval in the United States on June 29, 2023 and conditional marketing approval in the European Union on August 24, 2022. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Stockholder Suit in D. Del. ---------------------------------------------------------- BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 26, 2024, that a purported stockholder class action was filed against the company and its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint also named as defendants Elliott Investment Management L.P., Elliott Associates, L.P., and Elliott International, L.P., which are parties to the Cooperation Agreement with the company. The complaint asserted a claim for declaratory judgment, seeking an order that certain provisions of the Cooperation Agreement are invalid, and, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings as to the claim for declaratory judgment. In addition, the complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against certain directors in connection with approval of a "Cooperation Agreement," as well as a claim against the Elliott parties for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On April 11, 2024, the Elliott parties executed a waiver of the challenged provisions in the Cooperation Agreement. In light of that waiver, on April 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss the action as moot, with the court to retain jurisdiction to determine plaintiff's counsel’s application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Also on April 16, 2024, the court granted the order, dismissing all claims with prejudice, as to the named plaintiff only. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company that develops and commercializes targeted therapies that address the root cause of genetic conditions. Its commercial portfolio includes ROCTAVIAN, which was granted marketing approval in the United States on June 29, 2023 and conditional marketing approval in the European Union on August 24, 2022. BNP MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kim Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ YEON HEE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BNP MANAGEMENT LLC dba WOORI MART; and JASON PARK, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05443 (D.N.J., April 22, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kim was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker. BNP MANAGEMENT LLC dba WOORI MART is engaged in the Korean Grocery Store in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. Ryan Kim Law, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Tel: (201) 897-8787 Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com BOLT LAUNDRY SERVICE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bolt Laundry Service, LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bolt Laundry Service, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03157-JPC (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bolt Laundry Service -- https://boltlaundry.com/ -- was founded to create an alternative to typical laundry and dry cleaning experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BOYNE USA: Boyne's Bid for Protective Order Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT, v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting in part, and denying in part Boyne's motion for a Protective Order as follows: 1. The Court grants Boyne's request for a protective order as to Topic 1 in the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) notice except that the Plaintiffs may inquire as to subtopics "c" and "f" of Topic 1. 2. The Court grants Boyne's request for a protective order as to all of Topic 7 and all of Topic 10 in the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) notice. 3. The Court denies Boyne's request for a protective order as to the remaining topics set forth in the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) notice. 4. The Plaintiffs' supplemental 30(b)(6) deposition shall last no longer than eight (8) hours in duration. 5. Boyne's request to reopen the depositions of the Plaintiffs is denied. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant a protective order as to part of Topic 1, all of Topic 7, and all of Topic 10 of Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice. The Plaintiffs may otherwise commence a deposition on the topics set forth in the Plaintiffs' notice. This deposition shall be limited to eight hours in length. The Court will not permit Boyne to reopen the depositions of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and Boyne have been in a long-standing discovery dispute. The Plaintiffs took issue with Boyne's disclosure of its point-of-sale (POS) data. The Court attempted to resolve this dispute informally with a telephone conference on October 11, 2023. Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort, as well as three condominium-hotels at the base of Big Sky known as the Summit, Shoshone, and Village Center. A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JiA83u at no extra charge.[CC] BRIDENT DENTAL: Court Enforces Unsigned Arbitration Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, writing for National Law Review, reports that TCPA defendants looking to enforce arbitration provisions have been on a roll as of late. Not long ago cases like Gamble and Berman left companies wondering if TCPA claims were subject to arbitration and whether online forms could get it done, but the last few courts to look at the issue have enforced arbitration agreements straightaway. In the latest case the Defendant didn't even sign the agreement and the court enforced it anyway! In Bradford v. Briden, 2024 WL 1839458 (S.D. Tex. April 26, 2024) the Defendant moved to compel arbitration arguing an arbitration clause in a dental services agreement required Plaintiff to pursue his TCPA claim in arbitration. Lots of interesting issues with the case -- which included a physical arbitration provision in a new patient package -- but the most interesting issue is that while the Plaintiff signed the agreement, Briden dental did not. Nonetheless the Court found the agreement enforceable: Under Texas law, when a party's signature is missing, that party's conduct reflecting action in accord with the contract's terms evidences assent. It is undisputed that Brident prepared the Arbitration Agreement on its letterhead, and presented it to Bradford for him to sign voluntarily, as it does for every patient visiting a Brident dental office for the first time or for the first time in over a year. Brident kept Bradford's signed agreement in his file, and then sought to enforce the agreement against Bradford upon the filing of this suit. Texas courts have found that these actions evidence a business' intent to be bound even when the business has not signed an arbitration agreement. Because there is no language in the Arbitration Agreement from which the court can conclude that the parties intended to require signatures of both parties to create a binding contract, and because Bradford fails to offer evidence that the parties intended the arbitration agreement to be binding only after both parties had signed it, the court concludes that there was a valid arbitration agreement between Bradford and Brident. So there you go. Arbitration compelled and TCPA class action dismissed even where agreement wasn't signed by the business. Pretty interesting, no? Obviously this could have gone the other way -- real highwire act here by the dental folks, wouldn't advise handling your contracts this way. SIGN THEM! (free tip. hahahah) [GN] BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Consentino Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Elisa Consentino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE, Case No. 2024-003753-Div.9 was removed from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-60703-DSL. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals consisting of "All persons in the State of Florida who purchased one or more tires from Defendant who were charged for 'Road Hazard Protection' and the other items identified above".[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lee Teichner, Esq. Sydney Alexander, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305.374.8500 Fax: 305.789.7799 Email: Lee.teichner@hklaw.com sydney.alexander@hklaw.com - and - Philip E. Rothschild, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-525-1000 Email: Phil.rothschild@hklaw.com BULGARI CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULGARI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03106-JAM (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.bulgari.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. BULGARI CORPORATION OF AMERICA retails jewelry. The Company offers custom made jewelry, leather goods, gifts, rings, necklaces, bracelets, gemstones, diamonds, and other accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BYTEDANCE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order extending case schedule as modified: Event Current Parties' Deadlines Proposed Modified Deadlines Deadline to complete fact April 30, 2024 July 29, 2024 Discovery: Deadline for Plaintiff's expert June 24, 2024 Sept. 23, 2024 Reports: Motion for Class Certification: June 24, 2024 Sept. 23, 2024 Opposition to Motion for Class July 29, 2024 Oct. 28, 2024 Certification (including any Daubert motion to Plaintiffs' experts offered in support of class certification)3 Deadline to complete expert Aug. 19, 2024 Nov. 18, 2024 Discovery: Defendants' opposition to Aug. 27, 2024 Nov. 25, 2024 any Daubert motion filed by Plaintiff Hearing on Motion for Class Sep. 5, 2024, or Dec. 19, 2024 Certification: such later time as may be convenient for the Court Further Case Management Sept. 27, 2024, Jan. 10, 2025, Conference: or three weeks or three weeks following the following the hearing on any hearing on any motion for motion for class class certification certification On April 3, 2024, the Parties met and conferred and agreed that good cause exists to continue the deadline to complete fact discovery and all deadlines thereafter by 90 days to allow the Parties time to complete document production and related depositions, and complete additional non-party discovery, and to complete their meet-and-confers in the hopes of either resolving their disagreements or if necessary, raising these issues to the Court at the appropriate time. ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content platforms. A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v13eJV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 201 Spear Street Suite 110 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 697-1509 The Defendants are represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Leonora Cohen, Esq. Viola H. Li, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com LCohen@gibsondunn.com VHLi@gibsondunn.com CABLE NEWS NETWORK: Lesh Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carol Lesh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN), Case No. 3:24-cv-01320 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 24, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03132-VM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Cable News Network (CNN) -- https://edition.cnn.com/ -- is a multinational news channel and website headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily Ayres Horne, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1990 N California Blvd., Ste 900 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: ehorne@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Alec Mitchell Leslie, Esq. Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: David R. Singh, Esq. Amy Tu Quyen Le, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Email: david.singh@weil.com amy.le@weil.com - and - David L. Yohai, Esq. Blake J. Steinberg, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 Email: david.yohai@weil.com blake.steinberg@weil.com CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Aera Energy -------------------------------------------------------------- The Malaysian Reserve reports that Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating California Resources Corporation (NYSE: CRC), relating to its proposed merger with Aera Energy, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, CRC will issue 21.2 million shares of its common stock to the equity owners of Aera, and refinance Aera's outstanding debt, with CRC shareholders owning approximately 77.1% of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/california-resources-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CANVA US INC: Brown Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CANVA US INC. case is styled as Radames Brown, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. CANVA US INC, Case No. 2024-11440-CIDL (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Negligence - Civil." Canva -- https://www.canva.com/ -- is a free-to-use online graphic design tool.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. 110 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 CARGILL INC: Aaron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cargill, Inc. The case is styled as Keenan Aaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cargill, Inc. doing business as Cargill Animal Nutrition, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004918 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Cargill, Incorporated -- https://www.cargill.com/ -- is an American global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and incorporated in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com CARO HOME LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caro Home, LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Caro Home, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03164-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Caro Home -- https://www.carohome.com/ -- is dealing with lifestyle accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CASA NOVA: Ochoa Suit Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS OCHOA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CASA NOVA LED LLC, d/b/a CASA NOVA GRILL, BRAZILIAN BARBECUE CASA NOVA III INC. d/b/a CASA NOVA ADAMS, SPAIN INN INC. d/b/a SPAIN INN II, and JOSE MOREIRA, individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-01062-CCC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collection action: 1. Conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); 2. Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to covered employees; including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; 3. Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 4. Production of names, last known mailing address, alternate address, telephone and dates of employment of all covered employees; and 5. Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in conspicuous locations of Casa Nova Grill, Casa Nova Adams and Spain Inn II. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D6mJmT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com CAUDALIE USA: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App ------------------------------------------------------------ James Watson, and other similarly situated individuals v. CAUDALIE USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-21622-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") for blind-inaccessible mobile app. The Plaintiff uses the internet and a mobile device to help him navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet, websites and mobile applications provide him with a window into the world that he would not otherwise have. He sues Defendant for offering and maintaining a mobile website (software that is intended to run on mobile devices such as phones or tablet computers) that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles. Caudalie USA, Inc, is the owner and operator of a chain of retail stores and spas under the brand name "Caudalie."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com CENTENNIAL BANK: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Obed Gomez, Jr., Moses A. Gallens, and Jeannie Melillo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank d/b/a Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00358-BRW (E.D. Ark., April 23, 2024), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving the Defendant including checking accounts, savings accounts, home loans, and personal loans and is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices. Former and current Happy State customers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform their regular business activities, in order to obtain financial services at Happy State. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the consumer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In April 2024, Defendant began sending Plaintiffs and Class Members notice letters informing them that Defendant suffered a Data Breach that exposed their personally identifiable information in approximately April 2023. The Defendant's failure to secure the PII of its current and former customers is particularly egregious as Defendant had only recently experienced a data breach in July of 2022 about which it informed the over 17,000 victims of the breach that their personal information had been compromised in March Of 2023. Despite the foreseeability of another cyber-attack, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members PIT—and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former Happy State customers. Centennial Bank doing business as Happy State Bank is a bank that offers financial services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC PO Box 25972 Little Rock, AR 72221 Phone: 501-247-6267 Email: chris@jenningspllc.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@iustice4you com gharoutunian@iustice4you com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com CENTENNIAL BANK: Hughes Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Bank. The case is styled as Karen Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank doing business as: Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00392-JM (E.D. Ark., May 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory Judgement. Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad range of commercial and retail banking and related financial services to businesses, investors, individuals and municipalities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC Post Office Box 25972 Little Rock, AR 72221 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jenningspllc.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 CENTENNIAL BANK: Whitlock Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Bank. The case is styled as Sharon Whitlock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank doing business as: Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00369-BRW (E.D. Ark., April 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory Judgement. Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad range of commercial and retail banking and related financial services to businesses, investors, individuals and municipalities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC Post Office Box 25972 Little Rock, AR 72221 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jenningspllc.com CEPHEID: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cepheid. The case is styled as Sandra Love, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Cepheid, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005118 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Cepheid -- https://www.cepheid.com/en-US.html -- is an American molecular diagnostics company that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com CHAKLADER PROPERTIES: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAKLADER PROPERTIES, INC.; and CHAKLADER FAMILY INC d/b/a QUIK WAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21575-JB (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' commercial property at Homestead, Florida, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals, in violation of ADA. CHAKLADER PROPERTIES, INC., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial properties in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pivot Point Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Pivot Point Counseling, LLC, on behalf of itsself and all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC., and OPTUM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01204 (D. Md., April 24, 2024), is brought on behalf of businesses who have suffered tremendous disruptions to their core operations as a result of Defendants' network being offline and for violations of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. The Defendants' insurance and payment processing network was taken offline in response to a major hacking attack by ALPHV/Blackcat on February 21, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach has affected countless millions of individuals across the country, and hundreds of thousands of businesses. At this time, it is unknown how many individuals' data has been compromised. Issues related to the Data Breach are ongoing. The Plaintiff relies upon Defendants' processing network for core business functions. As a result of the outage, Plaintiff has been unable to receive insurance reimbursements, has suffered employee resignations, and has spent dozens of hours attempting to alleviate the situation. Change Healthcare Inc. and associated entities, as medical industry experts, knew and should have known how to prevent a common cyberattack. If Plaintiff knew Defendants' network was unreliable and open to cyberattacks, Plaintiff would have contracted with other companies for these services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a counseling and mental health practice. Change Healthcare Inc. provides revenue and payment management services for the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and – Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Joseph E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com CHARIX LLC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. Charix, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03437 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually unpaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Charix provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.charixshoes.com (hereinafter "Charixshoes.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA'). Charixshoes.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Charix. Yet, Charixshoes.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Charix excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the frill and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances m recent years, assistive conV11ter technology is becoming an increasingly prominent of everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant operates the Aire online retail store as well as the Aire website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510 Hicksville, NY 11801 Phone: +1 929-324-0717 Fax: +1 929-333-7774 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CHEWY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chewy Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-01490 (D. Minn., April 23, 2024), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.chewy.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are blind and low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. For example: The Website does not provide sufficient screen reader accessible text equivalent for important non-text image(s); Defendant's Website fails to alert screen readers to pop-up window content. Instead, screen readers remain focused on the content of the Website's underlying page. As a result, pop-up content Defendant deems sufficiently important to convey to its sighted Website visitors is completely unavailable to screen reader users; and Defendant's Website fails to provide information in a logical, sequential order. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiffs and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CHICAGO PUBLIC: Faces Class Suit Over Secret Religious Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dylan Sharkey of Illinois Policy reports that Chicago Public Schools is facing a class-action lawsuit from former students about allegedly being pressured into meditation and "Hindu practices" they were told to keep secret from parents. Kayla Hudgins, a former CPS student, is one of the plaintiffs alleging her constitutional rights were violated. Hudgins said her teachers pressured her to participate in transcendental meditation as part of a "quiet time" curriculum. Hudgins on one occasion said she didn't want to participate and was sent to the dean's office. After quiet time, students were pressured to sign nondisclosure agreements to not tell their parents when they got home from school. Students were told if they didn't sign the agreement it would affect their grades. "Additionally, I, like many of my classmates, signed a nondisclosure not to tell anyone, including our parents, about the program," Hudgins said. "My classmates and I were particularly warned by a David Lynch Foundation representative not to tell our parents if our parents were 'religious.'" A federal judge on April 19 certified the case as a class-action lawsuit. The law firm handling the case, Mauck and Baker, in November 2023 won a $150,000 settlement for another student forced to participate in the program or face being booted from her high school basketball team. The Chicago Teachers Union's new list of demands would give teachers more authority to teach what they want, force beliefs on students and keep parents in the dark. CTU has also demanded teachers keep student pronouns a secret from parents. CTU's current contract ends June 30. They have a list of demands filling a 142-page document, ranging from social and environmental justice issues to raises averaging $51,000. [GN] CHICOS FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHICOS FAS INC., d/b/a Chicos, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-01507-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., April 25, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.chicos.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. CHICO'S FAS, INC. sells private label women's casual clothing and related accessories. The Company's clothing includes tops, pants, shorts, skirts, and dresses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8 th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: Chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Plaintiffs' Counsel Awarded $246K in Attys' Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA HEDRICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting in part Plaintiffs' renewed motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive Awards, holding that and $50,017 in costs. The Plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to $246,555.24 in attorneys' fees, while the Plaintiffs are entitled to $2,500 incentive awards each. The Defendant must pay Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs no later than ten calendar days after the Final Settlement Date, as defined in the settlement agreement, and upon receipt of relevant Form W-9, as set forth in sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the settlement agreement. The Parties shall confer and file a status report within 60 days of the date of this order, informing the Court of a voucher distribution plan which accounts for the reduction in attorneys' fees and costs. In 2016, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendant in this class action for falsely advertising that their items were discounted when they were not. On March 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, requesting $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, substantially less than the $1,080,000 they requested in their first motion for attorneys' fees. The Defendant is a brick-and-mortar and online retailer of children's clothing and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRW7HU at no extra charge.[CC] CHUNG LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Li Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- JIANXIN LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHUNG LLC d/b/a Chung's Barber Shop; and STANLEY CHUNG, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00025-RSB-JCH (W. Va., April 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Li was employed by the Defendant as a barber. CHUNG LLC operates barber shops in Charlottesville, Virginia, under the name Chung's Barber Shop. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROU LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Judson Suit Removed to District of Utah --------------------------------------------------------------- GENE JUDSON; and MICHELLE JUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS; and ENSIGN PEAK ADVISERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00796 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2024), was removed from multi-district litigation proceeding panel, MDL No. 3102 on April 22, 2024, transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, and assisgned Case No. 2:24-cv-00296-RJS-DAO. The case is assigned to Judge Robert J. Shelby. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS is a religious corporation that exists to conduct temporal and legal affairs on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, an unincorporated religious association. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Jonelis, Esq. LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906 Telephone: (310) 556-3501 Email: djonelis@lavelysinger.com - and - Todd S. Eagan, Esq. EAGAN LAW CORPORATION 401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 304-3302 Email: teagan@eaganlawcorp.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Hybrid, Virtual Move Fends Off Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Flood of Fox News reports that Columbia University may have fended off the threat of class action lawsuits this week when it announced classes have shifted to virtual or hybrid amid ongoing safety concerns stemming from anti-Israel protests, according to a former law professor at the embattled school. Attorney Danny Karon, who used to teach at Columbia Law School and specializes in class action suits, felt Jewish students might have had a case earlier this week. Rabbi Elie Buechler advised them to leave campus and go home as anti-Israel agitators made it unsafe. The university's policies insist it is committed to providing learning, living and working environments free from harassment. But then new guidelines said all courses on Columbia's main campus moved to hybrid learning "until the end of each school's Spring 2024 semester" in an effort to keep students safe. "I don't think it was pretextual, I think Columbia did the right thing to preserve the safety of its kids. But with that unwittingly came a real good class defense," Karon told Fox News Digital. "It would have been easier for the Jewish kids, or even Arab kids who feel harassed, or anyone else who felt harassed to have a class [action case] if the school didn't lump everybody else in with them," he continued. "Because then you would know that everybody who was at home studying was there because they felt harassed, and there'd be no question as to whether they felt aggrieved. They did. How do you know? Because they left campus. That is a definable class." Karon spent 13 years as the chair of the American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions. Now that everyone was sent home from Columbia, he said it's essentially impossible to know who felt harassed and wanted to flee, as opposed to students who weren't impacted or are "perfectly fine" with remote learning either way. "Now that the school has made it a school-wide approach that might unwittingly, unknowing to the school, have been enough to scuttle the possibility of a class action. Or maybe a resourceful plaintiffs' lawyer, if retained by the right, perhaps harassed Jewish Arab students, could claim a class of just harassed students. How they would demonstrate who those were could be a challenge," Karon said. "Might it be a definable class and ascertainable class, as we call it? Possibly. But this step isn't easy. If it were easy, everybody would do it. And these class actions are necessarily difficult, and it's necessarily tough to show that cohesiveness among a group of folks who then necessarily has people who feel different ways," he continued. "And that's, I think, what we're seeing in some respects here in a way that didn't exist before the school invoked this new policy." Karon, who taught at Columbia Law School in 2018-2019 and has also taught class-action litigation at the University of Michigan Law School and The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, loved his time at the Manhattan-based Ivy League school and is stunned by recent events. "I never saw antisemitism anywhere. I saw inclusiveness and cooperativeness. And, it was just a great vibe. I never saw any of this. It's really sad that now it's sweeping the campus," he said. "I would walk through campus and it was so serene and so wonderful and such a great image, and now it's just peppered with all this negativity and sadness and tumult in a way that the school can't get a handle on," Karon continued. "I think it's really sad what's happening." The new guidance came amid days of protests at Columbia, where anti-Israel agitators initially formed an encampment -- setting up tents and refusing to leave -- on the campus. The protesters have marched in and around the campus demanding the school lose affiliations with groups that support Israel amid its war with Hamas in Gaza, which has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., suggested Wednesday, April 24, that the National Guard should be called in to quell the Gaza cease-fire protests at Columbia University if they don't peter out themselves. Columbia University President Dr. Nemat "Minouche" Shafik previously said in a statement that she was "deeply saddened" by certain actions of the agitators and called for a "reset." "I am deeply saddened by what is happening on our campus," Shafik wrote. "Our bonds as a community have been severely tested in ways that will take a great deal of time and effort to reaffirm. Students across an array of communities have conveyed fears for their safety and we have announced additional actions we are taking to address security concerns. The decibel of our disagreements has only increased in recent days. These tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia who have come to campus to pursue their own agendas." [GN] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Student Sues Over Campus Safety ----------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Sarisohn of The Jerusalem Post reports that a class action lawsuit against Columbia University was was filed in federal court on Monday morning, April 29, on behalf of a second-year Jewish student who alleges the school could not guarantee the safety of its Jewish students. "We support peaceful protests but when a sliver of them invites and engages in violence including saying all 'Zionists' (read 'Jews') should be killed and calls for terrorists attacks on American soil, that has no place in our country," Jay Edelson, the attorney representing the students, said in a post on X. According to Edelson, the lawsuit alleges Columbia needs to enforce its policies and let students feel free to study, take finals and otherwise be students "without worrying they will be assaulted. "We are proceeding on a breach of contract theory and are seeking immediate injunctive relief," Edelson wrote on X. The lawsuit says many individuals at Columbia are exercising their constitutionally protected right to protest and express their views about Israel, but there's a subset of protesters who have gone beyond engaging in free speech and have "menacing goals" including committing acts of violence and intimidating and harassing Jewish students and faculty members. The lawsuit accuses the Gaza Solidarity Encampment of being the center of "round-the-clock" harassment of Jewish students who have been punched, shoved, spat upon, and blocked from attending classes and moving freely about campus. "These extreme demonstrators are not engaging in constitutionally protected free speech. Instead, they are openly inciting violence against Jewish students," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges Columbia has done nothing to "curb this outrageous behavior or meaningfully discipline those responsible." According to the lawsuit, the "administration's inaction and willingness to capitulate to the demands of this extremist element of demonstrators have fanned the flames of antisemitism across campus." The lawsuit outlines instances in which Jewish students were directly targeted around the encampments, such as a student wearing a Star of David necklace being forced out of the encampment's vicinity. Such instances make clear the protesters are targeting students for being Jewish, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit accuses Columbia President Minouche Shafik for prioritizing negotiations with students in the encampment over Jewish students who have been displaced. "Columbia has in no uncertain terms announced that the university is not safe for its Jewish students," the lawsuit says. After the encampment was set up, Shafik instituted a "hybrid" model for education for the remainder of the academic year for students to attend class virtually if they didn't feel safe enough to do so in person. "This absurd shift makes no attempt to solve the safety problem on campus, and at the same time, creates two very different educational experiences for Jewish and non-Jewish students," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit says Jewish students get a second-class education where they are restricted to their homes to attend class virtually, and the segregation of Jewish students is a "dangerous development" that can escalate into more severe acts of violence. The lawsuit says Columbia's decision to shift to an online learning model constitutes a material breach of its contractual obligations. Life on campus after October 7 The plaintiff, unidentified for safety reasons, is an openly Jewish student who has experienced numerous instances of harassment and intimidation on campus since October 7, according to the lawsuit, though she was generally able to attend classes on campus without issue. However, the lawsuit says that changed after the encampment was erected on April 18 when the level of hostility on campus escalated dramatically, making the plaintiff fearful of harassment and physical harm. "Had plaintiff known that Columbia would not provide an in-person educational environment free of harassment, plaintiff would not have chosen to enroll at or pay tuition to Columbia," according to the lawsuit. [GN] COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Paula Sparkman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMERICA BANK, a foreign corporation, CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation, CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 24CI-000031 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Tehama, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01206-DJC-DMC. The Complaint in the State Court Action asserts the following causes of action: breach of contract; and unfair business practices in violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: John C. Grugan, Esq. Ana Dragojevic, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.743.6963 Email: john.grugan@hklaw.com ana.dragojevic@hklaw.com - and - Jenny N. Perkins, Esq. Mitchell Turbenson, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909 Phone: 424.204.4400 Email: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com turbensonm@ballardspahr.com COMMUNITY FORWARD SF: Bruno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Forward SF, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Karen Bruno, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Community Forward SF, Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC24614303 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Community Forward SF -- https://communityforwardsf.org/ -- is a non-profit organization that provides social services like homeless assistance to people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121-6720 Phone: 619-599-8292 Fax: 619-599-8291 Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121-6720 Phone: 619-255-9047 Fax: 858-404-9203 Email: shani@zakaylaw.com COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass Minerals International, Inc. ("Compass Minerals" or the "Company") (NYSE: CMP). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) Compass Minerals overstated the likelihood that it would be awarded a renewed U.S. Forest Service contract for the use of its proprietary magnesium chloride-based aerial fire retardants for the 2024 fire season, as a result of safety issues presented by its fire retardant; and (2) Compass Minerals materially overstated the extent to which testing had confirmed that its fire retardants were safe. If you bought Compass Minerals shares between November 29, 2023 and March 22, 2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/compass-minerals-international/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is June 24, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Seeks to Decertify Optional Retirement Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to decertify the optional retirement class. The Defendants are separately filing a motion for the Court to stay the sending of notice to Optional Retirement Class members pending resolution of the Motion. The grounds for this Motion are set forth in the Defendants' accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. As of April 29, 2024, the Defendants have identified 843 persons who are members of the Optional Retirement Class. Seventy-three Class members have executed releases, including the Plaintiff Major, and the releases are substantially similar to one another. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZWqZL7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Nipun J. Patel, Esq. Cory A. Thomas, Esq. Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. Kayla Pragid, Esq. 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 COSY HOUSE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cosy House, LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cosy House, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03167-JHR (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cosy House Collection -- https://www.cosyhousecollection.com/ -- offers a wide variety of high quality and affordable home goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT: Bolanos Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Bolanos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00552-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Crossroads Equipment Lease & Finance -- https://www.crlease.com/ -- is your professional partner in the transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: andrewg@turkestrauss.com CRUNCHYROLL LLC: MacPhee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Kevin MacPhee, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. CRUNCHYROLL, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-005536 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 22, 2024), is brought for violations the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful debt collection. On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). On February 22, 2024, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Communication was a communication in connection with the collection Of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent by Defendant and delivered to Plaintiffs personal e-mail address. The Communication advised: "Looks like your payment method isn't working. We are having trouble collecting payment from your credit card." The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 11:26 PM in Plaintiffs time zone. The Communication was received by Plaintiff from Defendant at 11:26 PM in Plaintiffs time zone, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located in Culver City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Labe, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Lehr False Advertising Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Cryo-Cell International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that it is facing a complaint styled "Lindsey Lehr v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc.," Case No. 9:23-cv-80405-AMC. Said suit was initially filed on January 6, 2023 in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, under Case No. 50-2023-CA-000091, naming the company as defendant and asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who entered agreements with the company for umbilical cord blood storage services since May 2018. The complaint alleged that the company's advertising does not accurately represent the value and efficacy of its services and asserted claims (and sought unspecified damages) under Florida law. On March 14, 2023, the company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (), and on March 21, 2023, moved to compel arbitration and stay the case. On October 10, 2023, the court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. On October 27, 2023, the plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration and statement of claims with the American Arbitration Association, and on January 18, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claims dropping her class action allegations against the company. On March 19, 2024, the company filed an answering statement and counterclaim in response to the plaintiff's claims. Cryo-Cell International, Inc., headquartered in Oldsmar, Florida, is into cellular processing and cryogenic cellular storage, with a current focus on the collection and preservation of umbilical cord blood stem cells for family use, the manufacture of PrepaCyte CB units, the processing technology used to process umbilical cord blood stem cells and cryogenic storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells for public use. CVS HEALTH: Controls Access to Prescription Drugs, Jones Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE ELAYNE JONES and MARILYN A. MANZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, f/k/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, SILVERSCRIPT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC, CAREMARK L.L.C., f/k/a CAREMARK INC., CVS PHARMACY, INC., and CVS CAREMARK PART D SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01703-JMY (E.D. Pa., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and State Consumer Protection Acts and for conspiracy, fraud, negligence per se, or, alternatively, negligence, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the CVS Defendants, along with five manufacturers of brand drug products, have implemented a fraudulent scheme to prevent the Plaintiffs and other Medicare Part D beneficiaries covered by SilverScript plans from accessing cheaper generic equivalent versions of the prescription drugs Invega, Asacol HD, Renvela packets, Renvela tablets, Harvoni, Epclusa, Ventolin HFA, Canasa Rectal Suppository, and Advair Diskus (together, the "Affected Drugs"). As a result of the CVS Defendants' fraudulent scheme, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated beneficiaries have access only to the costlier brand name versions of the Affected Drugs and the CVS Defendants and their co-conspirators have ensured astonishing profits for themselves at the expense of elderly patients suffering from the life-altering illnesses that the Affected Drugs and their generic equivalents treat, says the suit. CVS Health Corporation, formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation, is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Silverscript Insurance Company, LLC is an insurance company based in Knoxville, Tennessee. Caremark L.L.C., formerly known as Caremark Inc., is a pharmacy benefits management services provider, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a subsidiary of CVS Health, with a principal place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS Caremark Part D Services, LLC is a pharmacy benefit manager, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and - Eric L. Young, Esq. YOUNG LAW GROUP 3031C Walton Road, Suite 301 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (215) 367-5151 Facsimile: (215) 367-5143 Email: eyoung@young-lawgroup.com D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03105-AMD-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.derricojewelry.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM CORP. operates as a jewelry shop. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DAIKIN COMFORT: Placentia Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melissa Placentia, individually, and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated v. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES MANUFACTURING, L.P.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00007050-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00757-DMS-DEB. On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the operative First Amended Complaint (the "FAC"), alleging individual causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, failure to pay rest period wages, paid sick leave violations, untimely payment of wages, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide employment records, unfair competition, and retaliation and wrongful termination.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-4839 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com - and - Eric W. May, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: emay@seyfarth.com DE BEERS JEWELLERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Beers Jewellers (US), Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. De Beers Jewellers (US), Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03103-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. De Beers -- https://www.debeers.co.uk/en-gb/home -- is known for creating the finest diamond jewellery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DENIS MCDONOUGH: Powers, et al., Win Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY POWERS, et al., v. DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH, in his official capacity as Secretary of Veterans Affairs; et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08357-DOC-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court certifies the Class and Subclass to pursue class claims, appoints the Plaintiffs Powers, Sessom, Fields, Johnson, Wright, Petitt, Stibbie, Doe 1, and National Veterans Foundation as Class Representatives for the Proposed Class and Plaintiff Johnson as Class Representative for the Proposed Subclass, and appoints Public Counsel Law Center, Inner City Law Center, Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP and Robins Kaplan LLP as Class Counsel for both the Proposed Class and Subclass. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following Class and Subclass: The "Class": "All homeless veterans with Serious Mental Illness [SMI] or Traumatic Brain Injuries [TBI], who reside in Los Angeles County." The "Subclass": "All Class Members whose income (including veterans disability benefits) exceeds 50% of the Area Median Income." The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to certify class on April 1, 2024. On April 15, 2024, the Defendants filed their Opposition. The Plaintiffs submitted their Reply on April 22, 2024. The Court heard oral arguments on May 2, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6mzCSr at no extra charge.[CC] DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- DiDi Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that it is currently facing a consolidated case under the caption "In re Didi Global Inc. Securities Litigation," No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK. Starting in July 2021, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed in federal court in California. These actions alleged, in sum and substance, that the registration statement and prospectus prepared for its June 30, 2021 initial public offering contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and consolidated the remaining federal actions. Lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 7, 2022. The company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on March 8, 2022. In response, lead plaintiffs further amended their complaint, filing a Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2022. On June 3, 2022, the company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On March 14, 2024, the court denied the company's and other defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. DiDi Global Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company with operations in China primarily through its "DiDi Dache" app to provide online taxi services. It officially operated in June 2021 as DiDi Global Inc. DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Securities Suit in NY Court Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------- DiDi Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that in December 2021, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in state court in New York, which similarly alleges that the registration statement and prospectus prepared for its June 30, 2021 initial public offering contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. On April 22, 2022, the parties stipulated to stay the state court action pending the outcome of motion to dismiss briefing in an ongoing federal action. The state court action remains in its preliminary stage. DiDi Global Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company with operations in China primarily through its "DiDi Dache" app to provide online taxi services. It officially operated in June 2021 as DiDi Global Inc. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL ROBERTSON, on behalf of herself and her minor child D.R.; ELIZABETH DAGGETT, on behalf of herself and her minor child H.D.; JOANN MCCRAY, on behalf of herself and her minor child J.C.; VERONICA GUERRERO, on behalf of herself and her minor child A.F., MARCIA CANNON-CLARK AND DAVID CLARK, on behalf of themselves and their minor child B.R.C; and THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00656-PLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a clc District of Columbia is the capital city of the United States of America. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDKVs2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kaitlin R. Banner, Esq. Chelsea Sullivan, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org margaret_hart@washlaw.org chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org - and - Katherine Zeisel, Esq. CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER 501 3rd St, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 267-4900 E-mail: zeisel@childrenslawcenter.org - and - Margaret H. Warner, Esq. Eugene I. Goldman, Esq. Theodore E. Alexander, Esq. Christopher M. Shoemaker, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 500 North Capitol Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 756-8400 E-mail: mwarner@mwe.com talexander@mwe.com cshoemaker@mwe.com - and - Shira Wakschlag, Esq. Evan Monod, Esq. THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 534-3708 E-mail: wakschlag@thearc.org monod@thearc.org DOMINION ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arble Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE ARBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINION ENERGY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a DOMINION ENERGY OHIO, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00747 (N.D. Ohio, April 26, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Arble was employed by the Defendant as a staff. DOMINION ENERGY, INC. produces and transports energy products. The Company offers natural gas and electric energy transmission, gathering, and storage solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Sabo Friedmann, Esq. Dominick A. Kocak, Esq. THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC 3740 Ridge Mill Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 Telephone: (614) 610-9756 Facsimile: (614) 737-9812 Email: Rachel@TFFLegal.com Dominick@TFFLegal.com DON'T RUN OUT: Starks Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shaianne Starks, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DON'T RUN OUT, INC. d/b/a PUBLIC GOODS, Case No. CVRI2400978 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00895-JWH-MRW. The Plaintiff alleges that Public Goods violated California law by, among other things, allegedly charging consumers for subscriptions without disclosing the subscription terms. Public Goods denies liability, denies that plaintiff or any putative class member suffered any damages by reason of any allegation in the complaint, and denies that any class can or should be certified.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. Allison C. Nelson, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 Email: anrothman@venable.com acnelson@venable.com DROPBOX INC: Coulter Sues Over Preventable Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Ramsey Coulter, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. DROPBOX, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02637-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff in a massive and preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. On April 24th 2024, hackers infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information ("Personal Information" or "PII") of thousands of individuals. The PII taken by the hackers includes: names, addresses, emails, usernames, phone numbers, and hashed passwords, in addition to general account settings and certain authentication information such as API keys, OAuth tokens, and multi-factor authentication. In short, thanks to Defendant's failure to protect the Breach Victims' Personal Information, cyber criminals were able to steal everything they could possibly need to commit nearly every conceivable form of identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of potentially millions of individuals. This includes logging in to Plaintiff's personal bank accounts, mortgage accounts, and online storage where Plaintiff maintains sensitive personal documents, including medical records, private photographs, and other PII information such as social security number, date of birth, and bank account numbers. The Defendant's conduct--failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems were protected, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the breach, failing to timely detect the breach, failing to disclose the material facts that they did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard the Personal Information, failing to honor their repeated promises and representations to protect the Breach Victims' Personal Information, caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a subscriber to, and user of, Defendant's services. Dropbox, Inc. is a corporation that has its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Sibilia, Esq. OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER P.O. Box 861 Oceanside, CA 92049 Phone: (760) 666-1151 Fax: (818) 698-0300 Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com DTE ELECTRIC: Hughes Suit Seeks Call Center Agents' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE HUGHES and BARBREA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11075-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs Hughes and Young worked for the Defendant as a remote customer service representative from approximately 2020 through November of 2023 and as a customer service specialist from approximately July 2018 through approximately November 2023, respectively. DTE Electric Company is an energy company based in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ EHang Holdings Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated securities class action with regards to its American Depository Shares (ADS). A federal securities class action lawsuit captioned "Amberber v. EHang Holdings Limited, et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-01392-GBD (February 17, 2021, S.D.N.Y.), was filed by purported holders of its ADS in federal court. The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and generally allege that the company and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements regarding the status of its urban air mobility business, its international and domestic regulatory approvals, its relationships with major customers, and its manufacturing facilities. In addition to costs and attorneys' fees, the complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages. Said lawsuit was consolidated into a single class action lawsuit under the caption "In re EHang Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation," 1.21-CV-01392-GBD-GWG (February 19, 2021, S.D.N.Y.), and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were selected in February 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2022, making similar allegations as those in the previous complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss in August 2022. The defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss in September 2022. In October 2022, the court held oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 15, 2022, and entered final judgment dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice on January 24, 2023. Lead plaintiff did not appeal the final judgment and on February 23, 2023, lead plaintiff's deadline to appeal expired. EHang Holdings Limited is the holding company for Guangzhou EHang Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., a company based in Guangzhou, China that develops and manufactures autonomous aerial vehicles and passenger AAVs which have entered service in China for aerial cinematography, photography, emergency response, and survey missions. EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ EHang Holdings Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated securities class action with regards to its American Depository Shares (ADS). A federal securities class action lawsuit captioned "Chaumont v. EHang Holdings Limited, et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-01526-GBD (February 19, 2021, S.D.N.Y.) was filed by purported holders of its ADS in federal court. The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and generally allege that the company and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements regarding the status of its urban air mobility business, its international and domestic regulatory approvals, its relationships with major customers, and its manufacturing facilities. In addition to costs and attorneys' fees, the complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages. Said lawsuit was consolidated into a single class action lawsuit under the caption "In re EHang Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation," 1.21-CV-01392-GBD-GWG (February 19, 2021, S.D.N.Y.), and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were selected in February 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2022, making similar allegations as those in the previous complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss in August 2022. The defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss in September 2022. In October 2022, the court held oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 15, 2022, and entered final judgment dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice on January 24, 2023. Lead plaintiff did not appeal the final judgment and on February 23, 2023, lead plaintiff's deadline to appeal expired. EHang Holdings Limited is the holding company for Guangzhou EHang Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., a company based in Guangzhou, China that develops and manufactures autonomous aerial vehicles and passenger AAVs which have entered service in China for aerial cinematography, photography, emergency response, and survey missions. EL AZTECO INC: Scott ADA Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bernadette Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. El Azteco Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-10809 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on April 24, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00413-JMB-SJB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. El Azteco Holding Co. -- https://elazteco.net/ -- provides chain restaurant services. The Company offers authentic Mexican food including tacos, burritos, quesadilla, guacamole, chicken enchilades, and fajitas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pete Marlin Monismith, Esq. PETE M. MONISMITH PA 3945 Forbes Ave., #175 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Phone: (724) 610-1881 Email: pete@monismithlaw.com - and – Aaron Landry Davis, Esq. BUTZEL LONG PC (OKEMOS) 2410 Woodlake Dr., Ste. 420 Okemos, MI 48864 Phone: (517) 372-6622 Email: davisa@butzel.com The Defendants are represented by: Aaron Landry Davis, Esq. Garett Lee Koger, Esq. BUTZEL LONG PC (OKEMOS) 2410 Woodlake Dr., Ste. 420 Okemos, MI 48864 Phone: (517) 372-6622 Email: davisa@butzel.com Koger@butzel.com EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- Karen A. Garceau, on behalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2024), is brought for breaching its fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Defendant offers a retirement plan to its employees. Eligible faculty and staff members may elect to participate in the Plan, which provides the primary source of retirement income for many former employees. Plaintiff is a current Plan participants. The Plan has over 5,000 participants and more than $500 million in assets. Defined contribution retirement plans, like the Plan, confer tax benefits on participating employees to incentivize saving for retirement. According to the Investment Company Institute, Americans held $7.9 trillion in all employer-based defined contribution retirement plans as of March 31, 2020, of which $5.6 trillion was held in 401(k) plans. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. As of December 31, 2022, the Plan had $495,777,816 in assets. Accordingly, the Plan has substantial bargaining power regarding compensation paid to third party service providers. However, instead of leveraging the Plan's tremendous bargaining power to benefit Plan participants and beneficiaries, like a prudent fiduciary would, Defendant over the relevant time period, chose poorly performing investments, inappropriate high-cost mutual fund share classes, and caused the Plan to pay excessive compensation to the Plan's recordkeeper for routine administrative services. It is a fundamental duty of ERISA fiduciaries to select prudent investments for retirement plans and to defray expenses for the Plan. That is because individual plan participants cannot do this themselves. They must rely on plan fiduciaries to do so for them and the entire Plan. The Defendant made no meaningful attempt to reduce the Plan's expenses or to prudently monitor and review the Plan's investment options. Defendant employed flawed and ineffective processes, which failed to ensure that: (a) the compensation paid by the Plan the Plan's recordkeeper was not excessive, and (b) that each investment option that was offered in the Plan was prudent. Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence in violation of the ERISA. Defendant's actions (and omissions) were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current participant in the Plan. The Defendant is a private, for-profit, nonsectarian university with its principal place of business in Daytona Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gdesane@wfclaw.com EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Continues to Defend Payment Obligations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (EDENOR S.A.) 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 payment obligations-related class suit . On May 4, 2021, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa (CFD) brought a class action against the Company in the Court having jurisdiction in Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires, Clerk's Office No. 3 of the Judicial Management Office in Consumer Relations, claiming damages allegedly caused by the Company to customers by virtue of the Agreement on the Regularization of Payment Obligations entered into in 2019 by the Company, the Energy Secretariat and the Electric Power Market and Renewable Resources Secretariat, and claiming the reinstatement of the penalties set forth therein, plus interest, loss of profit or opportunity and punitive damages. The Company answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ("excepcion de incompetencia") of the local courts. The court admitted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, as a consequence thereof, on January 6, 2022, sent the proceedings to the Court having jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Federal Matters No. 5 – Clerk's Office No. 9. As of the date of this annual report, the case has been brought to trial. The Company's management believes there exist reasonable grounds to believe that Edenor should prevail in this case. Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (edenor), a public service company, engages in the distribution and sale of electricity in Argentina. EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Resolution of Consumidores Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (EDENOR S.A.) 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 Consumidores Financieros class suit is pending resolution. In March 2010, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil Para Su Defensa ("CFD") brought a class action against the Company and Edesur in National Court of Original Jurisdiction in Federal Administrative Matters No. 2, Clerk's Office No. 3, seeking the reimbursement of: (i) interest applicable to the payment of energy purchased from the WEM, transferred to customers, (ii) the Value Added Tax (VAT) percentage on that interest, calculated on a taxable base that is allegedly contrary to the Consumer Protection Law; and (ii) the late payment charges calculated at the lending rate published by Banco de la Nación Argentina. On April 22, 2010, the Company answered the complaint, filing a motion to dismiss for lack of standing ("excepcion de falta de legitimacion"), requesting, at such opportunity, that a summons be served upon the Federal Government, the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (“AFIP”) and the ENRE as third-party defendants. Prior to the time allowed to produce evidence, the Tax authorities were ordered to conduct a review of the proceedings in order to issue an opinion on the motion to dismiss for lack of standing filed by Edenor. After the proceedings were sent back to the court, the motion was rejected. At the time, the Company filed an appeal against such denial. In 2022, evidence was offered and arguments were submitted, with the Company invoking lack of standing and the termination of the action by lapse of time. The rendering of a decision on the motions filed by the Company has been deferred and will be considered when final judgment is rendered. The action brought by ADDUC will be considered together with these actions. As of the date of this annual report, this case is pending resolution. Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (edenor), a public service company, engages in the distribution and sale of electricity in Argentina. EQUINIX INC: Chan Sues Over Exchange Act Violation -------------------------------------------------- Wayne Chan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUINIX, INC., CHARLES MEYERS, and KEITH D. TAYLOR, Case No. 3:24-cv-02656 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is brought as a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Equinix securities between May 3, 2019 and March 24, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements. On May 3, 2019, Equinix filed with the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019 (the "1Q19 Report"). Attached to the 1Q19 Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") signed by Defendants Meyers and Taylor attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Equinix manipulated its financials to reduce operational expenses and boost Adjusted Funds From Operations ("AFFO"); Equinix oversold power capacity and did not warn of the risks associated with this practice; Equinix lacked adequate internal controls; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On March 20, 2024, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research released a report on Equinix entitled "Equinix Exposed: Major Accounting Manipulation, Core Business Decay And Selling an AI Pipe Dream As Insiders Cashed Out Hundreds of Millions" (the "Hindenburg Report" or the "Report"). The Report then stated that this issue presents an increasingly serious risk to the Company, given that data center power demand usage is projected to go up over time, as a result of the increasing use of machine learning and artificial intelligence. On this news, the price of Equinix stock fell by $19.70 a share, or 2.33%, on March 20, 2024, to close at $824.88. The next day, it fell a further $13.24, or 1.6%, to close at $811.64. Then, on March 25, 2020, before the market opened, the Company filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K. On this news, the price of Equinix stock fell by $8.45 per share, or 1.05%, to close at $792.52 on March 25, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Equinix operates as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com EUCLID CHEMICAL: Birdsell Sues Over Concrete Additives Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID A. BIRDSELL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE IN BANKRUPTCY OF AGAVERO READYMIX, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-GOBAIN CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SIKA CORPORATION; SIKA AG; CINVEN, LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01726 (E.D. Pa., April 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in an unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a) chemical admixtures for concrete, (b) chemical additives for cement, (c) chemical admixtures for mortar, and (d) products containing or bundled with any of these (collectively, "CCAs"). The Defendants entered into an agreement to charge supra-competitive prices for CCAs through price increases and the imposition of surcharges. This agreement resulted in Agavero and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs in the United States and its territories. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for CCAs than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy, says the suit. THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY designs and manufactures concrete chemicals. The Company offers admixtures, concrete fibers, curing and sealing compounds, structural grouts, epoxy adhesives, floor hardeners and toppings, joint fillers, industrial and architectural coatings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Gerard A. Dever, Esq. Mary L. Russell, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23 rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com mrussell@finekaplan.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Peter Moran, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com pmoran@nussbaumpc.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERCK, P.L.L.C. 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 498-1782 Email: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Exscientia p.l.c. ("Exscientia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EXAI) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 24-cv-05692, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Exscientia securities between March 23, 2022, and February 12, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Exscientia securities during the Class Period, you have until June 25, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Exscientia in an artificial intelligence ("AI") driven Pharma-tech company that engages in the design and develop differentiated medicines for diseases with high unmet patient needs. At all relevant times, the Company purported to "maintain[] the highest standards of business conduct and ethics" and, to that end, adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which applies to all of its employees, officers and directors, including former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Director Defendant Andrew Hopkins ("Hopkins"), former Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") Defendant David Nicholson ("Nicholson"), and all other executive and senior officers. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Hopkins had engaged in improper relationships with employees that were inconsistent with the Company's standards and values; (ii) Defendant Nicholson had prior knowledge of Defendant Hopkins's relationships and had improperly addressed Hopkins's misconduct without consulting the Board; (iii) the Company's maintenance and enforcement of its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics was inadequate to safeguard against the foregoing conduct; (iv) the foregoing failures subjected the Company to a heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and/or reputational harm; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On February 13, 2024, Exscientia issued a press release "announc[ing] that its Board of Directors (the ‘Board') has decided to terminate the employment of [Defendant] Hopkins as the Company's [CEO] and Principal Executive Officer, and to remove Dr. Hopkins from his role as an Executive Director of the Board, in each case for cause and effective immediately." The press release further revealed that the Board's decision was taken following an investigation which found that Defendant Hopkins had "engaged in relationships with two employees that the Board determined were inappropriate and inconsistent with the Company's standards and values." In addition, the press release indicated that during the course of the investigation, the Board learned that "[Defendant] Nicholson [. . .] had prior knowledge of the existence of the earlier of Dr. Hopkins' relationships and had addressed the situation directly, and with the involvement of other outside counsel, rather than in consultation with the Board," and "[f]ollowing discussions with the Board, on February 12, 2024 Dr. Nicholson tendered his resignation from his positions with the Company." On this news, Exscientia's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 22.9%, to close at $5.79 per share on February 13, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.[BN] FAMILY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lindsey Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- LEQUINTIN LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC.; FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF TENNESSEE, LLC; and DOLLAR TREE FAMILY DOLLAR, LLC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02254 (W.D. Tenn., April 22, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lindsey was employed by the Defendants as an assistant manager. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. operates as a national discount store. The Company offers merchandise that includes consumables, apparel, accessories, seasonal, electronics, and home products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com FIRST ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------- First Energy 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio stayed the securities class suit during the pendency of the district court motion. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order, which the Sixth Circuit granted on November 16, 2023. On November 30, 2023, FE filed a motion with the S.D. Ohio to stay all proceedings pending the circuit court appeal. All discovery is stayed during the pendency of the district court motion. FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio. FITNESS EQUIPMENT: Mangone Sues Over Unlawful Pricing and Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Mangone, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. FITNESS EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a Sole Fitness, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00465-HZ (D. Ore., March 14, 2024), is brought to address Defendant's misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.soletreadmills.com for Sole Fitness-branded exercise equipment (the "products"). The Defendant advertises fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. Anyone visiting the website who buys an item on "sale" from a regular price is being misled. So too is any person who buys an item on "sale" from a "stricken" regular price or a "stricken" MSRP. This is because that item has not been listed for sale or sold on the website, in the recent past and for a substantial period of time, at the regular price. Additionally, Defendant's MSRP is entirely bogus—it is an inflated sum at which Defendant rarely, if ever, offers or sells the products on the website. Yet Defendant's use of inflated reference prices, strikethrough pricing and discounting, and purported limited time sales all lead reasonable consumers to believe that the products in fact had been listed for sale or sold on the website at the regular price, in the recent past, for a substantial period of time. Beyond that, Defendant's products sold on the website not only have a market value lower than the promised regular price or MSRP, but the market value of the products is also lower than the "sale" price. By using false reference pricing and false MSRPs, Defendant artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension drives up the price of the products. As a result, consumers received a product worth less than the price paid. As a result, consumers are deceived into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing items they would not have purchased, and spending more money for an item than they otherwise would have absent deceptive marketing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased products from the website and shipped them to her address in Oregon. The Defendant develops, markets, and sells fitness equipment for residential use, including treadmills, ellipticals, bikes and rowers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy S. DeJong, Esq. Elizabeth K. Bailey, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 Email: tdejong@stollberne.com ebailey@stollberne.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, California 90212 Phone: 872.365.7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com FLORIDA: Faces Class Suit Over Medicaid Termination Notices ----------------------------------------------------------- Justin Marcus Smith, J.D., writing for Wolters Kluwer, reports that class members were entitled to adequate notice of the deprivation of their Medicaid benefits "regardless of the substantive correctness of the ineligibility determination." Medicaid beneficiaries whose coverage was terminated during the "unwinding" process could obtain certification of a class based on the court's sua sponte modification of their class definition to provide more commonality as to the termination notices received, held a federal district court in Florida. The court found Florida's standing arguments for dismissal were moot where some of the named Medicaid enrollees bringing the suit against the Secretary for the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Secretary for the Florida Department of Children and Families had injury standing to represent all class and sub-class members, based on the court's adjustment of the main class definition. The enrollees challenged whether the termination notices received were adequate, not the underlying correctness of the terminations. The court also found the other requirements of class certification satisfied (Chianne D. v. Weida, April 23, 2024, Howard, M.). Background. Under federal requirements, state Medicaid agencies had up to 12 months to complete Medicaid "unwinding" reviews after the March 31, 2023, end of the COVID-19 continuous-coverage period. The states returned to the standard Medicaid renewal process after that date. Out of 2.5 million Florida "unwinding" determinations, Florida deemed 830,000 people ineligible for Medicaid, including, in this matter, two adults and three children. The state issued written notices of termination of benefits and the right to a fair hearing. The enrollees challenged the adequacy of their termination notices under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Medicaid Act. They sought to represent two classes, each of which they designated as a "subclass." First, the enrollees asked the court to certify a "subclass A" of any individual who received a termination notice with no "Designated Reason" or including only a "Designated Reason" that did not refer to a specific Medicaid eligibility factor. Second, the enrollees sought to represent a second "subclass B" of individuals whose termination notices included a reason code that stated income ineligibility without stating the income used to determine eligibility or the applicable income standard. The state moved to dismiss the suit on standing grounds. Dismissal moot. The court reasoned it did not have to address the parties' arguments for and against standing. It could simply amend the class definition instead. The state argued that one plaintiff was not enrolled in Medicaid and did not claim to be eligible from the outset of the lawsuit. The state similarly argued that another plaintiff's claim became moot when her postpartum eligibility for Medicaid ended, so she, too, was no longer enrolled in or eligible for Medicaid and did not claim to be currently entitled to Medicaid benefits. As such, the state said neither had cognizable harm. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued that one had standing based on her claim for reinstatement, pending receipt of an adequate pretermination notice, and the other plaintiff's claim fell within the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness. The court resolved the impasse by reformulating "subclass A" as the primary class to more accurately reflect the claims. The enrollees would then have standing to pursue the amended subclass A, as the main class, as well as subclass B. The court reminded that the plaintiffs only needed one terminated enrollee among them to satisfy Article III standing and pursue the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in this action. Having amended the class definition to do that, the court denied the state's motion to dismiss as moot. Constitutional standing. The state did not otherwise challenge the standing of the other plaintiffs to assert their claims; however, the court considered their standing sua sponte. The court recognized they "undoubtedly" had standing to assert their claims based on the pleaded concrete injuries of lost time, emotional distress, and medical bills traceable to the "confusing" termination notices. With respect to the more important prospective relief sought, the court saw an ongoing benefit issue and the potential for receipt of another allegedly inadequate termination notice at a future redetermination. The court said these were all ongoing injuries traceable to the notices and redressable through declaratory and injunctive relief. Subclass A. The court said it was not convinced that the plaintiffs managed to form a cohesive class of those who lost Medicaid coverage for various reasons merely based on their shared right to adequate notice and their shared receipt of termination notices with similar "Designated Reasons." The court said it could easily remedy this by redefining and limiting the proposed classes to center on the shared characteristic of termination based on income. The court found the termination notices uniformly lacked individualized income information and income standards. The court accordingly certified a primary class to replace "subclass A" aimed at resolving whether termination notices lacking income information were adequate to satisfy due process and the Medicaid Act, where the enrollee was found ineligible based on income. The court retained the "subclass b" definition as the sole "subclass." The state contended the class definition was overbroad because it contained many members who suffered no injury because they were not in fact eligible for continued Medicaid benefits as of the unwinding period. The court found this argument unavailing because the allegedly unlawful termination notice practices were the whole point of the suit; therefore, each class member would have suffered some quantum of the same harm. The court concluded all class members were facially entitled to adequate notice of the deprivation of their Medicaid benefits "regardless of the substantive correctness of the ineligibility determination." The court also disagreed with the state's position that the case concerned "bare procedural violations." The court reasoned that the procedural rights were to protect the class member's concrete interest in their Medicaid benefits. Purported notice deficiencies were substantial because they posed a material risk of harm to those interests. Moreover, Rule 23(b)(2) did not require the named plaintiffs to show that all class members had standing in order to obtain classwide injunctive and declaratory relief. The key was whether the party opposing the class would affect all persons similarly situated such that his acts would apply generally to the whole class. Numerosity. The court found numerosity satisfied where over 100,000 enrollees received notice of Medicaid coverage denial or termination with at least one designated reason identifying income as the basis for the decision. As to the subclass, the record showed over 700,000 Medicaid enrollees received a notice that used only one or more of the "Designated Reason" codes 227, 249, and 520, and nearly 300,000 of those remained without coverage in December 2023. The court said numerosity would be satisfied even if only a small portion of the 700,000 were terminated on the basis of income. In any event, joinder would be impractical because the putative class members were all over Florida, they had limited resources, and future recipients of inadequate termination notices were not even identifiable yet. Commonality. The court was satisfied that the case involved common or standardized state conduct directed toward Medicaid enrollees whose benefits were terminated based on income. Typicality. The plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement under the court's modified class definition. They were all Medicaid beneficiaries terminated on the basis of income. Uniform unlawful omission of individual income information and fair hearing language would be unlawful as to the entire class and subclass. The court also could not discern any conflict between the plaintiffs and the interest of the class. The case is No. 3:23-cv-985-MMH-LLL. Attorneys: Katherine Debriere (Florida Health Justice Project) and Amanda Avery (National Health Law Program) for Chianne D. and C. D. Andy Bardos (GrayRobinson, PA) for Jason Weida and Shevaun Harris. [GN] FOUR SEASONS: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03114-KPF (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://wwwfourseasons.com/newyorkdowntown, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: (1) it fails to read-aloud and provide notice when a user clicks on the options available, (2) the codes embedded in each link, button, and form is outdated and fails to abide by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Guidelines to the extent that the codes fail to help those visually impaired clearly understand what functions are present on the website and capable of interaction, and (3) due to the lack of clarity, users will be unable to make a booking while fully understanding what days they had chosen and what price points each booking costs, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Four Seasons Hotels Limited is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 Email: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com FOXTROT RETAIL: Moore Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice --------------------------------------------------------- Jamil Ladell Moore, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FOXTROT RETAIL, INC.; OUTFOX HOSPITALITY LLC; and DOM'S MARKET LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03272 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2024), is brought arising as a class action under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") and the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("IWARN") based on Defendants' failure to provide notice of mass layoff or plant closing. On April 23, 2024, the Defendants' Retail Stores permanently closed. Over 30 Dom's and Foxtrot Locations abruptly closed. Employees at all Dom's and Foxtrot locations were terminated immediately without any prior notice on April 23, 2024. On Foxtrot's Instagram Page on April 23, 2024, Foxtrot announced that "After much consideration and evaluation, we regret to announce that Foxtrot and Dom's Kitchen & Market will be closing their doors starting April 23, 2024. The closure affects 33 Foxtrots and 2 Dom's grocery stores across Chicago, Austin, Dallas, DC areas." No employees of Foxtrot or Dom's were given prior notice of termination on April 23, 2024. Several employees scheduled to work at Dom's or Foxtrot on April 23, 2024 first learned of the mass layoff in the middle of the work-shift on April 23, 2024. The Plaintiff nor any members of the putative WARN and/or IWARN classes received at least 60 days' notice of the Defendants plant closing and/or mass layoff. Neither the Plaintiff nor members of the putative WARN and/or IWARN classes received compensation for the 60-day notice period that should have been paid under WARN and/or IWARN, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee at a Retail Stores during the time period at issue in this case. Foxtrot and Dom's are Illinois corporations engaged in the business of operating grocery stores, markets, and coffee shops serving Chicagoland communities for the last five or more years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq. HASEEB LEGAL, LLC 420 E Waterside Dr #3004 Chicago, IL 60601 Main Phoe: (954) 225-4934 Office: (630) 534-2527 Email: sh@haseeblegal.com FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Duran Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andy Duran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401488 was removed from the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00849. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a violation of a federal statute: the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide him with statutory disclosures and notices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. Kurt R. Bockes, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Fax: 415.399.8490 Email: rfliegel@littler.com kbockes@littler.com FULL SAIL LLC: Buxton Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Lauren Buxton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Full Sail, LLC doing business as: Full Sail University, Case No. 2:23-cv-00148 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-00747-JSS-DCI to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Full Sail University -- https://www.fullsail.edu/ -- offers campus and online degree programs that are designed for the world of entertainment media and emerging technologies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEEHAN & RAMSEY, PLLC 429 Porter Avenue Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Phone: (228) 875-0572 Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com - and - Eric H. Weitz, Esq. Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Ross Hadley, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG 300 W 6th St., Ste 2050 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 320-7200 Email: hadleye@gtlaw.com - and - Gregory W. Herbert, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA - Orlando 450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 650 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1000 Email: herbertg@gtlaw.com FULL TRUCK: Settlement Deal Reached in Kohli Suit ------------------------------------------------- Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (FTA) disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that on September 17, 2023, FTA entered into a binding term sheet that agrees in principle to settle a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Pratyush Kohli v. Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-03903 (E.D.N.Y.) On July 12, 2021, FTA, certain of its current and former directors and officers and others were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York. On September 13, 2022, an amended class action complaint was filed. On November 1, 2022, a second amended class action complaint was filed, which FTA and certain other defendants moved to dismiss on February 2, 2023. Plaintiffs submitted their opposition to FTA's motion to dismiss on April 3, 2023. FTA and certain other defendants submitted their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on May 18, 2023. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or acquired the Company’s securities from June 22, 2021 to July 2, 2021. The SAC alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false and misleading statements or omissions in the company's Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO. It also alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On or around February 27, 2024, FTA and other parties to the lawsuits executed a stipulation of settlement that resolves the lawsuits for $10.25 million. The settlement amount is an all-in amount that covers all attorneys' fees, administrative costs, expenses, class member benefits, class representative awards, and costs of any kind associated with the resolution of the lawsuits. On March 8, 2024, the parties submitted the stipulation to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, or the Court, and the Court preliminarily approved the settlement on April 3, 2024. On April 8, 2024, FTA paid the settlement amount in full, to be held in escrow pending final settlement approval in accordance with the stipulation of settlement. A final settlement approval hearing has been set for September 5, 2024. Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. is a Cayman Islands holding company with operations primarily conducted through the consolidated affiliates in China and by its subsidiaries operating digital freight platforms in China. GEICO CASUALTY: Perkins Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Deeba Perkins, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Geico Casualty Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Advantage Insurance Company, GEICO Secure Insurance Company, Geico Choice Insurance Company, Geico General Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, Case No. CV 24 994917 was removed from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00736 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute. GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life, general liability, travel, and business insurance services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Manuel D. Cardona, Esq. DICKSON WRIGHT 180 East Broad Street, Ste. 3400 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 591-5468 Fax: (844) 670-6009 Email: mcardona@dickinson-wright.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Sherman Act-Related Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the Sherman Act related class suit on April 19, 2024. On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval architects and marine engineers from each other. The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at any time since January 1, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable relief. The Company is defending the matter. On April 19, 2024, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions, shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, and technologies. [BN] GENERAL MOTORS: Behm Sues Over Unlawful Sale of Drivers' Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Behm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR, LLC, and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-01517-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., April 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendants, for their collection of and sharing or sale of drivers' data without their notice, knowledge, or consent and is brought against the Defendants for common law invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment, and violations of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This case arises out of GM and OnStar's secretive accessing, recording, collecting, and storing of drivers' driving Telematics Data which include, but are not limited to, events related to acceleration, hard braking, and high speeds, as well as Vehicle Identification Numbers ("VINs") and location or GPS data ("Telematics Data"). GM and OnStar collect this Telematics Data, without drivers' knowledge or consent, then share and/or sell these data to third parties, such as Lexis, again without knowledge or consent from the drivers. Lexis then shares this data with other third parties including auto insurance companies, again without drivers' knowledge or consent, in violation of their privacy rights. This conduct has led to additional injury, including increased insurance premiums or denial of auto insurance coverage altogether, in cases where auto insurance companies interpret the Telematics Data to demonstrate dangerous driving behavior. OnStar markets itself as offering high-tech connectivity to provide "heightened" driving experience by offering Automatic Crash Response, Emergency Services, and Roadside Assistance whereby it utilizes wi-fi and location information to assist drivers in the event of an accident, among other services. For some GM vehicle purchasers, OnStar offers this service free of charge for a limited time, so they are not even aware of agreeing to the OnStar subscription. Even when drivers actively subscribe to OnStar, they are not aware that GM and OnStar secretly track and compile Telematics Data and then share it with or sell it to third parties, such as Lexis. Lexis then compiles this data and shares it with or sells it to auto insurance companies without drivers' knowledge or consent. Auto insurance companies may use this data to increase auto insurance premiums or to deny coverage altogether in some cases. GM and OnStar, however, failed to adequately disclose their accessing, recording, collecting, storing, disclosing, sharing, and/or selling of the drivers' Telematics Data. In fact, they deliberately concealed this information from Plaintiff and the Class Members, as well as the general public. It was not until the publication of the March 11, 2024 New York Times article "Automakers Are Sharing Consumers' Driving Behavior With Insurance Companies" that Plaintiff and Class Members were made aware of Defendants' accessing, recording, collecting, storing, disclosing, sharing, and/or selling of their Telematics Data. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered damages as a result of the sharing of their Telematics Data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Cadillac Escalade from Coon Rapids Chrysler Jeep Dodge RAM in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, which was manufactured and sold by GM and equipped with OnStar. GM is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company that owns and manufactures automobile brands including Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick, and sells automobiles throughout the United States, including in this district, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Catherine K. Smith, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com GENERAL MOTORS: Drews Sues Over Unlawful Selling of Data -------------------------------------------------------- Karen Drews and Melvin Drews, a married couple, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR LLC, LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-11194-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 3, 2024), is brought against Defendants on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated for damages and equitable relief, including restitution and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendants' unlawful selling and sharing of data. The number of Internet-enabled vehicles has grown logarithmically in recent decades, paving the way for auto manufacturers to collect tremendous amounts of data from their drivers. That data often includes drivers' vehicle locations, vehicle use, driving behavior, trip and performance data, as well as personal identifying information including names, addresses, email address, and phone numbers. GM, however, has not used that data for mere safety and quality monitoring. It has instead commoditized that data—including drivers' mileage, braking, acceleration and speed (the "Driver Data")—by selling it to data broker Defendants LexisNexis and Verisk. GM has sold the Driver Data to these third parties for profit without their drivers' consent or knowledge. After purchasing Driver Data from Defendant GM, Defendants LexisNexis and Verisk then re-commoditize that data by selling it to insurance companies, who then use that data to justify charging higher insurance rates or offer higher quotes. For Defendant GM's purchasers and lessees, it all begins with their vehicles' OnStar Smart Driver feature. Smart Driver is a free service offered by GM that is innocuously described as a service to improve driver behavior and safety, with drivers earning "badges" for developing driver patterns like braking slowly, limiting hard accelerations, and wearing seatbelts. Some drivers enroll in the Smart Driver feature at the dealership or afterwards, but are never informed during the enrollment process that their Driver Data will be shared with (and sold to) LexisNexis or Verisk, who will then sell it to insurance companies. Other drivers never enroll in the Smart Driver feature but later discover that their Driver Data was still collected by Defendant GM and sold, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Corvette from Mike Anderson Chevrolet in Merrillville, Indiana. General Motors Company is a Delaware corporation, which has its principal place of business in the State of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: 206/802-1272 Fax: 650/697-0577 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. James M. Davis, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com jdavis@bholaw.com GIVENCHY CORPORATION: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GIVENCHY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03145 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.givenchy.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. GIVENCHY CORPORATION was founded in 1977. The company's line of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and copyrights which they in turn license others to use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510 Hicksville, NY 11801 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 Facsimile: (929) 333-7774 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GOLDEN KEY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perazzoli Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO PERAZZOLI, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLDEN KEY TITLE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00746-WWB-EJK (M.D Fla., Apr. 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its customers' personally identifiable information (PII) from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. On Nov. 9, 2023, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Security Incident letter. Omitted from the Notice Letter were the dates of the Data Breach, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. The Defendant is "a full-service title and real estate settlement provider that operates in Florida."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Barsuli Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ LISA MARIE BARSULI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; DOUGLAS HIRSCH; TREVOR BEZDEK; and KARSTEN VOERMANN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03282 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx common stock between September 23, 2020, and November 8, 2022, inclusive, alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) while Kroger accounted for less than 5 percent of the pharmacies accepting GoodRx discounts, Kroger was responsible for nearly 25 percent of GoodRx's total prescription transactions revenue (the Company's primary revenue stream); and (2) Kroger could unilaterally cease accepting GoodRx discounts, cutting off some or all of GoodRx's revenues for purchases at Kroger's pharmacies; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The price of GoodRx common stock declined an additional $1.18 per share, or more than 22 percent, from a close of $5.24 per share on November 8, 2022, to close at $4.06 per share on November 9, 2022. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and other members of the class have suffered significant damages, says the suit. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC. operates a digital healthcare platform. The Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website to access quality healthcare at a reasonable price. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 Email: skaplan@ktmc.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on June 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GDRX) ("GoodRx" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired GoodRx common stock between September 23, 2020, and November 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Barsuli v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. Case 2:24-cv-03282- DDP-AJR was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx common stock during the Class Period may, no later than June 21, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class. If you suffered GoodRx losses, you may CLICK HERE or GO TO: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/goodrx-holdings-inc-1?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=gdrx&mktm=r You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. of Kessler Topaz by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT GoodRx operates a price comparison platform for prescription drugs which, in many cases, offers consumers access to lower prices (through discount codes and coupons) for their medications. GoodRx generates most of its revenue from contracts with pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") who agree to pay GoodRx a commission on prescription drug purchases made by consumers who use GoodRx's discount codes and coupons at participating pharmacies. GoodRx also generates a portion of its revenue from subscription plans like the "Kroger Rx Savings Club," which provides "access [to] lower prescription prices at" pharmacies operated by The Kroger Co. ("Kroger"). In connection with GoodRx's initial public offering on September 23, 2020, and throughout the remainder of the Class Period, Defendants continuously touted the Company's strong relationships with pharmacies as a significant element of its business plan. Among other things, GoodRx repeatedly highlighted the Kroger Rx Savings Club. Critically, however, Defendants never informed investors of the material risk that Kroger, which accounted for nearly 25% of GoodRx's prescription transactions revenue, could unilaterally refuse to accept GoodRx's discounts. On May 9, 2022, investors began to learn the truth about the risks of GoodRx's over-dependence on Kroger (including the risk that, notwithstanding the Kroger Rx Savings Club, Kroger could unilaterally refuse to accept GoodRx's discounts), when GoodRx revealed that, late in the first quarter of 2022, "a grocery chain had taken actions that impacted acceptance of discounts from most PBMs for a subset of drugs" and that this "impacted the acceptance of many PBM discounts for certain drugs at this grocer's stores." GoodRx further acknowledged that this disruption "could have an estimated revenue impact of roughly $30 million" in the second quarter of 2022 -- resulting in the Company announcing disappointing second quarter 2022 revenue guidance of only about $190 million. While Defendants refused to identify the grocer by name, analysts and media outlets quickly recognized that the unnamed grocery chain was Kroger. On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock plummeted $2.78 per share, or more than 25%, from a close of $10.75 per share on May 9, 2022, to close at $7.97 per share on May 10, 2022. On November 8, 2022, Defendants provided further information on the severity of the revenue impact from the Kroger disruption -- with the Company estimating that the "impact of the grocer issue on third quarter [prescription transactions revenue] was approximately $40 million" and that the Company expected "a combined $45 million to $50 million estimated impact to prescription transactions revenue" for the fourth quarter of 2022. Defendants further acknowledged that the Company was seeking to enter into contractual relationships with pharmacies to prevent similar disruptions from occurring in the future. On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock declined an additional $1.18 per share, or more than 22%, from a close of $5.24 per share on November 8, 2022, to close at $4.06 per share on November 9, 2022. WHAT CAN I DO? GoodRx investors may, no later than June 21, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages GoodRx investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Jonathan Naji, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone:(844) 887-9500 info@ktmc.com [GN] GRAND CENTRAL: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Central Optical 340 Madison Corp. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Grand Central Optical 340 Madison Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-03163-VEC (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grand Central Optical -- https://grandcentraloptical.com/ -- is a Family-Owned & operated Optical business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GRMC INC: Roane Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brandon Lee Roane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GRMC, INC., doing business as Garrett Regional Medical Center, Case No. 1:24-cv-00141 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11070-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold J. Abraham, Esq. CYBERLAW, LLC 220 N. Liberty Street Baltimore MD 21201 Phone: (443) 906-3495 Email: abraham@thecyberlawteam.com - and - Eric J. Menhart, Esq. LEXERO LAW 512 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (855) 453-9376 Fax: (855) 453-9376 Email: eric.menhart@lexero.com - and - Robert William Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 328-3100 Fax: (434) 328-3101 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com The Defendants are represented by: Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5403 Phone: 202.861.1530 Fax: 202.861.1530 Email: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com HALLS CHOPHOUSE: Bogacz Sues Over Failure of Paying Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Bogacz, Individually and On Behalf All Others Similarly Situated V. HALLS CHOPHOUSE GRILL, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02503-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure of paying proper wages. The Defendant violated the FLSA in the following ways: failed to provide statutory notice of taking a tip credit; requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated Servers to performing work that is not tip producing nor part of a tipped occupation for a substantial amount of time and only paying them $2.13 an hour; required Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers to share portions of their tips with managers and/or supervisors; and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers at the lawful time-and-a half/overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per work-week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Server at the 300 Nexton Square Or, Summerville, SC location from March of 2023 to August 2023. The Defendant is an upscale restaurant chain with locations in Charleston, SC; Nexton of Summerville, SC; Columbia, SC; Greenville, SC; and Nashville, TN.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. 4900 O' Hear Ave, Suite 100 & 200 North Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: (843) 588-5587 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reid Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Reid, Keith Chee, Willard Thomas, Michael Todd Debona, Brock Knowlton, Percy Sledge, Joseph Akers, Andrew Loudenbeck, Brook Booth, Steve Booth, Jesse Martinez, Camron Brown, Mark Meintel, Andrew Kezele, Celeste Evans, Scott Godley, Ronald Pixler, Dale Richardson, Sierra Sanchez, Marcel Tira, Talon Wilder, David Villines, Malachi Sanders, Gabe Maldonado, Richard Tuttle, Charlie Childress, James Moes, Mikel Roden, Todd Sorensen, Mark Mannino, Brian Kelly, James Long, Brian Andrew Mason, Michael Pentrack, Elvira Kolundzic, Keri Mason, Jonathan Little, Juan Carlos Fernandez, Ronald Geracci, Sierra Shepherd, Karina Burchard, David Saunders, Tracy Haines, Sebastian Netotea, Brandon Grant, Katie Meyer, Dwayne McDuffie, Tim Schow, Katherine Craven, Seth Hartman, Jane Doe, Kristin Ashford, Cody Reed, Stephanie Cumpton, Lawrence Geis, Tina Cundiff, Luke Boysen, Frank Smerekanich, Johnathan Veenstra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00836 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00305-RK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Honeywell International Inc. -- https://www.honeywell.com/us/en -- is a worldwide technology and manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com - and - Kathryn Comly Hopkinson, Esq. HOPKINSON LAW, LLC 1510 W Cleveland St Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (508) 274-9169 Fax: (813) 902-6040 - and - Jacob Matthew Norris, Esq. NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1033 Bullard Court, Suite 207 Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: (919) 981-4475 Fax: (919) 926-1676 Email: jmn@ncconsumerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Marie Estevez, Esq. Joseph D. Magrisso, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131-3075 Phone: (305) 415-3330 Fax: (877) 432-9652 Email: annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com joseph.magrisso@morganlewis.com - and - Daniel B. Boatright, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC-KCMO WALNUT 1201 Walnut, Ste. 1450 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 627-4401 Fax: (816) 817-7703 Email: dboatright@littler.com - and - Michael S. Burkhardt, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-5130 Email: michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com - and - Leah S. Freed, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2415 E Camelback Rd., Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 778-3700 Fax: (602) 778-3750 HSNI LLC: Lobello Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA LOBELLO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HSNi, LLC, a limited liability corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-00026-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for court-authorized notice of this lawsuit to all similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA Collective; (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice (Exhibits A-C) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of the Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former CSRs who worked for Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint up through and including judgment (the "FLSA Collective"). (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. Ms. Lobello, worked for Defendant as an hourly CSR remotely from her home in Smithville, Tennessee from September 2018 to June 2023, and was paid an hourly wage most recently at $16.00. The Defendant is a Florida-based media retailer, selling thousands of unique products, such as electronics, apparel, jewelry, and health and beauty products, through its website and shows, which are broadcast 24 hours a day via cable, satellite, and network television1 A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f8wn0S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com - and - Bradley W. Butcher, Esq. BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L. 6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2 Fort Myers, FL 33912 Telephone: (239) 322-1650 E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com HUMANA INC: Harrison Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Harrison, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00262-CHB (W.D. Ky., April 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is a for-profit American health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandr Sasha Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 202-3409 Fax: (888) 410-0415 Email: sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Suite 1500, #1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-7077 Fax: (888) 410-0415 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com I.D. JEWELRY INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.D. Jewelry, Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. I.D. Jewelry, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03100 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I.D. Jewelry, Inc. -- https://idjewelry.com/ -- are a top jewelry store in NYC's Diamond District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com INK 477: Anastasopoulos Sues Over Improperly Retained Tips ---------------------------------------------------------- Chrisovalantou Anastasopoulos, for herself and others similarly situated v. INK 477 LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-21586-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2024), is brought on behalf of similarly situated employees who were entitled to receive and who actually received tips while working for Defendant at its restaurant known as "Level 6" and is brought for the recovery of the tips/overtips that Defendant improperly retained/distributed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant charged and collected a mandatory service charge from its customers. The Defendant, like most service establishments' owners, allowed its customers to leave discretionary gratuities above the mandatory service charge. The Defendant's customers left gratuities (tips) intended to be paid to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked for it. The discretionary gratuities (tips) that Defendant's patrons left are referred to as "tips." The Defendant exercised complete control over the credit card tips that its patrons left for its tipped employees, accumulating them in a "tip pool" or another aggregate arrangement, and then Defendant either retained a portion of the tips collected (by failing to distribute all tips and overtips collected) and/or distributed a portion of the tips and overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors). The Defendant's unlawful pay practices deprived Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees of the tips and overtips they earned and should have received, which amount results in a significant sum when aggregated. The Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable attorney's fee for all services related to this matter, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a front-of-the-house tipped employee, particularly as a server, at Level 6. Ink 477 LLC operates a restaurant called Level 6.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Phone: 305.230.4884 Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Allman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Frederick L. Allman and Jorge A. Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing State of Colorado ex rel., Case No. 1:24-cv-00996 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11126-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. International Business Machines Corporation, nicknamed Big Blue -- http://www.ibm.com/-- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Armonk, New York and present in over 175 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Patrick Rosier, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH P.A. 2110 West Platt St. Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 340-9777 Fax: (813) 422-7783 Email: joe@thekrfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel H. Nesbitt, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1601 Wewatta St., Ste. 900 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-899-7300 Email: nathaniel.nesbitt@hoganlovells.com JUVIA'S PLACE: Eyeshadow Contains Unfit Additives, Suarez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nikelle Suarez, Leticia Nyberg, and Kerriann Salmon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Juvia's Place LLC, Case No. 2:24-at-00499 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 23, 2024) challenges the Defendant's deceptive marketing, advertising, and sale of certain Juvia's Place eyeshadow palettes containing synthetic color additives that are unsafe, unfit and unapproved for use around the eye. The Products challenged in this Complaint encompass the following eyeshadow palettes manufactured, labeled, distributed, and sold by Defendant: Culture, Culture 2, The Coffee Shop, Afrogalactic, Garden of Juvia, The Zulu, The Candy Shop, The Chocolates, The Berries, The Sweet Pinks, The Warrior 3, Olori 1, Olori 2, and Olori 3, The Bronzed and Bronzed Rustic, The Nubian and The Nubian 2, The Nubian Royal, The Wahala, The Wahala 2, The Magic Mini, Fula, Blushed Rose, Vanessa, The Masquerade Mini, The Festival, The Mauves, the Nudes palettes. Through its marketing materials and affirmative product descriptions, the Defendant has consistently portrayed the Products, and all their ingredients, as safe, suitable, and intended for use as eyeshadows, the Plaintiffs assert. Had consumers been aware that the Products contained color additives that are unsafe, unfit and unapproved for use in eyeshadows, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid substantially less for them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain and were therefore financially injured by the Defendant's conduct, the suit says. In Aug. 6, 2020, the Plaintiff Suarez purchased The Warrior 3 eyeshadow palette from the Ulta Beauty online webpage. In Nov. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff Suarez purchased The Nubian Royalty Gift Set (containing The Nubian Royal eyeshadow palette), The Berries eyeshadow palette, The Chocolates eyeshadow palette, The Mauves eyeshadow palette, The Sweet Pinks eyeshadow palette, and The Nudes eyeshadow palette, all from their respective Ulta Beauty online webpages. The Defendant sells Juvia's Place brand beauty products and cosmetics.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. Nicole Babaknia, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com nbabaknia@treehouselaw.com JUVIA'S PLACE: Suarez Files Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juvia's Place, LLC. The case is styled as Nikelle Suarez, Leticia Nyberg, Kerriann Salmon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Juvia's Place, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01179-CKD (E.D. Cal., April 23, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Juvia's Place, LLC -- https://www.juviasplace.com/ -- is the world's most highly-pigmented eyeshadow palettes, foundations, and lip products that show beautifully on the darkest to fairest skin tones..[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 751-5928 Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com KANSAS, MO: Court Extends Filing of Class Cert Reply to May 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberson, et al., v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358 (W.D. Mo., Filed May 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roseann A Ketchmark entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class: -- Reply suggestions due by: May 31, 2024 The suit alleges violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Kansas City Southern is the cross-border freight railroad at the heart of every transportation supply chain in the United States and Mexico.[CC] KARS4KIDS INC: Faces Dugger Suit Over Donation Scheme ----------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY DUGGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KARS4KIDS INC.; and OORAH INC., inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02419 (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2024) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code, and California Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a scheme to deceive unwitting donors to donate their vehicles to Kars4Kids for undisclosed and misrepresented purposes. Defendants publicly disseminated false and misleading advertisements soliciting vehicle donations to purportedly help local needy children, regardless of any racial, ethnic, or religious affiliation, inducing Plaintiff and Class members to donate their vehicles under false pretenses. Instead, Defendants used those donations to fund a separate entity, Oorah, and its promotion of orthodox ideology to Jewish families in New York and New Jersey. Defendants also used the vast majority of donation proceeds to fund their own significant expenses and investments. By failing to inform potential donors that their car donations would be used almost exclusively to: (i) fund Oorah and its orthodox "outreach" activities; (ii) benefit families of only one religion in one geographic area; and (ii) fund Kars4Kids' and Oorah's significant expenses and investments, Defendants' ads misled and deceived thousands of donors, who, like Plaintiff, would not have donated had they known the truth about Defendants' scheme, says the suit. KARS4KIDS INC. is a Jewish nonprofit car donation organization based in Lakewood, New Jersey in the United States. Kars4Kids is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that states that its mission is "to fund educational, developmental and recreational programs for low-income youth" through programs largely facilitated by its sister charity Oorah, which focuses on Jewish children and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Sarah R. Holloway, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com sholloway@kellergrover.com KLOVER HOLDINGS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Natalie Pierce, Michelle Ingrodi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLOVER HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. GD 24-003757 was removed from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00665 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Dispute. Klover Holdings Inc. -- https://www.joinklover.com/ -- offers an app for instant cash advances and financial tools, without fees or credit checks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Fax: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Colin J. Callahan, Esq. Marco S. Attisano, Esq. FLANNERY GEORGALIS 707 Grant Street, Suite 2750 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 339-1336 Email: ccallahan@flannerygeorgalis.com mattisano@flannerygeorgalis.com LA ESTRELLA TACOS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Estrella Tacos & Seafood Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paula Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. La Estrella Tacos & Seafood Inc., Juan Fonseca, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005110 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." La Estrella Tacos & Seafood Inc. -- https://laestrellatacos.com/ -- is a Mexican Restaurant.[BN] LENS.COM INC: Gonneville Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angela Gonneville, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 2484CV00531-BLS2 was removed from the Suffolk Superior Court l, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11110-PBS. The Plaintiff alleges that "Lens.com packs a junk fee into its transactions which it describes after the point of purchase as a 'processing fee.'" The Plaintiff alleges that she was personally harmed in August 2019, when she purchased three boxes contact lenses for a total price of $82.50. According to Plaintiff, she paid an undisclosed processing charge of $5.21. the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the putative class, brings claims against Lens.com for Breach of Contract (Count I), Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count II), and Unjust Enrichment (Count III).[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Theodore J. Folkman, Esq. RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP 53 State St. Boston, MS 02109 Phone: (617) 330-7135 Email: tfolkman@rubinrudman.com - and - Mark Bettilyon, Esq. Jed Hansen, Esq. THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP The Walker Center 175 S. Main Street, Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 566-6633 Email: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com LG ELECTRONICS: Court Closes Hernandez Case ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Hernandez et al., v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08813-SVW-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order closing Hernandez case and mooting Defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. LG manufactures and distributes consumer electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pvJqxS at no extra charge.[CC] LIGHTFOOT FISHING: Martinez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lightfoot Fishing & Rental Inc. and Charles L. Lightfoot, Case No. 7:24-cv-00109 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2024), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime pay that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants have a business plan that includes paying some non-exempt employees a salary plus a day rate for each day the employees work in the field, no matter how many hours per week the employees work. This plan also includes not paying the employees an overtime premium for those hours over 40 per workweek. Defendants' failure to pay the overtime premium required by law allows them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices. The Plaintiff is one of the workers hired by the Defendants as a salary and day-rate employee and not paid overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Lightfoot, Inc. as an oil field operator and fisherman from May of 2018 until October of 2023. Lightfoot is an owner and the control person of Lightfoot, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Phone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Meade Suit Over 33.2% Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD C. MEADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, ELLEN COOPER, DENNIS GLASS, and RANDAL FREITAG, Case No. 2:24-cv-01704 (E.D. Pa., Apr. 23, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln National securities between Nov. 4, 2020 and Nov. 2, 2022, inclusive, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Nov. 2, 2022, after the market closed, Lincoln National released its third quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a net loss of $2.6 billion for the quarter. This was compared to a net income of $318 million for the third quarter of 2021 the previous year. On this news, Lincoln's stock price fell $17.27, or 33.2%, to close at $34.83 per share on Nov. 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL business; (2) that the goodwill associated with the life insurance business was overstated; (3) that the Company's policy lapse assumptions were outdated; (4) that the Company's reserves were overstated; (5) that the Company's reported financial results and financial statements were misstated; and (6) 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 suit asserts. Plaintiff Meade purchased Lincoln National securities during the Class Period. Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, 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 rprongay@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com LOTTA DOUGH: Abboud Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lotta Dough, LLC. The case is styled as Monica Abboud, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. Lotta Dough, LLC d/b/a Hoboken Pie, Case No. 1:24-cv-00482 (W.D. Tex., May 3, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lotta Dough, LLC doing business as Hoboken Pie -- https://hobokenpie.com/ -- is a pizza restaurant offering high-quality, hand-tossed pies in the historic Red River Cultural District since 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ak@kazlg.com LOWE'S HOME: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bernice Carrillo, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC., a North Carolina Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-2346 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01215-DJC-AC. The Complaint asserts the following six causes of action for violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code: "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; "Failure to Provide Meal Periods"; "Failure to Provide Rest Periods"; "Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements"; "Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination"; and "Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ('UCL').[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. Francesca L. Hunter, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com fhunter@seyfarth.com MARVELOUS MARK: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN MEJIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. MARVELOUS MARK TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC and CE SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03011-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Mejia worked 6 days per week and shifts from 12-16 hours per day. He was paid just $11.00 per hour, by direct deposit. The Defendants failed to pay Mejia minimum wage. In addition, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week and ten hours per day, Mr. Mejia was not paid overtime or spread-of-hours. Furthermore, the Defendants committed statutory wage violations by failing to furnish Mejia with a wage notice upon his hire or accurate wage statements with each payment received, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff also brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint. Mr. Mejia was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from March 9, 2023 to July 18, 2023. Marvelous is a licensed trucking company running freight hauling business from Lucan, Ontario.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Salaman, Esq. AKIN & SALAMAN PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825-1400 E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com MASTERCORP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE; JOHN DOE #1; and JOHN DOE #2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MASTERCORP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00678 (E.D. Va., April 25, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a hotel cleaner. MASTERCORP, INC. provides cleaning and maintenance services. The Company offers departure cleaning, laundry management, assessment, traffic area carpet cleaning, inventory control, and maintenance reporting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. Nicolas Mendoza, Esq. Nicole Rubin, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com nmendoza@murphypllc.com nrubin@murphypllc.com - and - Rachel Geman, Esq. Wesley Dozier, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (250) 355-9500 Email: rgeman@lchb.com wdozier@lchb.com MDL 2992: Parties in Labor Class Suit Seek to Extend Case Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint motion to extend case schedule as follows: Event Current Proposed Date Date Motion for Class May 14, 2024 14 days after Defendant Certification files its Answer to all class allegations and its affirmative defenses Opp. to Motion for June 25, 2024 8 weeks after Motion for Class Certification Class Certification Reply ISO Motion for July 23, 2024 4 weeks after Opp. to Motion Class Certification for Class Certification Fact Discovery Aug. 13, 2024 3 weeks after Class Completed Certification Reply Expert Disclosures Sept. 17, 2024 5 weeks after Fact Discovery Completed Expert Discovery Nov. 12, 2024 4 weeks after Rebuttal Completed Expert Disclosures The parties further request that the Pretrial Motions Deadline and all subsequent deadlines be continued accordingly and be set upon issuance of the Court's order on the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PKzuh5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Danitz, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq. COTCHETTPITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com akirtley@cpmlegal.com - and - Michael Rubin, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: mrubin@altber.com cchan@altber.com The Defendant is represented by: James W. Mcgarry, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 Facsimile: (617) 523-1231 E-mail: JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com - and - Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq. Matthew L. Riffee, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 Facsimile: (202) 346-4444 E-mail: SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing of Class Cert Bid 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] MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blumrath Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LEANN BLUMRATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-03097 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Blumrath was employed by the Defendant as a call center representative. Middletown Medical, P.C. provides health care services. The Company offers cancer care, digestive diseases, heart and vascular, imaging and radiology, surgery, nursing, orthopedics, rehabilitation and physical therapy, transplant, and women's health services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Sirotkin, Esq. MORELLI LAW FIRM, PLLC 777 Third Avenue, 31 st Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 751-9800 Facsimile: (212) 751-0046 Email: dsirotkin@morellilaw.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com MIKEL H. WILLIAMS: Assad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, et al. The case is styled as George P. Assad, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, KIRKLAND H. DONALD, TINA W. JONAS, WILLIAM J. MADIA, DANIEL B. PONEMAN, BRADLEY J. SAWATZKE, NEIL S. SUBIN, W. THOMAS JAGODINSKI, TETSUO IGUCHI, CENTRUS ENERGY CORP., and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2024-0426-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., April 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Mikel H. Williams has been a member of the Board since 2013 and its Chairman since 2014.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 364-3601 - and - Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward Timlin, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Phone: (212) 231-1500 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RMLAW, P.C. 1055 Westlake Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 MITEK SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ Mitek Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that on September 13, 2023, plaintiffs in the putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. On September 14, 2023, the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, ending the litigation. On December 16, 2021, the company was sued in a putative class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that the Company had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) with respect to identity verification services that the company provided to its customer HyreCar, Inc. for its customers in Illinois. Plaintiff claimed that the company had not obtained the required consent to collect and use his biometric information, and that he and a class of similarly situated individuals therefore are entitled to statutory damages under BIPA. The company removed this suit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on March 4, 2022 the company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on HyreCar's terms and conditions requiring its customers to arbitrate on an individual (non-class) basis. On May 4, 2022 the trial court denied the Arbitration Motion. On December 21, 2022, the trial court's ruling was upheld on appeal, and the case subsequently was remanded back to the trial court. On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding a second named plaintiff, who is also a HyreCar end-user, but otherwise not materially changing the allegations. On March 27, 2023, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations. On May 11, 2023, and after the company's motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike class allegations had been fully briefed, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint seeking to add two new named plaintiffs, who are end-users of the company's customers Instacart and Roadie, and to remove one named plaintiff. The Company opposed the Motion for Leave. Mitek Systems, Inc. is a software development company that provides mobile image capture and digital identity verification solutions. Mitek markets and sells its products and services worldwide through internal, direct sales teams located in the U.S., Europe, and Latin America as well as through channel partners. MOELIS & CO: Final Order on Stockholder Suit Still Not Issued ------------------------------------------------------------- Moelis & 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 Delaware Court of Chancery has not yet issued final order for the stockholders class suit. During 2023, West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund, a putative Class A stockholder of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of itself and other similarly-situated Class A stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company seeking declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Stockholders Agreement between the Company and Partner Holdings are invalid and unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law. On March 4, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued an interlocutory order, presently in effect, that certain provisions of the Stockholders Agreement, including the provisions relating to approval rights and director vacancies, are facially invalid, void, and unenforceable under Delaware law. A final order has not yet been entered in the lawsuit and the time for taking an appeal has not yet run. Moelis is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City and describes itself as a leading global independent investment bank that offers comprehensive, globally integrated financial advisory services across all major industry sectors.[BN] MORGANTOWN, WV: Rowand Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Morgantown, West Virginia. The case is styled as Anthony Rowand, personally, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Morgantown, West Virginia, Case No. 1:24-cv-00041-TSK (N.D.W. Va., April 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Morgantown -- https://www.morgantownwv.gov/ -- is a city in West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Smith, Esq. Laura Christine Davidson, Esq. Lesley Marie Nash, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. 1029 University Ave., Ste. 101 Morgantown, WV 26505 Phone: (304) 326-0188 Fax: (304) 344-3145 Email: gary@msjlaw.org laura@msjlaw.org lesley@msjlaw.org MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Cabezas Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Cooper Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal 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 consolidated Cabezas class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On November 3, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, captioned Cabezas v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc., No. 23-cv-02453 ("Cabezas"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, by plaintiff Jennifer Cabezas purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those persons impacted by the cybersecurity incident that occurred on October 31, 2023. The class action complaint alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty based upon allegations that the Company did not employ reasonable and adequate security measures to protect customer personal information accessed in the cybersecurity incident. The Cabezas complaint seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of costs, attorney fees and expenses, among other relief. Between November 2023 and January 31, 2024, 25 additional putative class actions were filed against the Company asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as those asserted in the Cabezas action. The Cabezas court consolidated all 25 cases with the Cabezas action, and administratively closed the 25 separate matters. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. provides servicing, origination and transaction-based services related to single family residences throughout the United States.[BN] MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Randles Class Suit in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Cooper Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the Company continues to defend itself from Randles class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On February 7, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, captioned Randles v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. ("Randles"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, purportedly on behalf of persons residing in California who were impacted by the cybersecurity incident. The Randles complaint alleges one claim under the California Consumer Privacy Act, and seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of litigation expenses and attorneys' fees. The Company has moved to transfer venue of the Randles action to the same court where the Cabezas action is pending, so the cases can be consolidated. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. provides servicing, origination and transaction-based services related to single family residences throughout the United States.[BN] NATIONAL LIABILITY: Neal Files Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Liability & Fire Insurance Company. The case is styled as Harvey Neal, individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00280-JRG (E.D. Tex., April 25, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. National Liability and Fire Insurance Company -- https://www.nationalliabilityfire.com/ -- is a national Property and Casualty insurer specializing in Workers Compensation coverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Andrew Holmes, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES HOLMES, PC 212 South Marshall Henderson, TX 75654 Phone: (903) 657-2800 Fax: (903) 657-2855 Email: jh@jamesholmeslaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cassese Sues Over Injuries Caused to Borrowers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Cassese, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER, Case No. 2:24-cv-03305 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024), is brought arises out of injuries caused to borrowers who payoff their mortgage or home equity loans serviced by the Defendant. The Defendant demands borrowers pay "daily interest" through the date of payoff but often collects and fails to refund daily interest demanded and collected for days after the date of payoff. The Defendant's retention of daily interest after loan payoff is a breach of the borrowers' loan agreements, conversion of borrowers' monies and unjustly enriches the Defendant at borrowers' expense. In addition, the Defendant's promise in its payoff letters to refund any overpayment of daily interest is false and deceptive. The Plaintiff was the borrower on a mortgage loan serviced by the Defendant. When she sought to repay that mortgage in 2021, the Defendant provided her with a payoff letter listing the amount necessary to payoff her loan. That payoff amount included "daily interest" of $18.61 calculated through April 1, 2021. That same payoff letter promised that any "overpayment" will be refunded to the borrower within 20 days. the Plaintiff fully repaid her loan on or before March 29, 2021, which has been acknowledged in correspondence by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. the Defendant has never refunded the daily interest overpaid by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and other Class members are injured as a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful acts of the Defendant in demanding, collecting and failing to refund the overpayment of daily interest on repaid mortgage and home equity loans, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was the owner of a home located at 627 Brooklyn Avenue in Baldwin, New York that was secured by mortgage loan serviced by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper is authorized to do business by the New York Secretary of State and is a mortgage loan servicer registered with the New York Department of Financial Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 407-5100 Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. Scott V. Papp, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway, Ste. 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Email: pstphillip@lowey.com spapp@lowey.com NEW YORK, NY: Elie Sues Over Due Process Rights Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseph R. Elie, Jr., 714 Lex Acquisition LLC CCSM LLC, 301-305 West 125 LLC, Flatbrush Delaware Holding LLC, 3684 Nostrand Ave. Associates LLC, 837 Utica Avenue LLC, and 600 Broadway Partners LLC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS and JAMES S. ODDO, in his official capacity as commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, Case No. 1:24-cv-03319 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for violations of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, stemming from the New York City Department of Buildings' ("DOB") unconstitutional building and construction code enforcement process and ensuing continued noncompliance civil penalties. New York City (the "City") enforces its building and construction laws through the DOB codes and regulations, whereby it reviews and issues permits and licenses, inspects buildings, and enforces compliance with the City's construction code. As part of its Building Code enforcement policy and process, Defendants issue two types of fines (referred to by DOB and herein as "civil penalties") for code violations. One set of civil penalties can be challenged through the City's Environmental Control Board/Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (ECB/OATH). These civil penalties are referred to as "reviewable civil penalties." The other set of civil penalties bypass the judicial system and are imposed directly by Defendants. They can never be challenged or appealed. For these fines, the cited party has one sole option: full payment without due process. These "unreviewable civil penalties" are the core of this Complaint. Pursuant to its policy and practice, Defendants issue unreviewable civil penalties for many different infractions. The Defendants issue unreviewable civil penalties for no less than 14 different infractions. Some of the unreviewable civil penalties are issued in conjunction with and in addition to reviewable civil penalties. Other unreviewable civil penalties are issued independently of any reviewable civil penalties. The common thread of all unreviewable civil penalties is the penalty is imposed without affording the cited party a fair hearing or meaningful, impartial review. Instead, Defendants simply ignore their basic due process obligations. These unreviewable civil penalties may not be challenged or appealed, and as such violate the cited party's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs file the present action for the deprivation of said rights. While the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that construction sites and buildings are safe, this interest may only be achieved in a manner consistent with constitutional mandates of due process. Defendants' procedures and practices for prosecuting violations of its building and construction laws do not come close to meeting these standards, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Elie owns a residential building. The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis Munoz, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (917) 319-9758 Facsimile: (516) 506-7695 Email: LMunoz@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Steven M. Fink, Esq. THE FINK LAW FIRM, P.C. 488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 280-6600 Facsimile: (516) 506-7695 Email: SFink@thefinklawfirmpc.com NOBLE ENERGY INC: Boulter Files Suit in D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noble Energy Inc. The case is styled as Mike Boulter, Boulter LLC, Barclay Farms, LLC, on behalf of themselves and classes of similarly situated persons v. Noble Energy Inc., Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, Case No. 1:24-cv-00710-SKC-KAS (D. Colo., March 14, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Noble Energy, Inc. -- https://nobelenergy.com/ -- was a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. BARTON & BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Phone: (913) 563-6250 Email: george@bartonburrows.com The Defendants are represented by: James Robert Henderson, Esq. Jonathan William Rauchway, Esq. Molly Jane Kokesh, Esq. Theresa Wardon Benz, Esq. DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP 1550 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 892-9400 Fax: (303) 893-1379 Email: jim.henderson@dgslaw.com jonathan.rauchway@dgslaw.com molly.kokesh@dgslaw.com theresa.benz@dgslaw.com - and - Anthony N. Kaim, Esq. Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq. Shannon Nicole Smith, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS LLP 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 751-5249 Fax: (713) 750-0903 Email: akaim@gibbsbruns.com breasoner@gibbsbruns.com snsmith@gibbsbruns.com - and - Carlos R. Romo, Esq. Ezekiel J. Williams, Esq. Jacqueline F. Hyatt, Esq. Mairead K. Dolan, Esq. WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC 1801 California Street, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 228-2531 Fax: (303) 861-4017 Email: cromo@williamsweese.com zwilliams@williamsweese.com jhyatt@williamsweese.com mdolan@williamsweese.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Plaintiffs Ask Court's Prelim OK of $600M Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Elverd of Morning Journal reports that attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against Norfolk Southern filed a motion, asking the Ohio District Northern District Court to grant preliminary approval of the $600 million principal settlement that was announced earlier this month. Despite what the motion called a belief that "the claims asserted against Norfolk Southern in this case have merit" and that plaintiffs would "ultimately be successful in prevailing on the merits at trial," the length of time it would take for the case to play out in court, coupled with the expense of that litigation and the uncertainty of how it would end led the plaintiffs to seek a settlement. "The settlement agreement between Norfolk Southern and Plaintiffs will provide relief now, as opposed to years, or even decades, down the road," the motion read. "Recognizing that further litigation would be risky, burdensome, and expensive, plaintiffs and Norfolk Southern agree that it is desirable and beneficial that the case is settled." The motion said the agreement "provides substantial recovery" for the East Palestine community and surrounding area, and "will provide households, families, and local businesses much-needed, immediate relief for the losses, suffering, and inconvenience they have endured since February 3, 2023." The motion and exhibits filed along with it revealed the proposed timeline of the approval process, setting the final approval hearing as Sept. 25. The documents also revealed how much the plaintiffs' lawyers could receive from brokering the deal. Under the agreement, class counsel agrees to "seek no more than 27% of the total monetary recovery" and "costs and expenses up to 3% of the fund." That means the attorneys stand to pocket $180 million -- $162 million in legal fees and $18 million in other expenses. The filing also requested that Kroll Settlement Administration LLC be appointed as the settlement administrator who "will determine the allocation formula and fixed amounts" based on scored criteria including geographic proximity, household size, number of children in the household, relocation mandates, and length of displacement with payments will be distributed based on the allocated points. The motion clarified that only claims within the first 10 miles will be scored. For plaintiffs 10 to 20 miles, only actual displacement and extraordinary injuries will be considered. Businesses are entitled to losses that can be proven through tax returns or other documents. [GN] NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Powell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeastern University, et al. The case is styled as Armani Powell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northeastern University, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC24614228 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Northeastern University (NU or NEU) -- https://www.northeastern.edu/ -- is a private research university with its main campus in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com NORTHGATE GONZALEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arellano Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA ARELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10515 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 26, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Arellano was employed by the Defendants as a cake decorator. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC. operates a chain of supermarkets. The Company provides foods, drink, recipes, wines, flowers, online shopping, delivery services, and household goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com christina@hbklawyers.com NUOVO ARTISTIC: Dulei Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------- KIRUNIS DULEI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUOVO ARTISTIC STUDIOS MIAMI LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-005655 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 23, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. NUOVO ARTISTIC STUDIOS MIAMI LLC is a photography studio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com NUVISION AUTO GLASS: Therrien Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NuVision Auto Glass LLC. The case is styled as Justin Therrien, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NuVision Auto Glass LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00934-SPL (D. Ariz., April 24, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NuVision Auto Glass -- https://www.nuvisionautoglass.com/ -- is one of the fastest growing auto glass companies in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NV5 INC: Pascual Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NV5, INC., et al. The case is styled as Lester Pascual, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. NV5, INC., NVS GLOBAL, INC., Defendant/Respondent, Case No. C24-01131 (Cal. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., April 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment-eFile." NV5 -- https://www.nv5.com/ -- is a leading provider of professional and technical engineering and consulting solutions with strong management team with 200 years of combined industry experience.[BN] The Plaintiff/Petitioner is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com NVIDIA CORP: Court OK's Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits in Tobias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE 401(K) BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 4:20-cv-06081-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting the Defendants' motion in its entirety and sealing the following documents from the public record: Item Description Attached To No. 1 Plaintiff Tobias's Plan Exhibit 15 to the Declaration account statements for the of Clarissa Kang in Support period Jan. 1, 2014 through of Defendants' Opposition to June 30, 2022 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Designating Party: Defendants and Plaintiffs. 2 Plaintiff Briggs's Plan Exhibit 16 to the Kang account statements for the Declaration. period Jan. 1, 2014 through Designating Party: Defendants June 30, 2020 and Plaintiffs. 3 Plaintiff MacDonald's Plan Exhibit 17 to the Kang account statements for the Declaration. period Jan. 1, 2014 through Designating Party: Defendants March 31, 2017 and Plaintiffs. 4 Plaintiff Calders's Plan Exhibit 18 to the Kang account statements for the Declaration. period Jan. 1, 2014 through Designating Party: Defendants Dec. 31, Declaration. and Plaintiffs. NVIDIA is an American semiconductor company and a global manufacturer of high-end graphics processing units (GPUs). A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsJrI6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Clarissa A. Kang, Esq. Dylan D. Rudolph, Esq. Catherine L. Reagan, Esq. TRUCKER HUSS 135 Main Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 788-3111 Facsimile: (415) 421-2017 E-mail: ckang@truckerhuss.com drudolph@truckerhuss.com creagan@truckerhuss.com NVIDIA CORP: Dubus Sues Over Unlawful Copying of Copyrighted Works ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andre Dubus, III, Susan Orlean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; Case No. 4:24-cv-02655 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is brought arising under the Copyright Act as a result of the Defendants unlawful copying of copyrighted works into AI software program multiple times. A large language model is an AI software program designed to emit convincingly naturalistic text outputs in response to user prompts. NeMo Megatron–GPT ("NeMo Megatron") is a series of large language models created by NVIDIA and released in September 2022. Rather than being programmed in the traditional way—that is, by human programmers writing code--a large language model is trained by copying an enormous quantity of textual works, extracting protected expression from these works, and transforming that protected expression into a large set of numbers called weights that are stored within the model. These weights are entirely and uniquely derived from the protected expression in the training dataset. Whenever a large language model generates text output in response to a user prompt, it is performing a computation that relies on these stored weights, with the goal of imitating the protected expression ingested from the training dataset. The Plaintiffs and Class members are authors. They own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the training dataset that NVIDIA has admitted copying to train its NeMo Megatron models. Plaintiffs and Class members never authorized NVIDIA to use their copyrighted works as training material. NVIDIA copied Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted works multiple times to train its NeMo Megatron language models, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs own registered copyrights in multiple books. NVIDIA is a diversified technology company founded in 1993 that originally focused on computer-graphics hardware and has since expanded to other computationally intensive fields, including software and hardware for training and operating AI software programs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 N. Monroe Street, Media, PA 19063 Phone: 215-864-2800 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Amy E. Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. James A. Ulwick, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com julwick@dicellolevitt.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Email: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com - and - Brian O'Mara, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 4747 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 923-3939 Facsimile: (619) 923-4233 Email: briano@dicellolevitt.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: Proposes to Settle Weiner Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit called Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., Case No. Case No. 14-cv-02597, (E.D. Cal.) (the "Settlement"). This Notice summarizes Class Members' rights and options. More details are available at www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com. A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. What is this about? Plaintiff alleges that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and its parent company Ocwen Financial Corporation (together, "Defendants" or "Ocwen") over-charged borrowers for certain property valuation expenses, including Broker Price Opinions ("BPOs") or Hybrid Valuations ("Hybrids"), which Plaintiff alleges contained undisclosed "mark-ups." Ocwen denies Plaintiff's claims, and all alleged wrongdoing associated with Plaintiff's claims. The Court has not decided who is right or wrong. Instead, the Parties have agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs, risk, and delays associated with continuing this complex and time-consuming litigation. Who is affected? The Court certified a Nationwide Settlement Class that includes all residents of the United States of America who have or had a loan serviced by Ocwen and who paid for one or more BPOs or Hybrids charged by Ocwen through Altisource, from November 5, 2010 through September 29, 2017, the date of the class certification order in this action. The Court also certified a California Settlement Sub-Class that includes all residents of the State of California who have or had a loan serviced by Ocwen and to whom charges for one or more BPOs or Hybrids were assessed to their mortgage account by Ocwen through Altisource, from November 5, 2010 through September 29, 2017 (the "class period"). The Nationwide Settlement Class and California Settlement Sub-Cass are collectively the Settlement Class. What does the Settlement provide? If approved, the Settlement will provide: a. A $60 reimbursement for each BPO fee that Settlement Class Members paid during the class period; b. A $70 reimbursement for each Hybrid fee that Settlement Class Members paid during the class period; c. Reversals and/or credits for any California Sub-Class Members who continue to have loans serviced by Ocwen, in the amount of $60 for each BPO and $70 for each Hybrid fee that was assessed to the Class Member during the class period but for which the Class Member has not paid; and d. Defendants' modification of disclosures to borrowers in valuation-related correspondence and reports, and in any applicable fee schedules, to identify, as applicable, the "reconciliation" service added by vendors to BPO and Hybrid products. What are my options? Class Members can file a claim, request exclusion, object, or do nothing. File a Claim. To receive a payment from the Settlement, submit a valid claim electronically at www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com or postmarked by September 29, 2025. By submitting a claim, you give up your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants for the claims in this case. Request Exclusion. To remove yourself from the Settlement ("opt out"), submit an exclusion request by July 12, 2024. If you exclude yourself, you will receive no payment from the Settlement, but this is the only option that will allow you to keep your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants for the claims in this case. Object. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may object or tell the Court what you do not like about the Settlement. If you object, you must still submit a claim to receive a payment. Objections must be submitted by July 12, 2024. Do Nothing. If you do nothing, you will receive no payment from the Settlement and you will give up your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants for the claims in this case. For more details about your rights and options and how to file a claim, exclude yourself, or object, go to www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com. What happens next? The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on September 5, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. PT, to consider whether to give final approval to the Settlement and grant Settlement Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs, as well as reimbursement for Settlement Administration Costs. The Court appointed the law firm of Baron & Budd P.C., to represent Settlement Class Members as Settlement Class Counsel. Settlement Class Counsel will request attorneys' fees, estimated to be $8,000,000, plus reimbursable litigation costs, estimated to be $950,000. If approved by the Court, the attorneys' fees and costs will be paid by the Defendants. You do not need to attend the Final Approval Hearing. Settlement Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. You or your attorney may ask to speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have to. To do so, you must file with the Court, by on or before July 12, 2024, a notice of intent to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. How can I get more information? Go to www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com, email info@OcwenFeeSettlement.com, call toll-free 1-888-995-0316, or write to Ocwen Fee Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91338, Seattle, WA 98111. [GN] OHANA MILITARY: Powell Suit Removed to D. Hawaii ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Cleophas C. Powell, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, Hunt MH Property Management, LLC, Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 1CCV-23-0001504 was removed from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on April 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00184-LEK-KJM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Ohana Military Communities, LLC -- https://www.ohananavycommunities.com/ -- provides real estate services. The Company focuses on military housing, community development, real asset investment management, and multifamily housing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos D. Perez-Mesa, Jr., Esq. CLAY IWAMURA PULICE & NERVELL 700 Bishop St Ste 2100 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 535-8441 Fax: (808) 535-8446 Email: cperez-mesa@paclawteam.com - and - Jason Shawn Kasamoto, Esq. STATE OF HAWAII 415 S. Beretania Street #415 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 384-5911 Email: jkasamoto@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Joachim P. Cox, Esq. Kamala S. Haake, Esq. Randall C. Whattoff, Esq. COX FRICKE A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 585-9440 Email: jcox@cfhawaii.com khaake@cfhawaii.com rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com OIL BAR LLC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Oil Bar, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Oil Bar, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03156 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Oil Bar, LLC -- https://www.theoilbar.com/ -- offers a selection of over 400 Fragrance Oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ON Q FINANCIAL: Connelly Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ----------------------------------------------------------- Ryant Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01006-SPL (D. Ariz., May 2, 2024), is brought seeking to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and tens of thousands of similarly situated persons ("Class Members") due to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach") on or about February 20, 2024. The Data Breach affected 211,650 individuals. The data which the Defendant collected from the Plaintiff and Class Members, and which was exfiltrated by cybercriminals from the Defendant, were highly sensitive. The exfiltrated data included personal identifying information ("PII") such as: first and last names, postal addresses, full Social Security Numbers, and loan numbers. Prior to and through the date of the Data Breach, the Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, the Defendant inadequately maintained its network, platform, software rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals. The risk of the Data Breach was known to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant was on notice that its inadequate data security created a heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and theft. Then, after the Data Breach, Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members—thereby exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm. Simply put, Defendant impermissibly left Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark—thereby causing their injuries to fester and the damage to spread. Even when Defendant finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII's exfiltration, Defendant failed to adequately describe the Data Breach and its effects. The Plaintiff and Class Members will likely suffer additional financial costs for purchasing necessary credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered—and will continue to suffer--from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII were exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a client of On Q Financial between mid-2022 and early 2024. On Q Financial operates a mortgage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Colleen M. Auer, Esq. AUER RYAN, P.C. 20987 N. John Wayne Parkway, #B104-374 Maricopa, AZ 85139 Phone: 520-705-7332 Email: eryan@auer-ryan.com cauer@auer-ryan.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ON THE GO LAUNDRY: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against On The Go Laundry NYC Corp. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. On The Go Laundry NYC Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-03159 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On the Go Cleaners -- https://www.onthegocleaners.com/ -- is Manhattan's most reliable laundry and dry cleaning delivery service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PARFIT LLC: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parfit LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Berman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Parfit LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60685-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Parfit LLC is in the athletica health and fitness industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Greenfield Mandler, Esq. STOK FOLK + KON 18851 NE 29th Avenue Ste 1005 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 935-4440 - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com PASSAGE HEALTH: Perman Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Passage Health International, LLC. The case is styled as Karl Perman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Passage Health International, LLC doing business as: International Billing Office, Case No. 2:24-cv-02115-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Passage Health International, L.L.C. -- https://passagehi.com/ -- is a medical billing partner for clinics and hospitals that routinely treat international patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq. ZERMAY LAW APC 3000 Coral Way Suite 1115 Coral Gables, FL 33145 Phone: (305) 767-3529 Fax: (844) 894-6204 Email: Zach@ZermayLaw.com - and - Jonathan Gil, Esq. Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: jonathan@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com PAUL NAKASONE: Murbach Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE MURBACH, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. PAUL NAKASONE, GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01308-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leaves to file for class certification within three weeks after the close of discovery. On June 14, 2023, this Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment and motion to Strike Class Allegations. The parties are in the midst of discovery, despite a general discovery deadline of June 24, 2024, with the exception of requests for admissions, which have a deadline of July 2, 2024. The parties are still conferring on some outstanding discovery issues. The Defendant seeks to narrow the scope of Plaintiff's interrogatories and request for documents and Plaintiff is providing an amended set of requests for admissions. Dispositive pretrial motions are due three weeks after on July 23, 2024. Due to delays in discovery, the Plaintiff anticipates that the parties will seek a new scheduling order. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GHzQap at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Mainen, Esq. 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 820 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 785-2805 Facsimile: (202) 785-0289 E-mail: matthewmainen@dbranchlaw.com PG&E CORP: Shareholders' Bid to Intervene in Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal quarterly ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the motion of shareholders group to intervene in the consolidated securities class suit pending. A group of shareholders who also filed proofs of claim in the Chapter 11 Cases filed a motion to intervene in the District Court action to, among other things, oppose the lifting of the stay sought by PERA. That motion remains pending. In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in the District Court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively. The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court also appointed PERA as lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. On December 14, 2018, PERA filed a second amended consolidated complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, including allegations regarding transmission line safety and the PSPS program. Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility. On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was filed in the District Court, entitled York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County Action"). The complaint named as defendants certain then-current and former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant. The complaint asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain current and former officers and former directors, and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are under submission with the District Court. On September 30, 2022, the District Court issued an order staying the action pending resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, the District Court administratively closed the case, subject to a motion by the parties thereto to reopen the case. On October 31, 2022, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order staying the action. PERA filed its opening brief on March 6, 2023, the answering brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed its reply on May 30, 2023. Oral argument was held on September 13, 2023. A group of shareholders who also filed proofs of claim in the Chapter 11 Cases filed a motion to intervene in the District Court action to, among other things, oppose the lifting of the stay sought by PERA. That motion remains pending. PG&E Corporation is an energy and gas company based in California. PHARMAVITE LLC: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMAVITE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-005654 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made telephonic sales calls by text message to promote its Nature Made products. Pharmavite, LLC is an American vitamin and supplement company based in West Hills, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. A. Heller, Esq. Social Justice Law Collective, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202)709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: GMP Revives Respiratory Machine Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers Weekly reports that the class action against Philips Electronics for its CPAP and BiPAP devices, designed to assist those with sleep apnoea, was temporarily stalled when the law firm that initiated the proceedings abandoned it. Gerard Malouf & Partners (GMP) has now taken over the proceedings with lead plaintiff Luciano Tomai, who has alleged it took the company 12 months to replace the recalled machine. "Almost three years after the recall, and due to a lack of progress in legal proceedings, sufferers affected by these faulty machines are still without justice or compensation," Gerard Malouf said. "This machine was designed to alleviate health issues, but has in some cases resulted in users requiring surgery trying to manage the side effects. Philips must be held accountable." Research discovered foam designed to reduce the noise degraded over time, so users were allegedly breathing in potentially harmful levels of particles and gas, including formaldehyde. The potentially fatal chemicals have been linked to respiratory issues and cancers. GMP's class action alleges that not only had Philips failed to adequately test and evaluate the machines, but the company then failed to warn consumers about the dangerous chemicals. Tomai said he used the machine for eleven years and had been forced to use it for another year once he learnt of the recall. He alleges his health issues, including surgeries to remove a kidney and a piece of his liver, were a result of the machine. "My health has gone downhill quite rapidly since I started using the machine," Tomai said. "To know that they were aware of these issues for years and did nothing about it is disgraceful. Their recklessness has had a life-changing effect on people. "I want to see them held responsible." [GN] PLEX INC: Disclose Personal Info to Third Parties, Lee Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLEX, INC.; and PLEX GMBH, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-02386 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) alleges that the Defendants have installed "tracking pixels" on its website, watch.plex.tv., and secretly and surreptitiously sends consumers' viewing activities to third-party providers like Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta" or "Facebook") without consent, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants violated the VPPA by knowingly disclosing personal information and personally identifiable information, including the names of specific videos and video services Plaintiff and Class Members requested and obtained, to Meta without their consent. Specifically, Plex installed computer code on its website called the "Meta Tracking Pixel," which tracks and records Plaintiff and Class Members' private video consumption, says the Plaintiff. PLEX, INC. operates as an entertainment company. The Company provides a streaming media platform where users can enjoy free movies and TV shows. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com PRIMACY CAREERS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primacy Careers, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cirilo Lopez, Maria Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Primacy Careers, LLC, Golden Hill Staffing, Inc., Simwon America Corp., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005010 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Primacy Careers, LLC -- https://www.primacycareers.com/ -- is a staffing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake R. Jones, Esq. 4348 Valle Vis San Diego, CA 92103-1255 Phone: 619-249-2197 PRIME NOW: Quintero Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bridget Sibyl Quintero, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIME NOW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHRISTOPHER ESPINOZA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV07023 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 24, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03382-MWF-RAO. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Defendants: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Nasim A. Khansari, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com nkhansari@gibsondunn.com - and - Megan Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com PRISCILLA A. MADRID: Suit Filed in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priscilla A. Madrid, et al. The case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Priscilla A. Madrid, Thomas Vasquez, William Earl Baker, Jr., Paige Merrill Baker, Kiry K. Gray, James Schaedler, John Gustafson, Jacqueline M. Morris, Sandra Andersen, Jennifer Campion, Donald Selby, Jr., Terrie Guertin, Manriguz, George Manriquez, are all Family Members of Bertha Torres, Case No. 8:24-cv-00909-UA (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.[BN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mirshokri Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shannon Mirshokri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, California Physicians Service doing business as: Blue Shield of California, Eyemed Vision Care, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00387 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11068-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an American public company that produces software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com RANGE CREDIT BUREAU: Holden Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Range Credit Bureau Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua Holden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Range Credit Bureau Inc., Yeller Towing & Wrecking, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-01480-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., April 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Range Credit Bureau -- https://rcbcollections.com/ -- is a debt recovery and collection company that also checks recovery and credit card processing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl E. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC 305 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 375 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 473-1200 Fax: (612) 823-4777 Email: carl@christensensampsel.com - and - Carter B. Lyons, Esq. Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: (612) 770-4221 Fax: (651) 704-0907 Email: carter@consumerjusticecenter.com tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com - and - Christopher Wilcox, Esq. CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE 305 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 375 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 823-3831 Email: chris@clawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Cameron A. Lallier, Esq. Charles Robert Shafer, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE PA 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254 Phone: (612) 333-3000 Fax: (612) 746-1252 Email: clallier@bassford.com cshafer@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY: Neubauer Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cassandra Neubauer, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated current citizens of Illinois and the United States v. RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY LLC AND CONTINENTAL MILLS, INC., Case No. 24-L-0361 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on April 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01160-RJD. The Complaint alleges five causes of action against Defendants: violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), (Deceptive Practices), violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), (Unfair Practices), Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty and unjust enrichment. These claims arise out of Defendants' allegedly false and deceptive marketing and sale of the Red Lobster Cheddar Bay Biscuit Mix (the "Product").[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 REGENT HOLDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Demaio Claims --------------------------------------------------------- DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-005739 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 25, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. REGENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC is a designer, marketer and supplier of home decor and accent products that are sold throughout North America, Europe and Asia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com RISAS DENTAL: Beltran Files Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Risas Dental Management LLC. The case is styled as Raul Beltran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Risas Dental Management LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00912-JJT (D. Ariz., April 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Risas Dental Management LLC -- https://risasdental.com/ -- offers home of affordable dental and braces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELWITZ OSTROW PA 1 W Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 - and - Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com RV SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JUAN JOSE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RV SOLUTION, LLC; ALEJANDRO VIERA GAMEZ; and JOEL ALBERTO REZENDIZ SALAS, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01519 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as a welder. RV SOLUTION, LLC specializes in industrial manufacturing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 Email: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Tague Files Suit in E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Louis University. The case is styled as Elizabeth Tague, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Saint Louis University, Case No. 4:24-cv-00581-JAR (E.D. Mo., April 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Saint Louis University -- https://www.slu.edu/ -- is a private Jesuit research university with campuses in St. Louis, Missouri, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Dale Pospisil, Esq. POSPISIL SWIFT LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 340 Kansas City, MO 64102 Phone: (816) 895-6440 Email: mdp@pslawkc.com SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY: Rios Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Iris Rios, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC., SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive; Case No. 30-2024-01370472-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00912. The Complaint asserts claims for: Unpaid Missed Rest Breaks; Unpaid Interrupted/Missed Meal Breaks; Failure to Pay all Overtime Wages Earned; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Pay for all Wages Earned and Pay for Vacation Time; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records, Improper Wage Statements; Failure to Wages Upon Separation; Failure to Pay Sick Days; Failure to Pay COVID-19 Supplemental Sick Leave; Failure to Provide Suitable Seating; Violation of Business and Professions Code; and Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3110 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com SHADAL LLC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. SHADAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02982-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.sermonetagloves.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as 570 Concrete, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04845 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03045-LJL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 - and - Mindee J. Reuben WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 545-7200 Fax: (215) 545-6535 - and - Joshua H. Grabar GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 507-6085 Fax: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy Heep, Esq. Julian Newton Weiss, Esq. PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P. 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 - and - Mark H. Hamer, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 452-7077 - and - David Frazier, Esq. Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq. Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC) 555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: david.frazier@lw.com - and - Anne Salomon, Esq. Christa C. Cottrell, Esq. Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North Lasalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-3092 Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com ccottrell@kirkland.com - and - Heather P. Lamberg, Esq. Bruce McCulloch, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor Washington D.C., DC 20005 Phone: (202) 777-4500 Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com - and - Anna E. Sanders, Esq. Gerald E. Burns, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 665-3957 Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com - and - Abram J. Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1155 F Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 636-5579 - and - Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com - and - Joshua Hazan, Esq. U.S. District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (248) 506-3234 Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com - and - Peter Guryan, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-2750 Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com - and - Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com SIKA AG: Keystone Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Keystone Concrete Block & Supply Co. Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04723 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03033-LJL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP(SF) 44 Montgomery, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Email: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 507-6085 Fax: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - and - Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com - and - Jeannine M Kenney, Esq. HAUSFELD L.L.P. (PA) 1604 Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 702-2310 Email: jkenney@hausfeldllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy Heep, Esq. Julian Newton Weiss, Esq. PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P. 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 - and - Baker McKenzie, Esq. 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 452-7077 - and - David Frazier, Esq. Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq. Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC) 555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: david.frazier@lw.com - and - Anne Salomon, Esq. Christa C. Cottrell, Esq. Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North Lasalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-3092 Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com ccottrell@kirkland.com - and - Heather P. Lamberg, Esq. Bruce McCulloch, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor Washington D.C., DC 20005 Phone: (202) 777-4500 Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com - and - Anna E. Sanders, Esq. Gerald E. Burns, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 665-3957 Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com - and - Abram J. Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1155 F Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 636-5579 - and - Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com - and - Joshua Hazan, Esq. U.S. District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (248) 506-3234 Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com - and - Peter Guryan, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-2750 Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com - and - Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com SIKA AG: Lakewood Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Lakewood Concrete Corp., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04797 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03026-LJL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lec Blaine Finley, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. Melissa Morgans, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 - and - Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Ave. of the Stars, 2nd Fl Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 278-2600 Fax: (310) 278-2640 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP Two CityPlace Drive, Ste Second Floor Saint Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 682-0988 Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark H Hamer, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 452-7077 - and - Jeremy Heep, Esq. Julian Newton Weiss, Esq. PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P. 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 - and - Baker McKenzie, Esq. 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 452-7077 - and - David Frazier, Esq. Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq. Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC) 555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: david.frazier@lw.com - and - Anne Salomon, Esq. Christa C. Cottrell, Esq. Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North Lasalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-3092 Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com ccottrell@kirkland.com - and - Heather P. Lamberg, Esq. Bruce McCulloch, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor Washington D.C., DC 20005 Phone: (202) 777-4500 Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com - and - Anna E. Sanders, Esq. Gerald E. Burns, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 665-3957 Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com - and - Abram J. Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1155 F Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 636-5579 - and - Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com - and - Joshua Hazan, Esq. U.S. District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (248) 506-3234 Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com - and - Peter Guryan, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-2750 Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com - and - Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as M&D Peterson, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04711 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03056-LJL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP (SF) 44 Montgomery, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Email: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com - and - Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com - and - Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq. HAUSFELD L.L.P. (PA) 1604 Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 702-2310 Email: jkenney@hausfeldllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy Heep, Esq. Julian Newton Weiss, Esq. PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P. 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 - and - Mark H. Hamer, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE 815 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 452-7077 - and - David Frazier, Esq. Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq. Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC) 555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: david.frazier@lw.com - and - Anne Salomon, Esq. Christa C. Cottrell, Esq. Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North Lasalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-3092 Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com ccottrell@kirkland.com - and - Heather P. Lamberg, Esq. Bruce McCulloch, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor Washington D.C., DC 20005 Phone: (202) 777-4500 Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com - and - Anna E. Sanders, Esq. Gerald E. Burns, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 665-3957 Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com - and - Abram J. Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 1155 F Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 636-5579 - and - Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com - and - Joshua Hazan, Esq. U.S. District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (248) 506-3234 Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com - and - Peter Guryan, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-2750 Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com - and - Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq. FISHKIN LUCKS LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 1150 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 536-2800 Fax: (973) 679-4435 Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL: Filing of Conditional Cert Bid Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Olejnik v. Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother -- International Finance Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00977 (E.D. Wisc., Filed July 21, 202), The Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to July 2, 2024, to file her motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Additionally, the following motions are vacated and will be reset following a decision on the motion for conditional certification: -- The Aug. 7, 2024 deadline to file motions for final certification, class certification, and decertification; -- The Dec. 11, 2024 discovery deadline; and -- The Jan. 22, 2025 dispositive motion deadline. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sisters is an international Franciscan congregation.[CC] SOULCYCLE LLC: DiFalco Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoulCycle, LLC. The case is styled as Ian DiFalco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SoulCycle, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03103 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SoulCycle Inc. -- https://www.soul-cycle.com/ -- is a fitness company owned by Equinox Group which offers indoor cycling and spinning workout classes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SOUTHERN TIRE MART: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joey Ruiz, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. SOUTHERN TIRE MART, LLC a Mississippi Limited Liability Company; SOUTHERN TIRE MART AT PILOT LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV06704 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03429. The Plaintiff's Complaint raises nine causes of action for Minimum Wages, Unpaid Overtime, Meal Break Violations, Rest Break Violations, Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment, Wage Statement Violations, Untimely Final Wages, Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses, and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code and Violation of Cal. Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gary W. Bethel, Esq. Jason H. Borchers, Esq. Andrew H. Woo, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704.2225 Phone: 559.244.7500 Fax: 559.244.7525 Email: gbethel@littler.com jborchers@littler.com awoo@littler.com SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Richardson, writing for The Daily Hodl, reports that a U.S. bank is facing a proposed class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to protect its customers' sensitive personal information and suffering a massive data breach. SouthState Bank, which has over $45 billion in assets, is being hit with a class action lawsuit led by plaintiff Latonya Gore in Florida, filings show. The suit concerns a February 2024 data breach that compromised the banks' clients' full names, financial account numbers and Social Security numbers. SouthState is accused of 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 breach and failing to provide its customers prompt and accurate notice of the incident. The plaintiffs allege hackers have already use the personal information that was released in the breach to engage in identity theft. They also argue there remains a high risk that the hackers can commit other crimes like opening bank accounts, taking out loans or obtaining fake driver's licenses in the victims' names. While SouthState reportedly issued a letter to customers regarding the breach, the plaintiffs argue it left out virtually all the important information. Says the lawsuit, "Despite defendant's intentional opacity about the root cause of this incident, several facts may be gleaned from the notice letter, including: a) that this data breach was the work of cybercriminals; b) that the cybercriminals first infiltrated defendant's networks and systems, and downloaded data from the networks and systems, and c) that once inside defendant's networks and systems, the cybercriminals targeted information including plaintiff's and class members' Social Security numbers for download and theft." The plaintiffs are seeking damages, which include the need have to constantly monitor their financial and personal records for years to come, the lawsuit says. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Counsel Seeks Class Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Fox21 reports that Erlich Law Firm has moved to certify a class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, alleging systemic interference with employees' federally protected family and medical leave rights. The motion, filed in the Northern District of California under case number 3:22-cv-00868-JSC, represents a crucial step towards collective redress for thousands of Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV:NYSE) flight attendants nationwide. The proposed class action accuses the airline of penalizing employees who took legally entitled leave, leading to denied disciplinary point reductions, and in some cases, wrongful terminations. According to court documents, the case hones in on Southwest's policy change enacted on March 1, 2019, which plaintiffs argue contravenes the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by disqualifying flight attendants from disciplinary point improvements once they exercise their FMLA rights. Plaintiffs allege that the policy not only imposes unfair disciplinary measures but also acts as a deterrent against the utilization of FMLA leave. The lawsuit, initiated by Roreste Refuerzo and Selina Cashin on behalf of similarly impacted colleagues, is poised to address grievances for two distinct classes: one seeking injunctive relief and another for damages. The former includes all Southwest flight attendants in the United States who, since March 1, 2019, have exercised FMLA rights and consequently lost access to disciplinary point reduction. The latter class concerns those who were terminated following the accrual of points post-FMLA leave. Plaintiffs' counsel, Erlich Law Firm, in conjunction with Andrus Anderson LLP, aims to secure a declaration that Southwest's practices violate both federal and state law, alongside an injunction to halt the contentious policy. Additionally, plaintiffs seek monetary compensation for affected class members. The case highlights a growing tension between employment practices and workers' rights, setting a potentially precedent-setting stage for how FMLA regulations are honored within the airline industry and beyond. A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for September 5, 2024, at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, CA, where the court will consider the arguments for consolidating the claims into a class action. As legal proceedings advance, the outcome stands to not only impact the plaintiffs but also reverberate through labor and employment law practices, reaffirming or challenging the strength of protections afforded under the FMLA. This case underscores the need for a delicate balance between operational policies of companies and the legal rights of employees, as employers navigate the complexities of implementing fair labor standards while maintaining business efficacy. The Erlich Law Firm's pursuit of justice in this context reflects an ongoing commitment to holding corporations accountable and ensuring that the rights of workers are upheld in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the law. CASE INFORMATION United States District Court Northern District of California REFUERZO v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC Erlich Law Firm has more than 20 years of experience in holding employers accountable for their illegal actions against the people who work for them. If you believe your rights at work have been violated, you could potentially be entitled to damages from your employer. Erlich Law Firm 180 Grand Ave. Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 788-2337 https://erlich.lawyer/your-rights/wrongful-termination/ Press Contact : Jason Erlich [GN] SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Arnold Samuel Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. ECU003426 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Imperial, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00747-TWR-MMP. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie M. Francis, Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584 Phone: (602) 279-1600 Fax: (602) 240-6925 Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE: May Face Class Suit Over RICO Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum reports that the rise of antisemitism on college campuses across the United States has reached alarming levels, demanding immediate and decisive action. Central to these troubling developments is the group known as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), implicated in numerous incidents that extend beyond free speech into coordinated harassment and intimidation. While purporting to advocate for Palestinian rights, SJP repeatedly crosses legal boundaries that protect the civil liberties of Jewish students and students of Israeli national origin. Given the severity and organized nature of their actions, a class action lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) emerges as a necessary legal remedy. RICO provides a powerful tool for addressing wrongful acts done as part of an ongoing criminal organization. Originally designed to combat organized crime, legal practitioners have successfully applied RICO in various civil contexts, including dismantling the Ku Klux Klan and curtailing aggressive tactics by anti-abortion groups. These precedents illustrate RICO's applicability to organizations that, under the guise of advocacy, engage in systematic violations of individuals' rights. In the context of SJP, applying RICO is appropriate due to the alleged coordinated nature of their activities across state lines, which affects a national population of students. The statute specifically targets patterns of racketeering activity -- defined as the commission of multiple acts indicative of an ongoing, organized conspiracy to commit fundamental breaches of the law. SJP's repeated engagements in tactics that intimidate, harass, and silence Jewish students and supporters of Israel fit the legal definition of racketeering activity. A class action lawsuit is particularly suitable for addressing the widespread influence of SJP's alleged misconduct. This strategy allows for the collective representation of all affected Jewish students and students of Israeli national origin, thereby addressing the scope of the issue across multiple educational institutions. By preventing the fragmented litigation of similar claims, this approach can lead to consistent rulings and standards of proof across different jurisdictions. Including all affected students in the lawsuit emphasizes the systemic nature of the grievances and could help in securing a broad-based injunction that provides clear, consistent protections. Moreover, it enhances the enforceability and influence of the court's rulings, potentially setting a precedent that could deter similar behaviors in other organizations. A proposed model lawsuit compiled by the Middle East Forum catalogs over 100 specific incidents involving SJP, ranging from physical intimidation to the disruption of academic events and systemic harassment. These incidents collectively suggest a pattern of behavior that aligns with RICO's provisions against sustained and organized harassment. The lawsuit would seek to halt these activities through injunctive relief, secure punitive measures to deter future misconduct, and obtain compensatory damages for those affected. By establishing SJP as a RICO violator, the lawsuit could lead to significant structural changes within the organization, potentially curtailing its presence and activities on campuses. Such a legal designation would not only penalize past actions but could also precipitate the dissolution of -- or significant operational limitations on -- SJP on campuses nationwide. Individual members of SJP could face severe consequences if found liable under a RICO-based lawsuit. These include significant financial penalties like triple damages and legal costs, injunctive relief that could restrict their activities or dissolve SJP chapters, personal civil liability for damages caused, and potential criminal implications if overlapping criminal behaviors are identified. Additionally, they could suffer reputational damage and educational repercussions such as disciplinary actions from their institutions. Collectively, these consequences would not only penalize the involved individuals, but also serve as a strong deterrent against similar future misconduct, aiming to restore a safe and respectful environment on campuses. If members of SJP are found liable under a RICO-based lawsuit, regrouping under a new name would not shield them from legal consequences due to the comprehensive nature of RICO. This statute allows for broad injunctive relief that can prohibit similar future activities regardless of the organization's name by focusing on dismantling the underlying "enterprise" involved in the racketeering activity. Such a ruling would include close monitoring and stringent compliance measures to prevent the continuation of illegal conduct, thereby making it legally risky and less attractive for the same group to rebrand and continue operations. Additionally, the personal liabilities incurred by individual members would follow them, further deterring reformation under a new guise and significantly hindering the viability and continuity of their movement. Pursuing legal action against SJP would affirm the American legal system's commitment to protecting students from discrimination and harassment based on national origin and religion. It would also emphasize the seriousness with which the legal system treats such cases, potentially encouraging other educational institutions to take more proactive measures in preventing similar behaviors. The consequences of inaction are clear: a continuation of the hostile environment that stifles academic freedom and undermines the educational experiences of countless students. Conversely, successful litigation of this case could fundamentally reshape campus dynamics, fostering an academic environment where open dialogue and safety are guaranteed for all students, regardless of their background or political beliefs. To ensure an effective resolution to the rampant antisemitism on college campuses, it is imperative to address the root of the problem. While individual Title VI claims against universities for allowing a hostile environment have merit, these efforts may be better channeled into a unified and strategic legal approach. Therefore, lawyers and plaintiffs currently pursuing such claims should consider redirecting their focus and resources toward directly confronting the primary purveyor of these antisemitic activities: Students for Justice in Palestine. By initiating a comprehensive RICO-based lawsuit against SJP, attorneys can target the core structure and activities that perpetuate discrimination and hostility. This consolidated action would not only amplify the impact but also enhance the likelihood of achieving significant systemic change, thereby safeguarding the rights and well-being of Jewish and Israeli students across the nation. To effectively combat the surge of campus antisemitism, a unified legal front against SJP through a class action RICO lawsuit is essential. This approach is not merely legally sound -- it is a moral imperative that tackles the core of this national issue, aiming to deliver justice for the victims and set a powerful precedent to ensure the safety and dignity of all students across the nation's campuses. Decisive action is required now. Lawyers, plaintiffs, and all stakeholders committed to civil rights and academic freedom must unite their efforts and resources on this critical battle. It is crucial that the courts rigorously assess and act upon these claims. By standing firm in this pivotal moment, the networks of hate can be dismantled, and a commitment to a safe and inclusive academic environment can be reaffirmed. The time has come to turn the tide against antisemitism in American educational institutions once and for all. [GN] SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Hunter Sues Over Deceptive Lending Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-005640 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive lending practices wherein it procures relationships with businesses that sell solar panel systems in Florida instead of engaging in direct marketing and uses them to market its loans in connection with sales. Pursuant to the arrangements, the Defendant and its partner Florida solar companies quote consumers very low interest rates and monthly installments while promising that installments will be offset by energy savings. This emphasis on extremely low financing costs induces Florida consumers, including the Plaintiff and the putative class, to both purchase systems and finance those purchases with the Defendant's loans. The Defendant deceives consumers by charging a hidden and costly dealer fee that it adds into the stated price of each financed system while falsely telling consumers that the inflated price only reflects the system's cost rather than financing. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive acts, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages. Sunlight Financial, LLC is a financing provider for home solar systems based in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com TAILORED SHARED: Marshall Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melissa Marshall, individually, and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated v. TAILORED SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company, THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV07672 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03446. The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that "Defendants knowingly failed to pay to Plaintiff and the Class compensation for all hours they worked" in violation of Labor Code. The Plaintiff's second cause of action is for the alleged failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to California Labor Code. In the third and fourth causes of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with legally required meal periods" and "wrongfully failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Class to take timely and duty-free rest periods."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Cory D. Catignani, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 526-7904 Facsimile: (949) 526-7904 Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com TARGET CORPORATION: Carbine Sues Over False & Misleading Packaging ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Carbine, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-03721 (C.D. Cal., May 3, 2024), is brought for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and for breach of express warranty as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading packaging, labeling, and advertising. The Defendant's Good and Gather Pasta Sauce products' packaging prominently displays on the front of the label the claim that these Products1 contain "No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or Preservatives." This statement is false. Each of the Products are made with citric acid--a preservative ingredient used in food products. The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium product that is free from preservatives. The Plaintiff, who purchased the Products in California, was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the class period in California. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells Good and Gather Pasta Sauce products..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com TESLA MOTORS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Panossian Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACK PANOSSIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10253 (Cal. Super., Apr. 23, 2024) challenges the Defendants' employment practices with respect to their employees in the State of California, who are paid in whole on an hourly basis from Feb. 2, 2023 to the present. The Defendants' policy and practices (official and unofficial) led to the systematic underpayment of all wages, including overtime pay, and fails to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks to the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees, the Plaintiff asserts. In particular, the Defendants compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees with straight time for all hours worked, even for work in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per work week, and fails to pay them overtime wages accordingly, and further fails to pay the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all straight time hours they worked. The Defendants routinely failed to compensate Service Center employees based on the actual time worked but instead only paid Aggrieved Employees for the actual time clocked in and clocked out, without accounting for mandatory pre-shift and post-shift work, the suit alleges. The Defendants also required the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to perform work tasks during unpaid breaks, fail to provide meal and rest breaks, fail to pay premium pay for such defective breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, failed to adequately compensate employees for business expenses, failed to provide a safe and healthy work environment, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, the suit adds. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants in August 28 2021 and last worked for Tesla on April 15, 2024. Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Alfred Movsesyan, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com alfred@boyamianlaw.com TESSENDERLO KERLEY: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- JONAH RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TESSENDERLO KERLEY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00921-SMB (D. Ariz., Apr. 23, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington state law. The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff was not fully and properly paid at a rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for all of his hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, the Defendant applied its pay practices and/or policies to its other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of the following opt-in collective: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees of the Defendant who were paid 40 or more hours of work in any workweek during the 3 years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the final disposition of this case (the "FLSA Collective" or "FLSA Collective Members"). The Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class of persons, defined as: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees of the Defendant in Washington who were paid 40 or more hours of work in any workweek during the 3 years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the final disposition of this case (the "Class" or "Class Members"). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a production employee at the Defendant's production facility in Washington. The Defendant is engaged in the development, production, and sale of chemicals and chemical products for the agricultural, mining, and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com TEXAS LUTHERAN: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-03418 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 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 websites, https://www.tlu.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://www.tlubulldogs.com/landing/index and https://bookstore.tlu.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 websites 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. TEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, operates the Texas Lutheran online retail store, as well as the Texas Lutheran 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 TGC PCSC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. TGC PCSC LLC; MIAMI LAKES OIL, INC. d/b/a FOOD SPOT; and LAKES UNLIMITED, LLC d/b/a CAFE MI VITROLA, Case No. 1:24-cv-21725-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. TGC PCSC LLC, owned and operated a commercial retail plaza located in Hialeah, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: amejias@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torrance Memorial Medical Center, et al. The case is styled as Rosemary Mora, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 24STCV11107 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 3, 2024). Torrance Memorial Medical Center -- https://www.torrancememorial.org/ -- is a private hospital located in Torrance, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashly Valenzuela, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 Email: avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com TORY BURCH LLC: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tory Burch, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Samantha Varela Ayala, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tory Burch, LLC, , Case No. 24CV072587 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Tory Burch, LLC -- https://www.toryburch.com/en-us/ -- offers women's clothing, dresses, designer shoes, handbags, accessories & more.[BN] TQ LOGISTICS INC: Wicklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TQ Logistics Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jason Wicklund, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TQ Logistics Inc., Nital Pillay, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004980 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." TQ Logistics -- https://tqlogistics.com/ -- provides customized dedicated trucking services based on two driving principles: consistent on-time delivery and maximum cost efficiency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Oral Argument in Malone Set for June 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua Wolson entered an order as follows: 1. The oral argument regarding class certification scheduled for June 13, 2024 is cancelled. 2. On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff Michael Malone filed redacted versions of his Memorandum of Law in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and exhibits 10-12, 30, and 33 and filed unredacted versions of these documents under seal, without seeking leave. If Mr. Malone or Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. intends for these redactions to remain in place, then that Party shall file a supporting Motion to Seal in accordance with the governing standards set forth in In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019) on or before May 8, 2024. On Feb. 23, 2024, UPS filed Exhibits 1-10 to its Memorandum of Law In Support of the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification under seal and in redacted form without seeking leave to do so. If Mr. Malone or UPS intends for these redactions to remain in place, then that Party shall file a supporting Motion to Seal in accordance with the governing standards on or before May 8, 2024. On March 22, 2024, Mr. Malone filed a Motion for Temporary Sealing Pending UPS's Motion to Permanently Seal, seeking leave to file a redacted version of his Reply brief and Exhibit 44 attached thereto based upon UPS's position that the redacted information is confidential." He filed unredacted versions of these documents under seal and in redacted form. To the extent UPS intends for the redactions to remain in place, then UPS shall file a supporting Motion to Seal in accordance with the governing standards on or before May 8, 2024. In addition, Mr. Malone filed his Motion for Temporary Sealing Pending UPS's Motion to Permanently Seal under seal without leave to do so, and I see no basis whatsoever to keep that motion under seal. Thus, the Clerk of Court shall unseal the Motion that appears at ECF No. 57. A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2UpTZ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SEATING: Ducrepin Sues Over Unauthorized Disclosure of PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Ducrepin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. UNITED SEATING AND MOBILITY, LLC d/b/a NUMOTION, Case No. Case 3:24-cv-00545 (M.D. Tenn., May 2, 2024), is brought arising out of the unauthorized disclosure of the confidential personal information, Personally Identifying Information1 ("PII"), of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, approximately 4,190 current and former employees of Defendant Numotion, from February 29, 2024 to March 2, 2024. Specifically, between February 29, 2024 to March 2, 2024, "an unknown, unauthorized third party accessed Numotion's computer systems," "encrypted some of its computer files," and "may have accessed and acquired certain files from its systems. The data security incident exposed the names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and employment information of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach"). As a condition of employment, employees are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, private PII, including names, dates of birth, social security numbers, and other personal information. According to Defendant's April 15, 2024 letter notifying Plaintiff and other affected individuals of the Data Breach ("Data Breach Notice"), mostly between February 29, 2024 to March 2, 2024, an unauthorized person gained access to Numotion's network and acquired files containing data including Plaintiff's an Class Members' PII, such as their Social Security numbers. Numotion failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the PII of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, including failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against cyberattacks in the Data Breach. Although Numotion discovered the Data Breach on or about March 2, 2024, it failed to notify and warn employees of the unauthorized disclosure of their PII therein until April 15, 2024, over six weeks later. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures to protect employees' sensitive PII and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of Defendant's Data Breach. Numotion offers Complex Rehab Technology (CRT) products and accessories, innovative lifestyle products, service and repair, catheters, wheelchair accessible vehicles, and other services for individuals with mobility challenges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - 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 - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com UNITED STATES: Court Modifies Class Cert Order in Lucas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS R., et al., v. XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05741-DMG-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order modifying the court's class certification order as follows: -- Jon Cieslak, Mary Kathryn Kelley, and Megan Donohue are removed as class counsel -- Leecia Welch and Necha Desai, formerly of NCYL, are removed as class counsel. -- Brenda Shum and Mishan Wroe of NYCL are appointed as class counsel. -- Poonam Juneja of NYCL, Carlos Holgum of the Center for Humans Rights and Constitutional Law, Holly S. Cooper and Carter C. White of the University of California Davis School of Law, and Summer Wynn of Cooley LLP shall continue as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tB3wWX at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE: Unlawfully Collects Debt, Lefevere Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR LEFEVERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-005650 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the FCCPA by communicating with debtors, including the Plaintiff, in connection with debt collection between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in their time zone without prior consent. University of the People is a tuition-free online university based in Pasadena, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. C. Hedaya, Esq. D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-11 36 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com UR JADDOU: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Martirosyan Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAGGE MARTIROSYAN, v. UR M. JADDOU ET AL, Case No. 8:23-cv-02207-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order setting scheduling Conference as follows: -- Service of Pleadings. If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three days thereafter. -- Order Applies to Pro Se Litigants. "Counsel," as used in this Order, includes parties who have elected to appear without counsel and are representing themselves in this litigation. -- Lead trial counsel and any unrepresented parties must attend the scheduling conference, unless excused by the Court for good cause prior to the conference. -- Continuance. A request to continue the scheduling conference will be granted only for good cause. The parties should plan to file the Joint Rule 26(f) Report on the original due date even if a continuance is granted. The Court will not continue the scheduling conference to allow the parties to explore settlement. -- The Court may vacate the scheduling conference and issue a case management order based on the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. -- The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed not later than 14 days before the scheduling conference. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zkiLm2 at no extra charge.[CC] US AVIATION SERVICES: Rivas Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brandon Rivas, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. AVIATION SERVICES CORP., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. CIVSB2403694 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00855. The Complaint alleged failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime hours; failure to provide meal periods or meal period premiums; failure to provide rest periods or rest period premiums; waiting time penalties; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to provide legally compliant itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christina T. Tellado, Esq. Billy Sahachartsiri, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.896.2400 Fax: 213.896.2450 Email: christina.tellado@hklaw.com billy.sahachartsiri@hklaw.com VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL: Brett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Mountain Regional Center Inc. The case is styled as Maurice Brett, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Valley Mountain Regional Center Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2024-0005025 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil PI/PD/WD (Other)." Valley Mountain Regional Center -- https://www.vmrc.net/ -- is a non-profit organization that provides developmental disability services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Vollbrecht, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th St., Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607-3625 Phone: 510-891-9800 Email: wpv@colevannote.com VINCENT K. MCMAHON: PRGERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VINCENT K. MCMAHON, et al. The case is styled as City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VINCENT K. MCMAHON, NICK KHAN, PAUL LEVESQUE, GEORGE A. BARRIOS, STEVE KOONIN, MICHELLE D. WILSON, STEVE PAMON, MICHELLE R. MCKENNA, FRANK A. RIDDICK III, WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, TKO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., and ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2024-0432-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., April 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Vincent Kennedy McMahon is an American businessman and former professional wrestling promoter.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus E. Montejo, Esq. Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. Kevin H. Davenport, Esq. John G. Day, Esq. Seth T. Ford, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-6500 VITALITY GROUP: Elias Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joseph Elias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Vitality Group doing business as: Vitality Group International, Inc., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04656 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11069-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Vitality -- https://www.vitalitygroup.com/ -- wellness solutions engage members at the intersection of wellbeing and care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Salena Jasmin Chowdhury, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com schowdhury@masonllp.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP (DC) 641 S. St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: dperry@wbmllp.com - and - Theodore Beloyeannis Bell, Esq. MASON LLP 8045 Kenneth Ave. Skokie, IL 60076-3215 Phone: (202) 640-1169 Email: tbell@masonllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Schieber, Esq. Gabrielle Ganze, Esq. Jaimin Hemendra Shah, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 111 East Wacker, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 527-4000 Email: jschieber@taftlaw.com gganze@taftlaw.com jshah@taftlaw.com - and - Daniel Reza Saeedi, Esq. Rachel L. Schaller, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 444 W. Lake Street, Ste. 1650 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 776-2517 Email: daniel.saeedi@blankrome.com rachel.schaller@blankrome.com W.K.S. FROSTY CORP: Serrano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.K.S. Frosty Corp., et al. The case is styled as Ana Serrano, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v. W.K.S. Frosty Corp., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 24STCV11147 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 3, 2024). WKS Restaurant Group -- https://www.wksusa.com/ -- is a family owned business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashly Valenzuela, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 Email: avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com WELLS FARGO: Dillon Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Dillon, Marc Kafka, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00684 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03059-AS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/cib/ -- provides investment banking services. The Company offers merchant banking, purchase sale, and brokerage of securities, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Benjamin Bright, Esq. Christopher J. Houpt, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 506-2462 Email: bbright@mayerbrown.com - and - Lucia Nale, Esq. Matthew Fenn, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP (CHICAGO) 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-0600 Fax: (312) 701-7711 Email: lnale@mayerbrown.com mfenn@mayerbrown.com WELLS FARGO: Haydn Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, et al. The case is styled as Arik Haydn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00505-CDB (E.D. Cal., April 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM: Suit Filed in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellstar Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wellstar Health System, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01748-JPB (N.D. Ga., April 23, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wellstar -- https://www.wellstar.org/ -- is the largest and most integrated healthcare system in Georgia, affiliated medical groups, urgent care centers and provide tailored health plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ready Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 282-4806 Fax: (504) 608-1465 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 833-4827 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Britany Kabakov, Esq. David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: britany@almeidalawgroup.com david@almeidalawgroup.com WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Financial Privacy Act 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 Right to Financial Privacy Act class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed against several money transfer business defendants, including the Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that these defendants violated the federal Right to Financial Privacy Act and California's Financial Information Privacy Act. The United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are also named as defendants. The operative complaint alleges that the defendants violated plaintiffs' financial privacy rights by sharing private financial information with law enforcement agencies through a program coordinated by the Transaction Record Analysis Center. On January 24, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI") as a defendant in place of The Western Union Company. The court granted in part and denied in part WUFSI's motion to dismiss the operative complaint on March 21, 2024. On February 21, 2024, another purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company (d/b/a WUFSI) and other defendants on behalf of California residents whose information was sent to the Transaction Record Analysis Center. On April 12, 2024, an amended complaint was filed naming WUFSI as a defendant in place of the Company. Due to the preliminary stage of these matters, the ultimate outcome and any potential financial impact to the Company cannot be reasonably determined at this time. WUFSI intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency money movement, payments, and digital financial services, empowering consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and governments. WESTROCK SERVICE: Acu Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edgar R. Acu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICE, LLC; WESTROCK COMPANY; WESTROCK CALIFORNIA, LLC; WESTROCK CP, LLC; WESTROCK CONSUMER PACKAGING GROUP, LLC; WESTROCK PACKAGING SYSTEMS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401400 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00854. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are collectively liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for the following: Failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the applicable minimum wage pursuant to California Labor Code and "any additional applicable Wage Orders, which require such compensation to non-exempt employees." Failure to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all overtime pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with rest periods pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to indemnify Plaintiff and Class Members for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties pursuant to Labor Code. Failure to pay wages due to Plaintiff and Class Members upon discharge pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code. Unfair and unlawful business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com - and - Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com WILLIAM C. BAILEY: Berry Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Heath Berry, individually and derivatively on behalf of Radiance Technologies, Inc. and the owners Radiance Of Technologies, Inc. v. WILLIAM C. BAILEY, ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, JIM SCANLON, JEAD DEASON, JIM POSS, CAROL TEVEPAUGH, JT THOMPSON AND JOHN F. THOMPSON, Case No. 47-CV-2024-900415.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00522-HNJ. The Plaintiff's claims are under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: W. Brad English, Esq. Emily J. Chancey, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. La Keisha Butler, Esq. Taylor R. Holt, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: (256) 512-5705 Email: benglish@MaynardNexsen.com echancey@MaynardNexsen.com rjones@MaynardNexsen.com Ibutler@MaynardNexsen.com taholt@MaynardNexsen.com - and - Tom J. Butler, Esq. Ethan McDaniel, Esq. Grace R. Murphy, Esq. Thomas W.H. Buck, Jr., Esq. S. Reeves Jordan, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North. Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 254-1063 Email: tbutler@MaynardNexsen.com emcdaniel@MaynardNexsen.com gmutphy@MaynardNexsen.com tbuck@MaynardNexsen.com rejordan@MaynardNexsen.com YARDI SYSTEMS: FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Doe, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., RENTGROW, INC., and CLEARA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10118 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the So District of Massachusetts on May 2, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11175-IT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Yardi Systems -- https://www.yardi.com/ -- is a software vendor for the real estate industry with end-to-end property and investment management software and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenna Dakroub, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS 6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 247 Encino, CA 91316 Phone: (602) 807-1525 Fax: (718) 715-1750 Email: jdakroub@consumerattorneys.com - and - Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC 2290 East Speedway Boulevard Tucson, AZ 85719 Phone: (602) 807-1504 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: srotkis@consumerattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Ronald I. Raether, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 5 Park Plaza, Ste. 1400 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com ZOETIS INC: Rosen Law Starts Securities Class Action Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Zoetis Inc. (NYSE: ZTS) resulting from allegations that Zoetis may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Zoetis securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24154 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 12, 2024, before the market opened, The Wall Street Journal released an article entitled "What Killed Their Pets? Owners Blame Meds, but Vets Aren't Sure." This article discussed possible side effects caused by Librela and Solensia, two drugs which are produced by Zoetis, and are respectively used to treat arthritis in dogs and cats. The article also stated "[h]ealth regulators in the U.S. and Europe -- which have received thousands of reports of side effects -- are conducting reviews" and that "[t]he FDA received more than 3,800 reports of side effects concerning the drugs through the end of last year." On this news, Zoetis' stock fell $12.75 per share, or 7.8%, to close at $149.98 per share on April 12, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***