/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240515.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 15, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 98
Headlines
A.J. ANGLIN: Farella Wins Bid for Class Certification
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Wheat Alleges
AEROTECH INC: Liable to ESOP Participants' Losses, Schultz Says
AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klobus Suit Over 70% Stock Price Drop
ALL COUNTY: Palma Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machine Operators
ALLPRO PARKING: Bid to Compel Complete Responses to Notice Tossed
ALLSTATE LIFE: Has Until May 20 to File Response to Objections
ALPHABET INC: $350MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Won Files Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Faces Montano Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal.
APPLE INC: July 16 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
APPLE INC: Seeks Stay of Bodenburg Suit Pending Bid to Dismiss
ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Response in De Niro
ASR GROUP: Faces Nineteenseventynine Suit Over Sugar Conspiracy
ATLANTA, GA: Court Certifies Class in Lawson Suit
AXIOM ACQUISITION: Meza Seeks Debt Negotiators' Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 16
BERRIEN COUNTY, MI: Seeks Denial of Davis Class Certification Bid
BIEWER LUMBER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Evans Due Jan. 23, 2025
BIJ CONSTRUCTION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
BIMINI BAY: Faces Wurm Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
BLOOM ENERGY: Class Action Settlement in Hunt Gets Final Approval
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Brown Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
BNP PARIBAS: Pending Bids to Seal Docs Tossed as Moot
BOSTON FINANCE: Chamberlin Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Strickland Wins Conditional Cert Bid
COMMUNITY BANK: Ellsworth Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Bank Employees
COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Valentine Suit Over Drop of Stock Price
COMPUTER HAUS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Says Jahagirdar Suit
DOTERRA INT'L: Bingham Bid for Initial Certification Partly OK'd
EOG RESOURCES: Fails to Properly Pay Consultants, Sabrsula Claims
EQX HOTEL: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Anderson Suit Alleges
ERNEST HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Johnson Alleges
EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Dorin Suit Over Decline of Securities Price
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Properly Pay Package Handlers, Minton Says
FULL TRUCK: $10.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 5
GAOTU TECHEDU: Briefing on Bid to Junk Zhang Suit Ongoing
GAOTU TECHEDU: Continues to Defend Wu Shareholder Class Suit
GENERAC POWER: Court Narrows Claims in Juliano Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Lafalce Sues Over Driver Behavior Data Collection
H&M FASHION: Dalton Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
HAVEN DETOX: Monroe Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliatory Discharge
HAWKINS NEW YORK: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HCA HEALTHCARE: McRee Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists
HERITAGE MANOR: Bid to Stay Discovery in Bowie Suit Nixed
HUT 8 CORP: Faces Jiang Suit Over 23.3% Common Stock Price Drop
HYATT CORP: Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Jimenez
I-HEALTH INC: Obillo Sues Over Culturelle IBS's Deceptive Claims
ILLINOIS: Kucinsky Bid to Certify Class Tossed
INTER TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
IQVIA INC: Fischbein Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief
J&C AMBULANCE: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification
J. PERRY & SONS: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid OT & Fraudulent Filing
JACK IN THE BOX: Products' Recyclable Claims "False," Ozonian Says
JERRY DYER: Puckett Loses Bid for Appointment of Counsel
KDI CHEESE: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Sept. 2
KIA MOTORS: Class Cert Hearing in Sanchez Continued to May 31
KISCO SENIOR: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Gois Suit Claims
KP COMMERCE LLC: Reisman Files TCPA Suit in D. New Mexico
LA MAISON: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Anderson ADA Suit Alleges
LAKESIDE FOODS: Leija Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
LENDUS LLC: Underpays Loan Processors/Assistants, Greist Claims
LENOVO INC: Must Produce All Responsive Docs in Axelrod Class Suit
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: $15.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 25
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Hill Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. Cal.
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Scott Appeals Cert. Bid Denial
LUV N' CARE: Court Enters Order on Class Certification in Richards
MARK CUBAN: Settlements in Karnas Class Suit Get Initial Nod
MATTEL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Anderson Suit Alleges
MCG HEALTH: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Gets Initial Nod
MDL No. 2295: Mather TCPA Suit Remanded to S.D. Fla.
MDL No. 2591: Corn Variant Commercialization Dispute Consolidated
MDL No. 2843: Facebook Data Privacy Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL No. 2924: Ranitidine Product Liability Row Consolidated to FL
MORLEY COMPANIES: Cocagne Sues Over CSR's Unpaid Overtime
NXT IPA: Fails to Pay Physician Associate's Minimum & OT Wages
ONNIT LABS: Supplement's Brain Health Claims "False," Lotz Says
ONPROCESS TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Injunction Ruling in Starling Suit
OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Layoffs Workers Without Notice, Maravilla Says
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 3
PACIFIC STEEL: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Dates in Berber
PENNEY OPCO: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Amended to July 26
PENSKE TRUCK: Bid to Dismiss Cabral Suit Nixed
PETRO-LUD INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 17, 2025
PFIZER INC: $50MM EpiPen Class Settlement to be Heard on June 25
PHARMERICA PS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 15, 2025
PHX MINERALS: Schilling Sues Over Bylaws' Noncompliance to DGCL
PORSCHE CARS: Faces Kohanof Class Suit Over Transfer Case Defect
PROPAK LOGISTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2025
QUANTUM METRIC: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Doty Alleges
RAHAL BIOSCIENCES: Petros Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
RELIANT LIFE: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Deadlines Tossed
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 3, 2025
RTX CORP: Court Appoints Northeast Pension as Lead Plaintiff
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Tully Seeks Unpaid OT for Utility Operators
RX2GO INC: Court Refers Class Cert Bid to Mag. Judge Kuo in Shkolir
RX2GO INC: Court Refers Shkolir Class Cert Bid to Magistrate Judge
RYZE CLAIM: Berry Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Order on Discovery Issues Entered in R.P. Suit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Order on Discovery Issues Entered in J.T. Suit
SAS INSTITUTE: Conspires to Fix Hotel Room Prices, Dai Suit Says
SEAWORLD PARKS: Parties in Ward Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
SIMSMETAL EAST: Faces Medina Suit Over Noise, Light & Odor Issues
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Wilkes Claims
SPERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Employees, Cattaneo Suit Claims
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Hamdard Suit Over Discriminatory Policy
TALASCEND SL: Faces Ramsey Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
TC HEARTLAND: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 28, 2025
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Webb Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TOP GOLF: Court Enters Order on Class Certification in Molina
TORRID LLC: Jillson Sues Over Alleged Falsified Reference Prices
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Certification Scheduling Order Modified
UNITED SECURITY: Discolo Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
UNITED STATES: Mathis Suit Seeks to Certify People with Disability
UNITED TOWING: Shanklin Seeks Tow Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Modification of Schedule Sought
VMSB LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition in Volpe
VOLTA INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Chau
WALGREEN CO: Bargetto Seeks to Seal Documents
YJOS LLC: Johnson Seeks to Recover Operator's OT Pay Under FLSA
*********
A.J. ANGLIN: Farella Wins Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL FARELLA; LOGAN W.
MURPHY; and All Others Similarly Situated, V. DISTRICT JUDGE A.J.
ANGLIN; GREGG PARRISH; and JAY SAXTON Case No. 5:22-cv-05121-TLB
(W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Brooks entered an order
granting Plaintiffs Abigail Farella and Logan W. Murphy's motion
for class certification.
The Court further ordered that:
(1) The certified class is defined as: "(1) pretrial detainees,
(2)
who have or will appear before District Judge A.J. Anglin,
(3)
for a bail or pre-trial release hearing under Arkansas Rules
of
Criminal Procedure 8–9, (4) who are indigent, and (5) do
not
have appointed (public defender) representation at that
hearing."
(2) Plaintiffs Abigail Farella and Logan W. Murphy are
designated
as Class Representatives.
(3) Norman Douglas Norwood and Allison Lee of Norwood & Norwood,
P.A. are appointed Class Counsel.
This litigation arises from a bail hearing procedure in Benton
County District Court that Plaintiffs Abigail Farella and Logan W.
Murphy maintain is constitutionally defective.
They argue under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments that indigent
criminal defendants have a right to legal representation during the
judicial officer's determination of bail—and that Defendants
violated that right by failing to timely appoint counsel before
their bail was set.
The Plaintiffs contend that their injury was not an exception, but
the rule. The Court finds that Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied here.
Plaintiffs explicitly seek declaratory and injunctive relief and
make no request for money damages.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PcTsGR at no extra
charge.[CC]
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Wheat Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYRA WHEAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01972-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 24, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a warehouse worker from
approximately June 2023 to March 6, 2024.
Abbott Laboratories is a manufacturer of medical devices and
healthcare solutions in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
AEROTECH INC: Liable to ESOP Participants' Losses, Schultz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE SCHULTZ, KEVIN PLUMMER, and CHAD HUFFER, as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Aerotech, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and
Trust, Plaintiffs v. AEROTECH, INC. and THE AEROTECH, INC. EMPLOYEE
STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN AND TRUST COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00618 (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to invest the
non-employer stock assets of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(ESOP) prudently and for the exclusive benefit of ESOP
participants. According to the complaint, notwithstanding Plan
participants' long-term investment objective, the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan and Trust (ESOT) Committee has kept the Other
Investments Account (OIA) invested exclusively in cash equivalents,
namely money market accounts and short-term certificates of
deposit. The Defendants could have invested OIA funds in each asset
class by selecting a passively managed fund that tracks the
corresponding index. The Defendants also could have selected an
actively managed fund that seeks out the best individual securities
within the asset class. As a result of the Defendants' fiduciary
neglect, ESOP participants lost $6.9 million during this period, or
more than $17,000 per participant, says the suit.
Aerotech, Inc. is a motion control and precision positioning
systems company based in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Email: nthompson@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klobus Suit Over 70% Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
DORA KLOBUS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AKERO THERAPEUTICS, INC., ANDREW CHENG, WILLIAM WHITE,
and CATRIONA YALE, Case No. 3:24-cv-02534 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 26,
2024) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
Akero common stock between Sept. 13, 2022 and Oct. 9, 2023,
inclusive against Akero and certain of Akero's current senior
executives under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, because funding drug development,
clinical trials, and commercialization is capital-intensive, Akero
has suffered significant recurring losses since its inception,
including over $290 million in losses during the years 2020 to 2022
alone. To finance the Company's operations, Akero conducted two
secondary stock offerings and one at-the-market stock offering
during the Class Period, raising over $577 million.
In order to successfully complete these offerings and raise part of
the funding Akero needed to develop and commercialize EFX, the
Defendants repeatedly misled investors as to the true nature of the
patient population that was being tested in Akero's SYMMETRY study.
Specifically, despite telling investors that the study's patient
population was limited to those with NASH-induced cirrhosis (a fact
that was key for data integrity and the likelihood of study
success), for approximately 20% of those being tested Akero had not
confirmed that the patients had NASH and that NASH had in fact
caused their cirrhosis. It was not until the Company disclosed the
study's 36-week results on October 10, 2023 that the market finally
began to learn the truth, with investors suffering substantial
losses and damages under the federal securities laws as the price
of Akero stock plummeted nearly 70% in response. In response to
this news, the price of Akero stock closed down $30.39 per share on
Oct. 10, 2023 and $3.11 per share on Oct. 11, 2023 on higher than
average volume - a decline of nearly 70% from the stock's closing
price of $48.54 per share on October 9, 2023, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in that they: (a) employed devices, schemes,
and artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in acts, practices, and a
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon
plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their
purchases of Akero stock during the Class Period.
The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in
reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially
inflated prices for Akero stock. The Plaintiff and the Class would
not have purchased Akero stock at the prices they paid, or at all,
if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially
and falsely inflated by defendants' false and misleading statements
and fraudulent scheme.
Plaintiff Klobus purchased and acquired Akero common stock during
the Class Period.
Akero is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that was
founded to develop transformational medicines for patients with
serious metabolic diseases that lack effective treatment
options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
- and -
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
ALL COUNTY: Palma Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machine Operators
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALBA PALMA and JULIO OLIVERAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALL COUNTY APPAREL LLC
d/b/a ALL COUNTY APPAREL and ANDREW MONTEYNE, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05612 (D.N.J., April 25, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
Plaintiffs Palma and Oliveras were employed by the Defendants as
machine operators from on or about May 23, 2022, until on or about
March 8, 2024, and from on or about August 1, 2022, until on or
about February 19, 2024, respectively.
All County Apparel LLC, doing business as All County Apparel, is a
custom apparel and t-shirt company headquartered in Lodi, New
Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
ALLPRO PARKING: Bid to Compel Complete Responses to Notice Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE BOONE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLPRO PARKING,
LLC, ALLPRO PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC, and PREMIUM PARTNER HOLDINGS,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00862-LJV-HKS (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge H.
Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. entered an order denying the plaintiff's
motion to compel complete responses to plaintiff’s First Notice
to Produce and Interrogatories.
The Court agrees that plaintiffs demand for documents related to
defendants’ ownership structure are overbroad. Accordingly, this
aspect of plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
The Plaintiff, a non-exempt hourly employee, commenced this
proposed collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and proposed class action pursuant to New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), alleging that his employer failed to properly compensate
him for all hours worked in his position as a lot attendant.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he was only compensated
according to his scheduled shift despite working before and after
his scheduled shift. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that he was
routinely interrupted or not relieved for uncompensated meal
breaks.
Allpro provides parking services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZV47Ft at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE LIFE: Has Until May 20 to File Response to Objections
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-KES-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order that the
Defendant shall have until May 20, 2024, to file any response to
the Plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations.
On March 27, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations
recommending denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On April 17, 2024, the Plaintiff timely filed her objections to the
findings and recommendations. The deadline for Defendant to file
any response is May 1, 2024.
On April 30, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to extend the
deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's objections to the findings
and recommendations by nineteen days due to conflicting personal
and professional obligations.
On April 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition
to the Defendant's motion. The Court finds good cause to grant
Defendant's unopposed motion.
Allstate is a financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XZraux at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALPHABET INC: $350MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Alphabet Securities Settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
In re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Master File No. 3:18-cv-06245-TLT
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ALPHABET, INC.
("ALPHABET") CLASS A AND/OR CLASS C STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM
APRIL 23, 2018, THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT
CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September
24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Trina L. Thompson at
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 9 – 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
CA 94102, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $350,000,000.00
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be
entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead
Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action ("Notice")), which is discussed below and, if so, in what
amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ALPHABET CLASS A AND/OR CLASS C STOCK
FROM APRIL 23, 2018, THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim by mail
(postmarked no later than July 25, 2024) or electronically (no
later than July 25, 2024). Your failure to submit your Proof of
Claim by July 25, 2024, will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with
the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased or acquired
Alphabet Class A and/or Class C stock from April 23, 2018, through
April 30, 2019, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the
Settlement Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.
You may review the Notice, which more completely describes the
Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to
object to the Settlement), access the Proof of Claim, and find the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.AlphabetSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:
Alphabet Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301175
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1175
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY AUGUST
23, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND THE REQUEST BY LEAD
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 19% OF THE
SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1,750,000.00. ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE SENT TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR BY AUGUST 23,
2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: April 9, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Won Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAONAISSA WON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02867-NGG-JAM (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff will move this Court, before the Honorable Nicholas
G. Garaufis, United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, for an Order
certifying a Class pursuant to Federal Rules 23(a) and 23(b).
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n5V2a3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Jennifer Davidson, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
jdavidson@outtengolden.com
- and -
LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
Alanna R. Sakovitz, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
asakovitz@vandallp.com
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Faces Montano Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY MONTANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, L.L.C. dba
ARS RESCUE ROOTER, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24STCV10500 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
California's Labor Code including failure to provide required meal
periods, failure to provide required rest breaks, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay
wages during employment, failure to pay all wages due to discharged
and quitting employees, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to maintain required records, and failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in
California.
American Residential Services, L.L.C., doing business as ARS Rescue
Rooter, is a provider of plumbing, home, and commercial heating and
air conditioning services in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anna R. Salusky, Esq.
SALUSKY LAW GROUP
3738 Bayer Avenue, Suite 104
Long Beach, CA 90808
Telephone: (562) 855-0004
Facsimile: (562) 855-0002
Email: asalusky@saluskylaw.com
- and -
Marcia Guzman, Esq.
Victoria Tokar, Esq.
GUZMAN & TOKAR LLP
440 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1354
Covina, CA 91723
Telephone: (213) 347-4529
Facsimile: (213) 342-6329
Email: service@guzmanandtokar.com
APPLE INC: July 16 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. has released the following notice:
A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO OR WHICH HELD SHARES OF APPLE INC.
("APPLE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF THE CLOSE OF TRADING
ON APRIL 29, 2024.
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A CURRENT APPLE
SHAREHOLDER, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
RIGHTS.
THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND
UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR MONETARY PAYMENT. IF YOU DO NOT
OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE AMOUNT OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOU ARE NOT
OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of: (i) the pendency of
the shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Apple Inc.
("Apple" or the "Company"), styled as In re Apple Inc. Stockholder
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-05153-YGR (the "Federal
Action") , pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division (the "Federal
Court"); the shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of
Apple pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara (the "California Court"), styled as In re
Apple Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.
19CV355213 (the "California Action"), and a factually-related
litigation demand on Apple's board of directors (the "Demand" and,
together with the Federal Action and California Action, the
"Actions"); and (ii) a proposed settlement of the Actions (the
"Settlement"), subject to approval of the Federal Court.
The terms of the settlement are set forth in an Amended Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release dated April
29, 2024 (the "Amended Stipulation").1 This notice should be read
in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to, the text of the Amended Stipulation, which has been filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A
link to the text of the Amended Stipulation and the full-length
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Shareholder
Derivative Actions may be found on the "Investor Relations" section
of Apple's website, investor.apple.com.
Under the terms of the Amended Stipulation, as a part of the
proposed Settlement, Apple will adopt and/or implement corporate
governance reforms, which are attached as Exhibit A to the Amended
Stipulation ("Enhancements"). All Parties agree the Enhancements
confer substantial benefits upon Apple and its shareholders. In
addition, Apple's Board, including each of its independent,
non-employee directors (including the members of the DEC), advised
by outside counsel for the Company, has unanimously approved a
resolution reflecting the Board's determination, in the good faith
exercise of its business judgment, that the Settlement confers
substantial benefits upon Apple and its shareholders, and that the
Settlement and each of its terms are fair and reasonable and serve
the best interests of Apple and its shareholders.
In light of the substantial benefits conferred upon Apple by
Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts, Apple shall pay or cause to be paid
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel in the agreed
amount of $6,000,000 (the "Fee and Expense Amount"), subject to
Court approval. Plaintiffs' Counsel will apply to the Court for
service awards of $5,000 ("Service Awards") to each of the
Plaintiffs to be drawn from the Fee and Expense Amount.
A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held on July 16, 2024 at 2:00
p.m., before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 1 – Fourth Floor, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612. At the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the Federal
Court will, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed
Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Amended
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to Apple and its
shareholders, and should be approved; (ii) determine whether the
Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C to the
Amended Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Federal
Action with prejudice; (iii) determine whether the agreed-to Fee
and Expense Amount and Service Awards should be approved; and (iv)
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Federal Court in connection with the Settlement.
Any Current Apple Shareholder who or which continues to own shares
of Apple common stock as of July 16, 2024, the date of the
Settlement Fairness Hearing, has a right, but is not required to,
appear and to be heard at the Settlement Fairness Hearing. Any
Current Apple Shareholder who satisfies this requirement may enter
an appearance through counsel of such shareholder's own choosing
and at such shareholder's own expense, or may appear on their own.
However, you shall not be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless
you have filed with the Court, no later than July 2, 2024, a
written notice of objection containing the following information:
(i) clear identification of the case name and case number, In re
Apple Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No.
4:19-cv-05153-YGR; (ii) the name, address, and telephone number of
the objector and must be signed by the objector; (iii) whether the
objector is represented by counsel and, if so, the name, address,
and telephone number of his, her, or its counsel; (iv) a specific,
written statement of the objection(s) and the specific reason(s)
for the objection(s), including any legal and evidentiary support
the objector wishes to bring to the Court's attention, and if the
objector indicates that he, she, or it intends to appear at the
Settlement Fairness Hearing, the identity of any witnesses the
objector may call to testify and any exhibits the objector intends
to introduce into evidence at the hearing; and (v) documentation
sufficient to prove that the objector owned shares of Apple common
stock as of the close of trading on April 29, 2024 and continues to
hold Apple stock continuously through the date of the Settlement
Fairness Hearing.
If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the
written objection described above with the Court on or before July
2, 2024. All written objections and supporting papers must be filed
with the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division,
1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612, or by filing them in
person at any location of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. Current Apple Shareholders who or
which file and serve a timely written objection and wish to be
heard orally at the Settlement Fairness Hearing, must also mail a
notice of appearance to the Office of the Clerk of the Court,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, at the address set forth above, or
file it in person at any location of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. Any notice of
appearance must also be filed on or before July 2, 2024.
All written objections and supporting papers must also be served to
each of the following Parties' counsel so that they are received on
or before July 2, 2024:
Counsel for Plaintiffs:
Craig W. Smith
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
csmith@robbinsllp.com
David C. Katz
Weiss Law
305 Broadway
7th FloorNew York
NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
dkatz@weisslawllp.com
Counsel for Defendants:
James N. Kramer
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 773-5900
jkramer@orrick.com
Unless the Federal Court orders otherwise, any Current Apple
Shareholder who or which does not make his, her, or its objection
in the manner set forth above will be deemed to have waived and
forfeited his, her, or its right to object to any aspect of the
proposed Settlement; (i) be forever barred and foreclosed from
objecting to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement; and (ii) be deemed to have waived and be forever barred
and foreclosed from being heard, in this or any other proceeding,
with respect to any matters concerning the Settlement; but shall
otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered, and the Releases
to be given by the Settlement.
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Amended
Stipulation available at the "Investor Relations" section of
Apple's website, investor.apple.com. You may also view a copy of
the Amended Stipulation by accessing the Court docket in the
Federal Action, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to
Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the Office of the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Court holidays. If you have questions regarding
the Actions or the Settlement, you may write, call, or email
Federal Plaintiffs' counsel: Craig W. Smith, Robbins LLP, 5060
Shoreham Place, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92122, 619-525-3990,
csmith@robbinsllp.com, or David C. Katz, Weiss Law LLP, 305
Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10007, 212-682-3025,
dkatz@weisslawllp.com.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT.
Dated: May 3, 2024
By Order of the Court
United States District Court Northern District of California,
Oakland Division
1 All capitalized terms herein have the same meanings as set forth
in the Amended Stipulation.
APPLE INC: Seeks Stay of Bodenburg Suit Pending Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BODENBURG, On Behalf
Of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated, v. APPLE INC., Case
No. 3:23-cv-04409-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the
Court, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-11, for an order granting an
interim stay of this litigation pending resolution of Apple's
Motion to Dismiss.
In the alternative, Apple requests that the Court vacate the class
certification briefing and hearing deadlines upon a finding that it
is impracticable for the parties to brief this motion and for the
Court to hear it on the current schedule.
Apple will be severely prejudiced if it is forced to oppose class
certification without the benefit of the necessary evidence and
without the practical ability to obtain it and fully articulate its
legal arguments before the opposition submission is due.
This action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Aug. 25, 2023. The core
allegation in the complaint is that "Apple has failed to deliver
the cloud storage capacity that class members paid for and that
Apple contracted to deliver" to iCloud+ subscribers because "Apple
deliver[s] 5 GB less of cloud storage than what it had promised."
On Nov. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.
Apple filed the Motion to Dismiss the FAC and a renewed request for
judicial notice or incorporation by reference on Nov. 24, 2023. On
Dec. 8, 2023, the Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Dismiss and the
renewed request for judicial notice or incorporation by reference.
Apple filed its reply on Dec. 15, 2023.
The Court held an initial case management conference on Jan. 25,
2024 and entered a scheduling order establishing case deadlines
including for class certification.
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4SXTPR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
William K. Pao, Esq.
Jeffrey E. Gordon, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
wpao@omm.com
jgordon@omm.com
ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Response in De Niro
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAVION DE NIRO,
individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00695-APG-EJY (D.
Nev.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order deferring
briefing in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification so that the Court can decide Arise's Motion to compel
arbitration and to stay proceedings first, and to the extent
Plaintiff's motion is reached by the Court, granting Arise an
extension of time up to 21 days after this Court rules on Arise's
motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings.
On April 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit,
alleging Arise failed to pay her minimum wage under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and required her to pay for her training,
equipment, and other expenses or deductions from her pay.
The same day, on April 10, 2024, the Plaintiff also filed her
Motion for Conditional Certification, seeking to bring these claims
on behalf of a putative FLSA collective.
On May 2, 2024, Arise filed a motion to defer and/or extend time to
file its response to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.
On May 2, 2024, this Court denied without prejudice Arise's motion
to extend time.
On May 7, 2024, the parties conferred by telephone. During the
conferral, the Plaintiff refused to agree to Defendant's request
for an extension and took the position that Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification should instead be deemed unopposed.
Arise provides business process outsourcing and consulting
services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pX9pEW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dora V. Lane, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
5470 Kietzke Lane, Suite 100
Reno, NV 89511-2094
Telephone: (775) 327-3000
Facsimile: (775) 786-6179
E-mail: dlane@hollandhart.com
- and -
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Katy (Yin Yee) Ho, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
kho@omm.com
ASR GROUP: Faces Nineteenseventynine Suit Over Sugar Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
NINETEENSEVENTYNINE LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt and Sublime
Surprise LLC d/b/a Hot Java, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ASR Group International, Inc.,
American Sugar Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar
Producers & Refiners Cooperative f/k/a United Sugars Corporation,
Michigan Sugar Company, Cargill, Inc., Commodity Information, Inc.,
and Richard Wistisen, Case No. 0:24-cv-01525 (D. Minn., Apr. 26,
2024) contends that the Defendants formed an unlawful contract,
combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in
violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
sections 1, 3, to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize Granulated
Sugar prices.
Since at least Jan. 1, 2019, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize prices for Granulated Sugar sold throughout the United
States, the Plaintiffs alleges.
In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Producing Defendants engaged
in price signaling and exchanged competitively sensitive
information about prices, capacity, sales volume, and demand,
including through the Defendant Commodity. These actions were taken
with the intended purpose and effect of increasing the price of
Granulated Sugar throughout the United States.
As a result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy,
Granulated Sugar prices in the United States have been artificially
inflated throughout the "Class Period," i.e., beginning January 1,
2019, to the present, causing the Plaintiffs and other commercial,
industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to suffer
overcharges, says the suit.
Plaintiff Nineteenseventynine is an Arizona limited liability
company, with at least one member who is a citizen of Arizona.
During the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased Granulated Sugar
in California indirectly from one or more Defendants for its own
business use in commercial food preparation.
ASR is a global producer and seller of Granulated Sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
Zachary J. Freese, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com
zachary.freese@zimmreed.com
ATLANTA, GA: Court Certifies Class in Lawson Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREL LAWSON, JAMES
CURTIS, and JAMES TURNER, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated persons, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Case No.
1:18-cv-02484-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steven Grimberg
entered an order:
-- granting the parties' joint motion to certify class,
-- granting final approval of Class Action Consent Decree, and
-- granting Plaintiffs' interim motion for Attorneys' fees, costs
and
litigation expenses.
The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case
until further notice. This administrative closing does not preclude
the filing of documents and, in fact, the filing of documents is
contemplated as set forth herein.
Any party may request that this matter be reopened during the
pendency of the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the terms of
the Consent Decree.
In an exercise of discretion to better facilitate the Court’s
ability to ensure that the Consent Decree is being implemented in a
timely manner, and to better enable Class members and any other
interested members of the public to monitor such implementation,
the Court hereby orders that the Defendant, City of Atlanta,
Georgia, file with the Clerk of Court a complete copy of each of
the periodic reports required by the Consent Decree, so that such
reports can be included
in the Court’s Docket
Upon review of the Plaintiffs' motion and hearing from the parties
at the Fairness Hearing, the court awards attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses in the amount of $627,947.65.
On April 30, 2024, the Court held a hearing to determine whether
the settlement between the Defendant City of Atlanta and the
Plaintiffs in the Consent Decree, is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
Atlanta is the capital and most populous city in the U.S. state of
Georgia, and the seat of Fulton County.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vVohCy at no extra
charge.[CC]
AXIOM ACQUISITION: Meza Seeks Debt Negotiators' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARILEYDI GONZALEZ MEZA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXIOM ACQUISITION VENTURES
MANAGEMENT, LLC, FULL CIRCLE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and THE AXIOM
GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00983 (M.D. Fla.,
April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full time debt
negotiator on or about February 14, 2022.
Axiom Acquisition Ventures Management, LLC is a debt purchasing
company in Florida.
Full Circle Financial Services, LLC is a financial services
provider in the Westchase, Florida.
The Axiom Group Holdings, LLC is a financial services company in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy Longman, II, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN|GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
Email: TLongman@floringray.com
WFlorin@floringray.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 16
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH
NIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a National Banking Association, Case No.
3:21-cv-01799-BAS-DTF (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant
entered an order granting Plaintiff's application to extend time to
file his
Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff must file his motion for class certification on or
before May 16, 2024.
The Court finds Plaintiff's application suitable for determination
on the papers submitted, without oral argument.
The Plaintiff's original deadline to file his Motion for Class
Certification was April 25, 2024. The Plaintiff lodged the instant
application on April 23, 2024. Because Plaintiff's request was made
before the original time to file his Motion had elapsed, the Court
may extend his time to file if good cause presents.
First, Defendant has not identified any prejudice that would result
from the extension. Second, extending the Plaintiff's time to
respond may allow the parties to narrow the scope of Plaintiff's
potential Motion for Class Certification.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vCkNX6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BERRIEN COUNTY, MI: Seeks Denial of Davis Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, SR., CHARASE
DORSEY, ANISHA BIRD, VIRECE BERRY, KARL COTTON, SR., SON OF MAN,
INC., TEMESIA DAVIS, JASMINE MCCOY, DANIELLE WASHINGTON, RAVEN J.
WRIGHT, QUANTILA ROBERTSON, Next Friend for R.R., IESHIA BLACKWELL,
Individually and as Representative of the Estate of CARL COLEMAN,
and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF BERRIEN; ET AL.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00088-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order granting their Motion and denying class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Pursuant to W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.1(d), counsel for Berrien Defendants
contacted Plaintiffs' counsel to seek concurrence with the instant
motion and relief sought. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not concur.
The Defendants include BERRIEN COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY STEVE
PIERANGELI, Individually and in his Official Capacity; ASSISTANT
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MARK SANFORD, Individually and in his Official
Capacity; TAYLOR KOCH, Individually and in her official capacity;
BERRIEN COUNTY SHERIFF L. PAUL BAILEY, Individually and in his
Official Capacities; DETECTIVE JEREMIAH GAUTHIER, Individually, and
in his Official Capacity; DEPUTY SHAWN YECH, Individually and in
his Official Capacity; DEPUTY JACOB WILL, Individually and in his
Official Capacity; DEPUTY JONATHAN BOWMAN; In his Official
Capacity; CITY OF BENTON HARBOR; BENTON HARBOR PUBLIC SAFETY
DIRECTOR, DANIEL E. MCGINNIS JR.; Individually and in his Official
Capacities; BENTON HARBOR HOUSING COMMISSION; CINDY DRAKE-COLLIER,
in her Official Capacity; BENTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP; OFFICER JOHN
VISEL, Individually and in his Official Capacity; LT. DT. MICHAEL
DENDOOVEN, In his Official Capacity; STATE OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN
STATE POLICE; DETECTIVE WILLIAM ASHLEY, Individually and in his
Official Capacities; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES; REBECCA WRIGHT, Individually and in her Official
Capacities; CONTINENTAL MANAGEMENT LLC; REGIONAL MANAGER STEVE
COOK, Individually and in his Official Capacity; KEVIN MACKIN,
Individually and in his Official Capacities; CALEB GRIMES,
Individually and in his Official Capacity; SECRETARY MARCIA L.
FUDGE, In her Official Capacity; DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, and any yet to be discovered liable parties
Berrien is a county in the U.S. state of Michigan. It is located at
the southwest corner of the state's Lower Peninsula, located on the
shore of Lake Michigan and sharing a land border with Indiana.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TAGLcQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John R. Beason, III, Esq.
THE J.R. BEASONFIRM
853 McAlister Street
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
E-mail: Jrbeason3@thejrbeasonfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
G. Gus Morris, Esq.
John T. Gemellaro, Esq.
MCGRAW MORRIS, PC
2075 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 750
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 502-4000
E-mail: gmorris@mcgrawmorris.com
jgemellaro@mcgrawmorris.com
- and -
Richard P. Smith, Esq.
BLAKE KIRCHNER SYMONDS MACFARLANE
1432 Buhl Bldg
535 Griswold Street
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 961-7321
E-mail: rps@blakekirchner.com
- and -
James T. McGovern, Esq.
J. Grant Semonin, Esq.
STRAUB, SEAMAN & ALLEN, P.C.
1014 Main Street, P.O. Box 318
St. Joseph, MI 49085
Telephone: (269) 982-1600
E-mail: jmcgovern@lawssa.com
jsemonin@lawssa.com
- and -
Ellen Bartman Jannette, Esq.
PLUNKETT COONEY
38505 Woodward Ave, Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 594-8221
E-mail: ejannette@plunkettcooney.com
BIEWER LUMBER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Evans Due Jan. 23, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EVANS And other
similarly situated, v. BIEWER LUMBER, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-03094-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge LaKeysha Greer
Isaac entered a class certification scheduling order as follows:
-- Discovery must be completed by: Oct. 9, 2024
-- Daubert motions challenging the Dec. 9, 2024.
Parties' class certification experts
must be filed by:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 23, 2025
certification and memorandum shall
be filed by:
Biewer Lumber provides lumber products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vVZlmQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIJ CONSTRUCTION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernal v. BIJ
Construction, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00850 (M.D. Fla.,
Filed May 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
BIMINI BAY: Faces Wurm Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIMINI BAY OUTFITTERS RETAIL GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-005713 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., April 24, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
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.
Bimini Bay Outfitters Retail Group, LLC is a retail company doing
business in Florida. [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
BLOOM ENERGY: Class Action Settlement in Hunt Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES EVERETT HUNT, et
al., v. BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr.
entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class
action settlement and granting the motion for attorneys' fees.
The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $900,000.00 and
costs in the amount of $85,000.00.
The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
this Final Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated final
judgment of two pages or less within 7 days from the date of this
order.
The Lead Plaintiff James Everett Hunt and Plaintiffs Juan
Rodriguez, Kurt Voutaz, Joel White, Andrew Austin, and Ryan Fishman
purchased shares of the Defendant Bloom Energy Corporation's common
stock either (1) when Bloom went public through an Initial Public
Offering ("IPO") on July 25, 2018; or (2) on the public market
between July 25, 2018, and March 31, 2020.
The Plaintiffs brought this action against Bloom and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as its underwriters and auditors,
regarding alleged misrepresentations and omissions in Bloom's IPO
Registration Statement.
Bloom Energy manufactures and markets solid oxide fuel cells that
produce electricity on-site.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3lN6KT at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Bluegrass
Hospitality Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00610 (E.D. Mo.,
Filed April 29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Welby entered an
order denying without prejudice motion to certify class, to be
refiled after Defendants have been served and the Court has held a
Rule 16 Conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Brown Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAUBRIELLE BROWN, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BLUEGRASS
HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC and BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC
Case No. 4:24-cv-00610-SRW (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
(1) conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); and
(2) authorizing notice of this action to the following
individuals:
"All current and former Tip Credit Employees of the
Defendants
at their Missouri restaurants at any time since April 29,
2021.
(referred to herein as the "potential Opt-In Plaintiffs")."
In addition to this relief, the Plaintiff also specifically
requests that the Court adopt the Plaintiff's proposed notice
procedures and enter an order:
(1) requiring the Defendants to produce a list of the name(s),
last
known mailing address(es), last known e-mail address(es),
and
last known telephone number(s) for each potential Opt-In
Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the Court's order;
(2) approving the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent Form
(Exhibits 1–3);
(3) authorizing Plaintiff's Counsel to distribute the approved
Notice and Consent Form to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs via
U.S.
Mail (along with a prepaid return envelope addressed to the
Plaintiff's Counsel), e-mail, and Short Message Service
(SMS) /
text message; and
(4) requiring Consent Forms to join this action to be postmarked
or
otherwise received by the Plaintiffs' counsel within 90 days
of
the date notices are sent via U.S. Mail, E-mail, and SMS /
text
message.
Bluegrass offers management services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYkSY2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank n, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin n, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
BNP PARIBAS: Pending Bids to Seal Docs Tossed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF et
al., v. BNP PARIBAS S.A., BNP PARIBAS S.A. NEW YORK BRANCH, and BNP
PARIBAS US WHOLESALE HOLDINGS, CORP., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order
granting in part and denying in part as moot the pending motions to
seal.
The parties are ordered to file on the docket within 21 days of
this order public copies of the foregoing materials with redactions
applied consistent with the parties' agreement and this order. The
Clerk shall terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 416. 432, 445,
455, and 468.
At oral argument on Sept. 27, 2023, the Court instructed the
parties to come up with an agreed solution to resolve outstanding
disputes about the parties' pending sealing requests. By letter
dated May 1, 2024, the parties informed the Court that the parties
have reached agreement on all outstanding sealing disputes whereby
the parties have agreed to unseal the materials in question,
subject to narrowly tailored redactions applied to individuals'
names and other personal information and certain transaction
information not at issue in this action.
BNP Paribas is a multinational universal bank and financial
services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8gGhvQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOSTON FINANCE: Chamberlin Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK CHAMBERLIN, by and
through TODD CHAMBERLIN and KELLI CHAMBERLIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BOSTON FINANCE
GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00438-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
to file their Response in Opposition to the Defendant American
Momentum Bank's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs request their deadline be extended to
14 days after the bankruptcy court renders its ruling on the Stay
Motion, assuming the bankruptcy court determines not to stay the
claims against American Momentum Bank.
The case involves a predatory scheme that began in 2009 and
continued at least through 2020 to misappropriate over
$100,000,000.00 of special needs trust ("SNT") assets belonging to
the most vulnerable members of our society, Plaintiffs and putative
Class Members, and held in SNTs administered by The Center for
Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc.
On April 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action
Complaint, adding additional non-debtor Defendants and allegations
regarding American Momentum Bank's role in the misappropriation of
SNT assets and duties to the Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Per the Court's order, the deadline for all other Defendants'
responses to the Amended Class Action Complaint has been extended
to June 10, 2024.
Boston Finance provides funds for borrowers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uK4e1C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
David L. Ferguson, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Caroline Herter, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
ferguson@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
- and –
Thomas H. Leeder, Esq.
Andrew R. Smith, Esq.
LEEDER LAW
8551 West Sunrise Blvd. | Ste. 202
Plantation, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 734-2382
E-mail: pleadings@leederlaw.com
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Strickland Wins Conditional Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM STRICKLAND,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLESTON AREA
MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00676 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Irene Berger entered an order granting Strickland's motion for
conditional certification and issuance of court-authorized notice.
The Court orders that the class be conditionally certified as
defined in the Plaintiff's motion and reply brief.
The Court further orders that the Defendant provide to Counsel for
the Plaintiffs the following information within ten days of entry
of this Order: the names, last-known physical addresses, personal
email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, and
locations/departments worked for the putative collective members in
electronic format.
The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to any unrepresented party
The Plaintiff included declarations of employees in multiple
patient care roles, which all notably referenced understaffing as a
cause of frequent interruptions, and the Court finds the evidence
presented sufficient to include all hourly patient care workers in
the two hospitals at issue.
The Plaintiff defines his proposed FLSA class as follows:
"All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of
Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. ("CAMC") with direct
patient
care duties who suffered unpaid meal periods and worked at
either
CAMC Memorial Hospital and/or CAMC General Hospital at any time
from Nov. 1, 2020, through the present."
The Named Plaintiff, William Strickland, initiated this action with
an Original Collective Action Complaint on Oct. 11, 2023. On Nov.
2, 2023, he filed the First Amended Collective Action Complaint
(Document 5), which is now the operative pleading.
Mr. Strickland was employed by CAMC as a Nursing Assistant. He
brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf
of himself and a putative class of similarly situated patient care
workers.
Mr. Strickland alleges that CAMC failed to pay him, and the
putative class members, for all the hours they worked because they
were not paid for 30-minute meal breaks during which they were
frequently required to perform job duties.
Charleston Area Medical Center is the name of a complex of
hospitals in Charleston, West Virginia, formed via a merger of
previously independent facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mEUvPr at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMMUNITY BANK: Ellsworth Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Bank Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ELLSWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-005807 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April
26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid wages,
including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Ellsworth was employed by the Defendant as a bank branch
employee.
Community Bank, NA is a financial services company doing business
in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Valentine Suit Over Drop of Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VALENTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., KEVIN
S. CRUTCHFIELD, EDWARD C. DOWLING, JR., LORIN CRENSHAW, and JENNY
HOOD, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02165 (D. Kan., April 24, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Compass Minerals's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Compass Minerals
securities at artificially inflated prices between November 29,
2023 and March 22, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose 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; (2) Compass Minerals materially
overstated the extent to which testing had confirmed that its fire
retardants were safe; and (3) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all times.
When the truth emerged, the price of Compass Minerals stock fell $3
per share, or 17.09 percent, to close at $14.55 on March 25, 2024.
The next day, Compass Minerals stock fell a further $0.86 per
share, or 5.91 percent, to close at $13.69.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant economic losses and damages, says the suit.
Compass Minerals International, Inc. is a global provider of
essential minerals based in Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent J. LaPointe, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: blapointe@rosenlegal.com
COMPUTER HAUS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Says Jahagirdar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, ALLEN ALLEN, KAMRI NORRIS, JORDAN BLAIS,
CONNOR JOHNSON RAKIA GREEN, and ANDREW FREE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE COMPUTER HAUS
NC, INC. d/b/a CITYMAC, a North Carolina Corporation, and TROY
CURRAN, and individual, and OCEAN TECH, INC., d/b/a CITYMAC, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00131-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C., Apr. 26, 2024) alleges that
the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay minimum wage.
Plaintiff Jahagirdar is an adult individual who is a resident of
Wilmington, North Carolina, and worked as a non-exempt hourly
employee for Employer Defendants from July 1, 2019, to August 10,
2019.
Computer Haus operates retail stores across the country including
in North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
Nicole K. Haynes, Esq.
John G. Hutchens III, Esq.
GESSNERLAW, PLLC
602 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 234-7442
Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
DOTERRA INT'L: Bingham Bid for Initial Certification Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN BINGHAM, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA
Collective Action, v. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DOTERRA UNITED
STATES, LLC, and DOTERRA, INC.Case No. 2:23-cv-00707-DBB-DBP (D.
Utah), the Hon. Judge David Barlow entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
certification in FLSA collective action.
The court grants conditional certification of the following class
for notice purposes:
Current and former hourly, non-exempt, employees of doTERRA
International, LLC; doTERRA United States, LLC; or doTERRA,
Inc.
at any facility owned or operated by these companies in Utah at
any time from Oct. 6, 2020 to the present who: (1) worked more
than 40 hours in any workweek; and (2) received a non-
discretionary bonus."
Further proceedings to determine the form, content, timing, and
procedures of the notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs
shall be before the Magistrate Judge.
The court denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's request for
discovery and equitable tolling as premature.
Because the statute of limitations is plaintiff-specific, the court
finds that resolution of this issue is improper at this time. While
some employees may have been deceived by the steps taken to conceal
or obfuscate the FLSA violations alleged by Mr. Bingham, others may
not have been.
Doterra provides healthcare products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2vGMSM at no extra
charge.[CC]
EOG RESOURCES: Fails to Properly Pay Consultants, Sabrsula Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD SABRSULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-01520 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an e-frac consultant from
December 2019 to April 2024.
EOG Resources, Inc. is an oil and gas exploration services provider
in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
EQX HOTEL: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Anderson Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQX Hotel Management, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03135 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 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,
Equinox-hotels.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information,
changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling
of form fields and the requirement that transactions be performed
solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
EQX Hotel Management, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [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
ERNEST HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Johnson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER JOHNSON, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ERNEST HEALTH, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00105-H
(N.D. Tex., Apr. 25, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
protected personal information stored within Defendant's
information networks and servers, including protected health
information and personally identifiable information as defined by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms
it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff Johnson and 2
million other similarly situated persons by virtue of an
unauthorized and preventable cyberattack that the Defendant claims
it discovered no later than February 1, 2024, and upon
investigation "determined that an unauthorized party gained access
to our IT network between the dates of Jan. 16, 2024 and Feb. 4,
2024."
On March 29, 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Incident letter.
As a result of Defendant's 2024 notice of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff is concerned about suspicious activity and credit
reporting, has been forced to spend time monitoring personal
financial accounts and credit reports for signs of fraudulent
transactions or activity, and anticipates that she will continue to
have to do so, the lawsuit claims.
As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and
inactions, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered anxiety,
emotional distress, and loss of privacy, and are at an increased
risk of future harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a
real, present and substantially increased risk of fraud and
identity theft and have lost the benefit of the bargain they made
with the Defendant
when receiving services, the lawsuit asserts.
Ms. Johnson is a resident of Sumter, South Carolina who was
employed by the Defendant in 2023.
The Defendant provides medical care for personas recovering from
disabilities caused by injury or illness, or from chronic or
complex medical conditions, at 36 hospitals in Texas, South
Carolina, and a number of other states within the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
Paul D. Stickney, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Dorin Suit Over Decline of Securities Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORINDO DORIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXSCIENTIA P.L.C., ANDREW HOPKINS, BEN R.
TAYLOR, and DAVID NICHOLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05692
(D.N.J., April 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Exscientia's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Exscientia securities
at artificially inflated prices between March 23, 2022, and
February 12, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants 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.
When the truth emerged, Exscientia's stock price fell $1.72 per
share, or 22.9 percent, to close at $5.79 per share on February 13,
2024.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant economic losses and damages, says the suit.
Exscientia PLC is a public limited company with its principal
executive offices located at The Schrodinger Building, Oxford
Science Park, Oxford, United Kingdom. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Properly Pay Package Handlers, Minton Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01224-SAG (D. Md., April 25, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay wages for
all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collections
Law.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a package
handler in Hagerstown, Maryland from September 12, 2017 until the
present.
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a provider of small-package
ground delivery services headquartered in Moon Township,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sally Abrahamson, Esq.
Maureen Salas, Esq.
Doug Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
- and -
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
FULL TRUCK: $10.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 5
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
issued a statement regarding the FTA Securities Settlement:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
In re FULL TRUCK ALLIANCE CO. LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
The Consolidated Action.
Index No. 654232/2021
CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates To:
The Consolidated Action.
Hon. Robert R. Reed
Part 43
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PRATYUSH KOHLI, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
FULL TRUCK ALLIANCE CO. LTD., PETER HUI
ZHANG, SIMON CHONG CAI, SHANSHAN GUO,
GUIZHEN MA, WENJIAN DAI, RICHARD WEIDONG
JI, JENNIFER XINZHE LI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES,
COGENCY GLOBAL, INC., MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES
LIMITED, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES (USA), INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., NOMURA
SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., CHINA
RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG)
LIMITED, AND CLSA LIMITED,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO:
All persons that: (i) purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Full Truck Alliance
Co. Ltd. ("FTA") (NYSE ticker symbol: "YMM") from June 22, 2021
through July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"); or
(ii) purchased or otherwise acquired FTA ADSs pursuant or traceable
to FTA's IPO or IPO registration statements (the "Settlement
Class"):1
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Article 9 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules and an Order of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division (the
"Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "State Action")
is pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives in this State Action, Tomas Eduardo Kohn and
Michael Barber (the "State Plaintiffs"), together with lead
plaintiff Pratyush Kohli and named plaintiff Shivtaj Zirvi (the
"Federal Plaintiffs," together with State Plaintiffs, the
"Plaintiffs") in a related action captioned Pratyush Kohli v. Full
Truck Alliance Co. Ltd., et al., No. 1:21-cv-03903-LDH-MMH
(E.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Action"), have reached a proposed
settlement of both Actions for $10,250,000 in cash on behalf of the
Settlement Class, that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
both Actions.
A Fairness Hearing will be held on September 5, 2024, at 2:30 p.m.
Eastern Time, before the Honorable Robert R. Reed, either in person
at the New York County Courthouse, Part 43, Courtroom 222, 60
Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, or by telephone or
videoconference (at the discretion of the Court). At the hearing,
the Court will determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the State Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of February 27, 2024 (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether, for purposes of the
proposed Settlement only, the State Action should be finally
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Johnson
Fistel, LLP, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation which will
provide compensation to eligible Settlement Class Members in both
Actions should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether
Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses should be approved and whether Plaintiffs
should be granted an award for their service to the Settlement
Class.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Actions and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim,
you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator, FTA Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171,
1-866-688-4905. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator
at www.FTASecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than July 23,
2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Proof of
Claim. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered
by the Court in the State Action.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than August 15, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
State Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and
defendant FTA's counsel such that they are received no later than
August 15, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, FTA, the other
Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions
about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel
or the Claims Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim,
should be made to the below Class Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Brian E. Cochran
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Tel.: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel.: (212) 686-1060
pkim@rosenlegal.com
Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim should be made to:
FTA Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171
1-866-688-4905
www.FTASecuritiesSettlement.com
By Order of the Court
1 Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants in the Actions,
members of their immediate families, and any entity in which any of
the above has a majority ownership interest. Also excluded will be
any Person or entity that timely and validly requests exclusion
from the Settlement Class.
GAOTU TECHEDU: Briefing on Bid to Junk Zhang Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Gaotu Techedu Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 25, 2024, that the briefing to dismiss
Zhang securities class suit is ongoing in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Separately, the Company and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed in federal
court in December 2022, captioned Zhang v. Gaotu Techedu Inc. et
al., No. 1:22-cv-07966 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York).
Plaintiffs purportedly brought the case on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased its ADSs between March 5, 2021 and July 23,
2021, alleged that its public filings contained misstatements and
omissions in violation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on October 16, 2023.
Defendants filed the motion to dismiss on March 22, 2024.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss is ongoing.
GAOTU TECHEDU INC. develops educational software. The Company
offers online K-12 large-class after-school tutoring as well as
foreign language, professional, and other courses. GaotuTechedu
serves students in China. [BN]
GAOTU TECHEDU: Continues to Defend Wu Shareholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gaotu Techedu Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 25, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Wu shareholder class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In April 2020, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer: Wu v. GAOTU Techedu Inc., et al, No.
2:20-cv-04457-ES-CLW (filed on April 17, 2020).
On November 2, 2020, lead and named plaintiffs filed—purportedly
on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of their purchases or acquisitions of its ADSs between June
6, 2019 and October 20, 2020—an amended class action complaint,
which alleges that its company's public filings with the SEC
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of the
federal securities laws.
On February 24, 2023, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.
On April 25, 2023, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.
Briefing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss was complete on August
23, 2023.
The Court has yet to rule on the motion.
GAOTU TECHEDU INC. develops educational software. The Company
offers online K-12 large-class after-school tutoring as well as
foreign language, professional, and other courses. GaotuTechedu
serves students in China. [BN]
GENERAC POWER: Court Narrows Claims in Juliano Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE JULIANO, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAC POWER
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-01329-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Louise Flanagan entered an order:
-- granting the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss, and
-- dismissing the Plaintiff's claim for fraud by omission for
failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Plaintiff's claims for negligence, negligent design defect,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, not addressed by the
instant order, shall proceed forward.
The Court says that the "Plaintiff offers very few facts that
identify when defendant allegedly withheld relevant information,
stating only that the defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission issued a product recall on September 14, 2023."
The Plaintiff filed complaint in this products liability and
putative class action matter Sept. 22, 2023. The Plaintiff seeks
class certification and designation as class representative,
judicial
declaration that defendant is "financially responsible for
notifying the proposed classes [sic] members of the pendency of
this action," damages, individually and for the putative class,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff purchased a generator made by defendant on May 2022,
in order to power equipment located inside an ice cream trailer he
operates.
On October 2022, the generator "abruptly shut off" while in use.
Upon inspection, the plaintiff noticed that the generator's
gasoline tank "had ballooned to over. two times its original size,"
and, in an attempt to prevent rupture or explosion, the plaintiff
tried to release excess pressure by loosening the generator's gas
cap. Gasoline erupted from the fuel tank, dousing the plaintiff and
resulting in rashes, skin irritation, and chemical burns.
Generac, is a manufacturer of backup power generation products for
residential, light commercial and industrial markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cZuWch at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Lafalce Sues Over Driver Behavior Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN LAFALCE, 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.
1:24-cv-01807-SCJ-JSA (N.D. Ga., Apr. 25, 2024) arises from
Defendants' covert collection of consumers' driver behavior data
through computer software installed in automobile vehicles or via
linked application, and the sharing, use, and sale of that data
without consumers' notice, knowledge, or consent.
The suit alleges that the Defendants GM and OnStar install driver
tracking features on numerous GM vehicles. These features are
misleadingly marketed as a user experience enhancement when, in
actuality, the features are used by GM and OnStar to
surreptitiously document and store driver-behavior metrics.
Defendants GM and OnStar sell the recorded driver data to credit
agencies and data aggregation companies, including the Defendants
LexisNexis and Verisk. Defendants LexisNexis and Verisk then sell
consumer drivers' data to companies, including auto insurance
companies who then use the ill-gotten data to increase quotes and
premiums for drivers' automobile insurance, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff continuously maintained his insurance coverage and
was informed in 2024 that he would receive roughly a 10% premium
increase in the coverage for his Chevrolet Equinox.
Accordingly, the rise in Plaintiff's insurance premium was a direct
and proximate result of the Defendants' sale of the Plaintiff's
personal driver behavior data to third parties, including his
automobile insurance company, without Plaintiff's consent, which
constitutes unlawful deceptive acts and trade practices, an
invasion of privacy, and a tortious interference, all of which
served to unjustly enrich the Defendants.
The Defendants' wrongful conduct constitutes a violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (Count I); a violation of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act (Count II); tortious interference with
drivers' relations with their automobile insurers (Count III);
common law invasion of privacy (Count IV); and unjust enrichment
(Count V).
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
CAPLAN COBB LLC
75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 596-5600
Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
bwaddell@caplancobb.com
- and -
M. Brandon Smith, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH LLC
1932 North Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 419-9500
E-mail: bsmith@cssfirm.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Alexander J. Sweatman, Esq.
Christopher P. Dolotosky, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
cdolotosky@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Bryan Aylstock, Esq.
D. Nicole Guntner, Esq.
Reagan Charleston Thomas, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
nguntner@awkolaw.com
rthomas@awkolaw.com
H&M FASHION: Dalton Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE DALTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H&M FASHION USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-01518 (D. Minn., April 26, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
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, www2.hm.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
(a) the website uses visual cues as the only means of conveying
information, making the information unavailable to screen reader
users; (b) the website does not provide sufficient screen
reader-accessible text equivalent for important non-text image(s);
(c) the purpose of certain links and/or buttons on the website is
not described adequately to screen reader users. As a result,
screen reader users cannot understand what the link and/or button
does, making navigation an exercise in trial and error.
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.
H&M Fashion USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey. [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
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
HAVEN DETOX: Monroe Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SL MONROE SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAVEN DETOX, LLC, THE RECOVERY TEAM,
INC., and JOANNE DELLUTRI, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80521 (S.D.
Fla., April 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
unpaid overtime and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, and for race discrimination and retaliation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a behavioral health
technician around November 2021 until his termination in or around
June 2023.
The Haven Detox, LLC is a company that offers medical
detoxification services and mental health care, with its main place
of business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The Recovery Team, Inc. is a private residential drug and alcohol
treatment center operator, with its main place of business in Palm
Beach County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Walls Blye, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF T. WALLS BLYE
66 West Flagler Street, Ste. 900
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (786) 796-1814
Facsimile: (786) 258-8114
Email: attorneyblye@lawyerofjustice.com
HAWKINS NEW YORK: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawkins New York,
LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Hawkins New York, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03166-JSR (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hawkins -- https://www.hawkinsnewyork.com/ -- provides modern home
decor and bedding products.[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
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel John Pautz, Esq.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC (SYRACUSE)
One Lincoln Center
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone: (315) 218-8153
Fax: (315) 218-8100
Email: dpautz@bsk.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: McRee Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists
------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON MCREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00128-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C., April 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay wages for all hours
worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and for
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and its predecessor
Mission Health as a nonexempt, hourly respiratory therapist at
HCA's Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina from
approximately July 2002 to July 2022.
HCA Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare provider, with its principal
place of business at One Park Plaza, Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
Katharine Batchelor, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Email: mlee@milberg.com
jwilliams@milberg.com
kbatchelor@milberg.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
Sarah Sears, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Email: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
HERITAGE MANOR: Bid to Stay Discovery in Bowie Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LA TISHA BOWIE, v.
HERITAGE MANOR WEST, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 5:23-cv-01750-SMH-MLH
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Mark Hornsby entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion to stay discovery.
The Plaintiff is held to her representation that discovery at this
stage will be limited to "documents and information narrowly
tailored to class certification issues." Experience has shown that
some plaintiffs are unable to adhere to such limits and that some
defendants find every excuse to argue that a discovery request is
beyond the permitted scope. The parties are directed to proceed in
good faith and make reasonable efforts to avoid wasteful litigation
about discovery scope issues.
The Plaintiff asserts claims based on Louisiana law related to
alleged understaffing and other shortcomings in the operation of a
skilled nursing facility.
The Defendants report that this is one of 13 related class cases
filed by the same counsel who represents the Plaintiff. The
Defendants in this case responded to the complaint with a motion to
dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The jurisdictional
challenge relates to the application of provisions of the Class
Action Fairness Act and the determination of the citizenship of a
party when a trust is a member. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion asserts
multiple arguments as to why various aspects of Plaintiff's case
should fail on the merits.
Heritage is a health care community offering individuals a place to
recover, rehabilitate and/or reside.
A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4a04Xq
at no extra charge.[CC]
HUT 8 CORP: Faces Jiang Suit Over 23.3% Common Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER JIANG, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant HUT 8
CORP. v. JAMIE LEVERTON, SHENIF VISRAM, JOSEPH FLINN, ASHER GENOOT,
ALEXIA HEFTI, MICHAEL HO, STANLEY O'NEAL, RICK RICKERTSEN, MAYO A.
SHATTUCK III, WILLIAM TAI, and AMY WILKINSON, and HUT 8 CORP., Case
No. 1:24-cv-21591 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 25, 2024) is a verified
shareholder derivative complaint brought against certain current
and former officers and members of the Company's Board of Directors
that seeks to remedy wrongdoing committed by the Individual
Defendants between Nov. 9, 2023, and Jan. 18, 2024.
On Feb. 6, 2023, Hut 8 Mining and U.S. Data Mining Group, Inc.
d/b/a US Bitcoin Corp. ("USBTC") entered into a business
combination agreement under which the companies would combine in an
all-stock merger of equals. The Merger was completed on Nov. 30,
2023.
On Jan. 18, 2024, research firm J Capital Research published a
report which alleged that the Merger was premised on alleged
misstatements and omissions that failed to disclose that: (i) one
of USBTC's largest shareholders was an "undisclosed related party;"
(ii) USBTC's core asset, King Mountain, "historically failed to
provide energy and high-speed internet failed to provide energy and
high-speed internet—unquestionably the two most important inputs
for mining Bitcoin;" and (iii) the Company had failed to account
for certain interest expenses related to King Mountain JV, causing
it to provide misleading profitability.
On the news of the J Capital Report, the price of Hut 8 common
stock dropped 23.3%, or $2.16 per share, to close at $7.12 per
share on January 18, 2024.
The Individual Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they: (i) employed devices, schemes and
artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements of material facts
or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; or (iii) engaged in acts, practices and
a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon
Plaintiff and others similarly situated, the lawsuit asserts.
As a result of the above false and misleading statements, the
Company's share price was artificially inflated. Certain of the
Individual Defendants, while in possession of material, non-public
information, capitalized on the artificially inflated stock price
by selling significant portions of their holdings of HUT 8 common
stock.
Specifically, Defendants Leverton and Visram collectively sold more
than 150,000 shares of their personally-held stock for collective
gross proceeds in excess of $2 million.
As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants'
conduct, Hut 8 has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of
reputation and goodwill, and a "liar's discount" that will plague
the Company's stock in the future due to the Company's actions and
misrepresentations and the Individual Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous shareholder of Hut 8
common stocks.
Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
HYATT CORP: Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Jimenez
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order
amending the pretrial scheduling order.
All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are
relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class
action and shall be completed within 240 days.
All counsel is to designate in writing, file with the Court, and
serve upon all other parties the name, address, and
area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender for
class certification purposes not later than 60 days after
the close of discovery.
The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than 180
days after the close of certification discovery.
All other necessary dates and deadlines will be set by a
Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order to be issued following the
Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion.
Hyatt is a global hospitality company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vFkgr2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
I-HEALTH INC: Obillo Sues Over Culturelle IBS's Deceptive Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALIA OBILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I-HEALTH, INC., and DSM NUTRITIONAL
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02459-PHK (N.D. Cal.,
April 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False
Advertising Law, and for breach of express and implied warranty,
breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation,
and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its product,
Culturelle IBS Complete Support. The Defendants advertised the
product to reduce pain, bloating and other irritable bowel syndrome
(IBS) symptoms. However, the Defendants cannot support this claim
because they did not conduct a clinical trial that met minimum
scientific standards. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the
product or paid premium for it, says the suit.
i-Health, Inc. is a distributor of pre- and pro-biotic products,
with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
DSM Nutritional Product, Inc. is a personal care product company,
with its principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP
3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140
Sacramento, CA 95821
Telephone: (916) 616-2936
Email: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONNWAY & WISE LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
drusso@peifferwolf.com
ILLINOIS: Kucinsky Bid to Certify Class Tossed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES KUCINSKY, v. IDOC,
et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00342-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Reona Daly entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class, motion to appoint Counsel, supplemental motion for
class action certification and appointment of Class Counsel, and
motion to strike.
Here, the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the element of adequacy of
representation because, as a non-lawyer, he cannot represent the
other potential members of the class. Therefore, the motion to
certify class is denied.
Because the Court finds that Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant and
non-lawyer, is not an adequate class representative and because the
requirements for appointment of class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)
and (3) are not satisfied in this case, the Plaintiff's motion for
appointment of class counsel is denied.
Based on the early status of this litigation and the fact that the
Plaintiff has not made sufficient attempts to retain counsel on his
own, the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied without
prejudice.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify this matter as a class action on the
notion that the relief he seeks and the problems he describes are
common to all people currently incarcerated in the IDOC.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0c6QWn at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTER TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frandy De Jesus Espinal Goris, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Inter Trucking Inc., and Robinson
Caba, Case No. 2:24-cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendants the compensation for wages paid at less
than the statutory minimum wage, and compensation for unpaid wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.
Mr. Frandy De Jesus Espinal Goris worked 72 hours per week during
his employment by the Defendants. He had no breaks and did not take
nor was given vacation time. He was paid weekly always in check at
a daily wage of $130 per day, regardless of the exact number of
hours worked in a given week. As a result, the Plaintiff's
effective rates of pay were each below the statutory New York City
minimum wage, the lawsuit contends.
Furthermore, the Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing
to pay overtime compensation to their employees, including the
Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, for hours they worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff also seeks to recover compensation for Defendants'
violations of the "spread of hours" requirements of the NYLL;
liquidated damages pursuant to FLSA and NYLL; and statutory damages
for Defendants' violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Mr. Frandy De Jesus Espinal Goris was employed as a driver at Inter
Trucking Inc. from March 20, 2022, until October 15, 2022.
Inter Trucking operates a trucking service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
IQVIA INC: Fischbein Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, MD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v.
IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting him:
(1) leave to file a reply brief in support of Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification (ECF No. 87) on or before May 24,
2024;
and
(2) an extension of the time to file his response to Defendant's
motion to Exclude Portions of Christopher Lee Howard's
Opinions
to May 24, 2024.
The Plaintiff's counsel has contacted Defendant's counsel about
this motion. The Defendant has responded that it has no opposition
to the relief Plaintiff requests in this motion, with the
understanding that the Plaintiff will have no objection to the
Defendant filing a reply with regard to the motion to exclude if
Defendant seeks leave to do so, and a similar time to do so, and
the Plaintiff has no such objection.
IQVIA provides healthcare research services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 7, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DUvX1M at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (412)716-5800
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and -
Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
SAXTON & STUMP, LLC
280 Granite Run Dr., Ste. 300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Telephone: (717)556-1080
E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com
- and -
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. LaSalle St. Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
J&C AMBULANCE: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kara First, et al., V. J&C
Ambulance Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03296-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Watson entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court rejects Ex. 6 as a viable method for ascertaining class
members and therefore denies without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion
for
class certification. It appears Plaintiffs are attempting to
discover the necessary information via third party subpoenas, and
the Plaintiffs are free to move for class certification if the
identity of proper class members becomes administratively
feasible.
Kara worked as an emergency medical technician ("EMT") for Stark
Summit Ambulance until she injured her back in 2019. Kara filed a
worker's compensation claim and was placed on a light-duty work
restriction, but when AEMS later placed her on unpaid leave, she
obtained leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
While Kara was on FMLA leave, AEMS sold all its assets to J&C.
Although every AEMS employee-including Kara-was terminated upon the
asset purchase, J&C immediately re-hired many employees. It
refused, however, to rehire Kara until her worker's compensation
claim was resolved and she could work without restrictions.
Kara brings multiple, individual claims for violations of the FMLA
and Ohio anti-discrimination statutes based on the above
allegations. But her putative class claim involves a violation of
ERISA, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act ("COBRA").
The Court preliminarily agrees that Plaintiffs' proposed class
definition captures pertinent class members:
"All persons for whom the following are true: (i) who were
enrolled in American EMS, LLC group health, vision, or dental
plans as of Aug. 31, 2020, either as an employee of the company
or
as the dependent of an employee; (ii) who were not hired by J&C
Ambulance, Inc. or allowed to enroll in its group health,
vision,
or dental plans; and (iii) who did not receive timely notice of
their right to elect continued group health, dental, or vision
plan coverage under COBRA."
J&C provides ambulance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M0Wblm at no extra
charge.[CC]
J. PERRY & SONS: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid OT & Fraudulent Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J. PERRY & SONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01777 (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and for
fraudulent filing of information returns in violation of Internal
Revenue Code provision 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a landscaping worker
prior to around November 2023.
J. Perry & Sons, Inc. is a landscaping services provider in
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
JACK IN THE BOX: Products' Recyclable Claims "False," Ozonian Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE OZONIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACK IN THE BOX INC. and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2024-00019555-CU-BT-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., April 25, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of California's Business and
Professions Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' false and/or misleading
representations of their products as "recyclable." In reality, the
products are not actually recyclable in California and even if some
of the products may be recyclable, they are not always the case.
Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth,
they would not have purchased the products or paid premium for
them, says the suit.
Jack In The Box Inc. is an American fast-food restaurant chain
company headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
Karoline D. Kitlowski, Esq.
SULLIVAN & Y AECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
2330 Third Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 702-6760
Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
Email: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
karo1ine@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
JERRY DYER: Puckett Loses Bid for Appointment of Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH PUCKETT, v. JERRY
DYER, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Helena Barch-Kuchta entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion seeking appointment of counsel and an extension of time.
On April 22, 2024, pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of
Time.
Although titled as seeking an extension of time, the Motion does
not identify for what the Plaintiff seeks an extension of time.
Other than requesting an unspecified extension of time, the
Plaintiff does not explain why he requires an extension of time.
To the extent the Plaintiff seeks additional time to respond to the
Court's Nov. 13, 2023, Findings and Recommendation, the motion was
filed more than five months past the deadline to file objections.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPowpO at no extra
charge.[CC]
KDI CHEESE: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Sept. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramirez v. KDI Cheese
Company, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02041 (D. Kan., Filed Feb. 1, 2024),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting consent motion to stay
case.
-- The court finds good cause to temporarily stay this case.
-- All deadlines in the Initial Order Regarding Planning and
Scheduling are vacated, including the May 16 scheduling
conference.
-- The court denies the request to add the caveat that the stay
does
not preclude plaintiff from filing a motion for class
certification and related papers; that aspect of the case is
also
stayed.
-- If plaintiff should wish to file any such papers, plaintiff
must
file a motion to lift the stay for that purpose.
-- The parties are ordered to file a joint status report by Sept.
2,
2024, regarding the status of Defendant KDI Cheese Company,
LLC's
receivership and the anticipated timing and outcome of the
receivership being concluded.
The suit alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment Retraining
Notification (WARN).
KDI is a leader in the manufacturing and marketing of cheese,
butter, and ultra-filtered concentrated milk products.[CC]
KIA MOTORS: Class Cert Hearing in Sanchez Continued to May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yandery Sanchez, et al.,
v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order continuing
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
defendants' motions to exclude expert report and testimony.
In light of the Court's calendar and on the Court’s own motion,
the hearing on these motions is continued to May 31, 2024.
Kia Motors designs, markets, and sells automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EDIqJT at no extra
charge.[CC]
KISCO SENIOR: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Gois Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL GOIS, on behalf of himself and G.G., a minor, and GAYLE GOIS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KISCO SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00751-AGS-AHG (S.D. Cal., April 26, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach on June 6, 2023. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Kisco Senior Living, LLC is a senior living facility operator in
Carlsbad, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Email: mram@forthepeople.com
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 448-1125
Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
KP COMMERCE LLC: Reisman Files TCPA Suit in D. New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KP Commerce LLC. The
case is styled as Eli Reisman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KP Commerce LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00381-JMR-KK (D.N.M., April 22, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
KP Commerce LLC own and operate an E-commerce business with roots
in Florida and Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sidney Childress, Esq.
SID CHILDRESS, LAWYER
PO Box 1146
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Phone: (505) 433-9823
Email: childresslaw@hotmail.com
LA MAISON: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Anderson ADA Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. La Maison Du Chocolat, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03148
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 26, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
https://www.lamaisonduchocolat.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lamaisonduchocolat.com contains access barriers that prevent free
and full use by the Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and
screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include
inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible
contact information, changing of content without advance warning,
unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse, the suit alleges.
Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and
enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of
Lamaisonduchocolat.com, the Plaintiff and the class have suffered
an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual
and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in La
Maison Du Chocolat's policies, practices, and procedures to that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
La Maison specializes in a wide range of chocolate products,
including truffles, pralines, chocolate bars, seasonal collections,
pastries, and gift boxes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
Hicksville, NY 11801
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LAKESIDE FOODS: Leija Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Leija and Leticia Leija v. Lakeside Foods, Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-01506 (D. Minn., Apr. 25, 2024) is a class action seeking
to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to them pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the violations resulted from Lakeside's
practice of withholding moneys from the wages of the Plaintiffs and
the other putative collective action members for housing furnished
in violation of law and at charges that exceeded the reasonable
cost of the Facilities, the lawsuit claims. Relying on the
Defendant's promises of employment and adequate housing facilities
in full compliance with applicable health and safety laws, migrant
farmworkers Jose and Leticia Leija left their home in south Texas
and drove over 1,500 miles to Lakeside's jobsite in Plainview,
Minnesota. However, when they arrived, Lakeside provided the Leijas
with substandard, unpermitted housing, deducted rent from their
wages without proper authorization, failed to pay overtime wages as
required by federal law, and illegally retained their housing
security deposit, despite verbal and written demands to return it,
the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages and compensation; enforcement of
applicable penalties; and other damages as permitted by law,
including pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act, the FLSA, the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, and
the Minnesota Migrant Labor Act.
The Plaintiffs were "migrant workers." They are over 17 years of
age and traveled over 100 miles from their Texas home to perform
seasonal agricultural labor in Minnesota during 2021 and 2022.
Lakeside owns or operates a cannery.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Griselt Andrade, Esq.
Peter Murray, Esq.
Brianna Boone, Esq.
SOUTHERN MINNESOTA REGIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
1015 7th Ave. N.
Moorhead, MN 56560
Telephone: (701) 232-8872
E-mail: griselt.andrade@smrls.org
Peter.Murray@SMRLS.org
brianna.boone@smrls.org
LENDUS LLC: Underpays Loan Processors/Assistants, Greist Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA GREIST and SUSAN SCHELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENDUS, LLC and
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02411
(N.D. Cal., 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 Greist and Schell worked for Defendant LendUs as loan
processors and/or loan assistants from approximately August 2017 to
approximately January 2022 and from approximately January 2019 to
approximately April 2022, respectively.
LendUs, LLC is a financial services company based in Alamo,
California.
CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage services company based in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
OMNUM LAW APC
4350 Executive Drive, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 539-9767
Email: bgaldston@omnumlaw.com
LENOVO INC: Must Produce All Responsive Docs in Axelrod Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD, et al., v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert Illman entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling Defendant to produce
all responsive documents.
The court has reviewed Defendant's arguments in opposition –
namely, that judicial estoppel should preclude the discovery
sought; that the discovery sought "evades the agreement of counsel"
as to the discovery period to which the Parties stipulated; that
the discovery request seeks irrelevant information; and, that the
discovery sought cannot overcome Defendant's assertion of the
mootness of Plaintiffs' pursuit of injunctive relief. The court
finds Defendant's arguments unpersuasive for the reasons
articulated by Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs submit that the Defendant has refused to abide by
the second step of Section 4.3 of the ESI Protocol; that is, while
the Defendant has reportedly provided the Plaintiffs with a list of
41 potential custodians, it has refused to provide any additional
information regarding those custodians such that Plaintiffs can
meaningfully participate in the meet and confer process of
narrowing the 41-person list of persons likely to be in possession
of such information to a final list of five records custodians.
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Court's order dated May , 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ps8UAV at no extra
charge.[CC]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: $15.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORP. STOCKHOLDERS Consolidated LITIGATION
C.A. No. 2021-1066-LWW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND
RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All record and beneficial holders of DiamondPeak Holdings Corp.
("DiamondPeak") Class A common stock as of the effective time (the
"Effective Time") of the merger with Lordstown EV Corporation
(f/k/a Lordstown Motors Corp.) on October 23, 2020 (the "Settlement
Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized
terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in
this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Notice or in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
Compromise, and Release dated March 4, 2024 (the "Stipulation"),
which is also available at
www.LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com.
Please read this SUMMARY notice carefully. your rights will be
affected by a class action lawsuit pending in this court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, the above-captioned consolidated
stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Co-Lead Plaintiffs Atri Amin and
Benjamin Hebert (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and the other members of the Settlement Class; and (ii)
Defendants David Hamamoto, Mark Walsh, Andrew Richardson, Steven
Hash, and Judith Hannaway (collectively, "Defendants") (Plaintiffs
and Defendants, together, the "Parties") have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action (the "Settlement") for $15,500,000 (United
States Dollars) in cash. The terms of the Settlement are stated in
the Stipulation. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 25, 2024,
at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor,
at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle
County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801, to, among other things: (i) determine whether
to finally certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and
23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class, and
whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class and Plaintiffs' Co--Lead
Counsel should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs
and the other members of the Settlement Class and in their best
interests; (iv) determine whether the proposed Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with
prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation
should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and
should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what
amount any award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation
Expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel ("Fee and Expense Award") should be
paid out of the Settlement Fund, including any incentive awards to
Plaintiffs ("Incentive Awards") to be paid solely from any Fee and
Expense Award; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including any
Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs; and (viii) consider any other
matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection
with the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding
remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the Settlement website,
www.LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at Lordstown Motors
Stockholders Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box
91095, Seattle, WA 98111; by telephone at 855-208-4125; or by email
at info@LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the
Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of shares of DiamondPeak Class A
common stock held as of the Effective Time of the Merger on October
23, 2020 ("Eligible Shares") and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for
the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total
amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible
Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further
detail in the Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit
a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application, including Plaintiffs' application for Incentive
Awards, must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs'
Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than June 10, 2024, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Lordstown Motors Stockholders Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91095
Seattle, WA 98111
Telephone: 855-208-4125
Email: info@LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com
Settlement website: www.LordstownMotorsStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel:
Jeroen van Kwawegen
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 800--380--8496
Email: settlements@blbglaw.com
Gustavo F. Bruckner
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 646-581-9941
Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
OF CHANCERY OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Hill Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARGRET HILL and TRENITA WILSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03484
(C.D. Cal., April 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant City of Los
Angeles and retired in June 2022.
City of Los Angeles is a political subdivision of the State of
California located within the state. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
David D. Deason, Esq.
DEASON & ARCHBOLD
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone: (949) 794-9560
Email: Matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
David@yourlaborlawyers.com
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Scott Appeals Cert. Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ATTICA SCOTT, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit entitled ATTICA SCOTT, et al., v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON
COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00535-BJB-CHL, in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky at Louisville.
This case involves allegations of unconstitutional conduct by
officers with the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) during
the protests and civil unrest of 2020 in Louisville, Kentucky. More
specifically, the Plaintiffs allege violations of their free speech
rights under the First Amendment, excessive force in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, state law battery, and state law assault
claims. Among other relief, the Plaintiffs seek (1) to permanently
enjoin Defendants from use of crowd control weaponry on peaceful
protestors; (2) the promulgation of official policies restricting
crowd control weaponry; (3) monetary damages to Plaintiffs for
their loss of rights and physical and emotional injuries; (4)
punitive damages; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs
seek to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) "for the
sole purpose of obtaining an injunction to prevent LMPD from using
such indiscriminate force on peaceful protestors in the future."
The lawsuit -- filed in July 2020 and amended in September 2020 --
demands three main forms of relief (in addition to attorney's fees,
costs, punitive damages, and other ancillary remedies):
-- Money damages for the Plaintiffs' own past injuries suffered
from exposure to crowd-control weapons;
-- Forward-looking injunctive and declaratory relief to avert
the additional harm they might suffer if they were to protest again
and face similar crowd-control weapons; and
-- Similar prospective injunctive relief on behalf of a class of
"all individuals who were present and peaceful at any protest
within the City of Louisville between May 28, 2020 and July 30,
2020 during which LMPD officers utilized tear gas, flash bangs,
pepper balls, and/or long-range acoustic devices and who were
actually exposed to Crowd Control Weaponry at those protests."
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 11, 2023, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order certifying the class
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
On March 31, 2024, Judge Benjamin Beaton entered an Order denying
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Judge Beaton notes that based
on the record and briefing currently before the Court, however, a
class-wide injunction would not meaningfully redress an active
controversy threatening actual or imminent injury. Therefore
certifying a class to consider such a broad, anticipatory
injunction would represent an unjustified exercise of this Court's
jurisdiction and remedial authority. So the Court denies
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), says the
ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Attica Scott, et al.,
Case No. 24-0501, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, filed on April 16, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners ATTICA SCOTT, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by:
Corey M. Shapiro, Esq.
ACLU OF KENTUCKY
325 W. Main Street, Suite 2210
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 581-9746
Defendants-Respondents LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY METRO
GOVERNMENT, et al., are represented by:
Katherine Kilkeary Yunker, Esq.
MCBRAYER PLLC
201 E. Main Street, Suite 900
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 231-8780
LUV N' CARE: Court Enters Order on Class Certification in Richards
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE RICHARDS, v. LUV N'
CARE LTD, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00956-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order regarding motions for
class certification as follows:
-- Joint Brief
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party’s/parties' response.
-- Meet and Confer
In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a
timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later
than 35 days before the deadline for class certification
motions
set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order.
-- Supplemental Memorandum
After the joint brief is filed, each party may file a
supplemental
memorandum of points and authorities no later than 14 days
prior
to the hearing date.
Luv n' Care manufactures baby products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zktypY at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARK CUBAN: Settlements in Karnas Class Suit Get Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominik Karnas, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Mark
Cuban, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of the Settlements;
(2) granting preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement
Class;
(3) appointing Class Representatives as Rule 23(c) class
representatives;
(4) appointing Adam Moskowitz of the Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC
and
David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as Co-Lead Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g);
(5) approving the proposed Notice Plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P.
23(e) and set a schedule for approving the form and
disseminating notice to Class Members, as well as deadlines
to
comment on or object to the Settlements; and
(6) scheduling a hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) to
determine whether the proposed Settlements are fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and should be finally approved.
The Settlement Class is:
"All persons or entities in the United States who, from Oct.
23,
2019 to the date of preliminary approval, purchased or enrolled
in
an EPA or VGX Tokens."
Excluded from the Class are the Settling Defendants and their
officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and
employees, the Voyager Defendants and their officers,
directors,
affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, any
governmental
entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding
over
this matter and the members of their immediate families and
judicial staff.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JZBm53 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
Continental Plaza
3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
service@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Brooke A. Alexander, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
balexander@bsfllp.com
MATTEL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Anderson Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mattel, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03154 (E.D.N.Y., Apr.
26, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website
https://www.americangirl.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to analyze and use services
provided by the Defendant on Americangirl.com. He was looking for a
gift for his daughter and decided upon an entertaining toy. Trying
to make a purchase of American Girl Pet Spa & Daycare, he
encountered difficulty in navigating the website due to its
inaccessibility, making it impossible to complete the purchase for
the same reason, the suit alleges.
Accordingly, Americangirl.com contains access barriers including
ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning,
unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible contact information, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Mattel's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Mattel specializes in different types of dolls, and related
accessories including doll furniture, clothing, playsets, and
books.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
Hicksville, NY 11801
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MCG HEALTH: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re MCG Health Data Security
Issue Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.
-- Preliminary Class Findings:
The Court preliminarily finds, for the purposes of settlement
only, that this action meets all prerequisites of Rule 23 of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-- Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class:
The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
following
Settlement Class:
"All United States residents whose personally identifiable
information (PII) and/or protected health information (PHI) was
accessed or acquired during the MCG data security incident that
MCG discovered on or about March 25, 2022."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Court and all
members
of the Court's staff, and persons who timely and validly
request
exclusion from the Settlement Class.
-- Appointment of Class Representatives:
The Plaintiffs are designated and appointed as the Settlement
Class Representatives pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=78IoOl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101-3147
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon Grille, Esq.
Jessica Cook, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
jcook@girardsharp.com
MDL No. 2295: Mather TCPA Suit Remanded to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
In case, " In re: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation," Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issues a remand order for case captioned "Mather v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:16−2924
(S.D. Fla.) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California to the Southern District ofc Florida. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC moved to vacate this order while no party
responded to the motion.
The panel initially centralized actions in this litigation arising
out of allegations that Portfolio violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing debt collection calls to
debtors' cellular telephones using an automated system, without the
debtors' consent. In July 2023, the transferee court granted
Portfolio's summary judgment motion regarding the common TCPA
claims in the litigation. The court later suggested remand of the
pending actions.
After considering the argument of counsel, the panel found that
remand of Mather is now appropriate. In opposing remand, Portfolio
argues that the action has been dismissed in the transferee court.
That document is an order granting defendant Capital One's motion
for voluntary dismissal with prejudice the claims in Mather against
Capital One, with plaintiff's agreement. The order states, "The
Mather action shall not be remanded to the transferor court, and
this Court shall retain the original files and records unless the
transferee judge or the Panel directs otherwise." But Mather also
asserts claims against Portfolio under the TCPA and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). While the transferee court
granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's TCPA claim, his FDCPA
claim appears to still be pending. The transferee court has
determined that remand of Mather is appropriate and, despite
Portfolio's argument to the contrary, it appears to contain a
pending claim.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 Remand Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2295-Remand_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL No. 2591: Corn Variant Commercialization Dispute Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation, "In re: Syngenta AG MIR162
Corn Litigation," Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers "Niekamp, et
al. v. Watts Guerra, LLP, et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−02289 (N.D.
Ohio) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge John W. Lungstrum
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Five
defendants moved to transfer said case while plaintiffs oppose the
motion.
This action involves allegations regarding Syngenta's decision to
commercialize the MIR162 genetically modified corn trait in the
absence of Chinese approval to import corn with that trait.
Moreover, transfer is warranted as this action concerns work
performed by attorneys in the multidistrict litigation against
Syngenta and will require interpretation of various orders of the
transferee court and the MDL settlement agreement.
Defendants argue that despite their largely conclusory argument
that Niekamp is not a collateral attack on the MDL settlement or
the fee award decisions in the Syngenta MDL, Niekamp appears to aim
squarely at both, in addition to further misconduct plaintiffs
allege arose in the MDL. Because the MDL attorney fee awards and
the conduct of MDL counsel are at the factual core of the Niekamp
complaint, transfer is the most efficient path forward to resolving
Niekamp, as it allows the transferee court the opportunity to rule
on the effect of his prior orders in the MDL.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 Transfer Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2591-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL No. 2843: Facebook Data Privacy Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In case "In Re: Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile
Litigation," Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers two cases in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
one from the Middle District of Georgia to the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
Judge Vince Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Plaintiffs moved to vacate this order while defendant
Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), opposed said motion.
These actions involve common questions of fact arising from
allegations that Cambridge Analytica and other defendants and third
parties exploited Meta's platform to obtain user data, and that
Meta should have imposed more robust controls on the use of data by
third party applications to prevent this conduct. Plaintiffs allege
that Facebook shared or otherwise made accessible to third parties
user data and data about users' friends without permission, and did
not sufficiently monitor and enforce third-party access or use of
that data. They argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over
their actions is lacking, and their pending motions for remand to
state court should be decided before transfer. The panel, however
has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not
present an impediment to transfer.
Plaintiffs argue that vacatur will be more convenient for them, but
the panel looked to the overall convenience of the parties and
witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in
isolation.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2843-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL No. 2924: Ranitidine Product Liability Row Consolidated to FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the MDL "In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability
Litigation, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers case captioned
"Contreras v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:24−00019
(N.D. Cal.) to the Southern District of Florida and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Contreras
moved to vacate the order while defendants Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, GlaxoSmithKline
Holdings (Americas) Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Pfizer Inc.
oppose the motion to vacate.
Said litigation involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2924; allegations that ranitidine, the
active molecule in "Zantac" and similar heartburn medications, can
form the carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during
storage or when metabolized in the human body.
Plaintiff argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over his
case is lacking and that his pending motion for remand to state
court should be decided before transfer, also transfer will delay
the resolution of his remand motion. However, the panel has held
that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer and that transfer of an action is
appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action
might experience inconvenience.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MORLEY COMPANIES: Cocagne Sues Over CSR's Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
JODI COCAGNE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MORLEY COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, a Domestic Profit
Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-11114-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich., Apr. 26,
2024) contends that the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages
pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit alleges that the Defendant does not compensate their
Customer Service Representatives (CSRs), like the Plaintiff, for
all work performed. Instead, the Defendant required their CSRs to
perform compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled
shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not
logged into the Defendant's timekeeping system. The Defendant also
fails to compensate their CSRs, for example the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated employees, for pre- and mid-shift, off-the-clock
work attributed to technical problems with the computers, networks,
programs/applications, and/or phones they used daily, the suit
adds.
Because the Defendant requires its CSRs to perform pre- mid- and
post-shift work off-the-clock, the hours tracked in the Defendant's
timekeeping system are inaccurate representations of the total
amount of time CSRs spend working for Defendant. Thus, the hours
reflected on the CSRs' paystubs are also inaccurate representations
of the hours they worked, the Plaintiff asserts.
Plaintiff Jodi Cocagne is a resident and citizen of Michigan, and
was employed by the Defendant as an hourly CSR from January 2022
through June 26, 2023.
Morley is a marketing company specializing in business process
outsourcing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: africh@forthepeople.com
NXT IPA: Fails to Pay Physician Associate's Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TONI LEE, an individual and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees, v.
NXT IPA, INC., a California corporation, SONNY YOO, an individual,
JISAN LEE, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV10572 (Cal. Super., Apr. 26, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime compensations.
The Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff as an exempt employee
when in reality, the Plaintiff was non-exempt. In fact, the
Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants. As a
result of the Defendants' misclassification, the Defendants
committed a litany of Labor Code violations against the Plaintiff,
including to minimum wage violations, meal and rest break
violations, and overtime violations, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a $48,000.00 per year salary,
despite the fact that this rate of pay is well below the minimum
salary to be paid to employees in order to be considered exempt
from the Labor Code.
On Sept. 22, 2023, the Defendants gave Plaintiff a small raise.
Again, the Plaintiff's rate of pay, even with the raise she
received, was well below the minimum salary the Plaintiff must
receive to be considered an exempt employee.
The Defendants generally scheduled the Plaintiff to work 35 or more
hours per week. However, the Defendants frequently required the
Plaintiff to answer work-related phone calls and emails, outside of
her scheduled working hours and sometimes as late as 9:00 at night,
the suit alleges.
Because the Plaintiff was not paid hourly, the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiff a minimum wage for all hours of work performed
for the Defendants. Additionally, on some occasions, the Plaintiff
worked over eight hours in one day, or over 40 hours in one week,
and the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff an overtime rate of
pay for those hours, the suit says.
On Sept. 1, 2022, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff as an
independent physician associate.
Nxt Ipa provides healthcare services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
ONNIT LABS: Supplement's Brain Health Claims "False," Lotz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN PAUL LOTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONNIT LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-03098-KMK (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of New
York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its memory
supplement or brain health supplement called Alpha BRAIN. According
to the complaint, the Defendant advertised the product to support
memory, focus and processing speed. However, these claims are false
and deceptive because even its own flawed clinical study revealed
that Alpha BRAIN does not improve memory, focus and mental
processing speed. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the
product.
Onnit Labs, Inc. is a health and wellness company headquartered in
Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Steven R. Schoenfeld, Esq.
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
jcarton@denleacarton.com
- and -
Philip M. Smith, Esq.
KRAVIT SMITH LLP
75 South Broadway, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (646) 493-8004
Email: psmith@kravitsmithllp.com
ONPROCESS TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Injunction Ruling in Starling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AT&T SERVICES, INC. filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum & Order dated March 25, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit entitled KIMBERLY STARLING, Plaintiff v. ONPROCESS
TECHNOLOGY, INC., and AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10949-JEK, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Kimberly Starling seeks to
represent a class of individuals who, like her, received
unsolicited and prerecorded calls from Defendant OnProcess
Technology, Inc., acting on behalf of Defendant AT&T Services,
Inc., about accounts that did not belong to them. The Plaintiff
asserts that these calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which "generally prohibits robocalls to cell phones and home
phones."
In September 2023, this Court denied OnProcess' motion to compel
arbitration, concluding that Starling was not bound by any
arbitration agreement with AT&T. Plaintiff Starling subsequently
filed an amended complaint that named AT&T as a Defendant.
AT&T has now moved to stay this action pending arbitration pursuant
to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act. AT&T advances a new
theory not argued in OnProcess' motion to compel arbitration: that
under equitable estoppel principles, Starling should be bound by an
arbitration agreement between AT&T and her sister, Kelly Pinn,
associated with Pinn's internet services account with AT&T. In the
alternative, AT&T contends that even if Starling is not subject to
the arbitration provision, the Court should exercise its discretion
to stay this action because the findings of the arbitrator may
affect this case.
On March 25, 2024, District Judge Julia E. Kobick entered a
Memorandum and Order denying AT&T's motion to stay and granting
Plaintiff Starling's motion for a preliminary injunction. AT&T is
hereby ENJOINED from pursuing arbitration against Plaintiff
Starling based on the arbitration clause set forth the Consumer
Service Agreement between AT&T and Pinn that became effective
December 1, 2022, or Section 13 of the Terms of Service Agreement
between AT&T and Pinn that became effective October 18, 2019.
Plaintiff Starling's motion for a temporary restraining order is
DENIED as moot and Starling's request that the Court impose
sanctions on AT&T is DENIED, says the ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Starling v. AT&T Services, Inc.,
Case No. 24-1341, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on April 16, 2024.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant AT&T SERVICES, INC. is represented by:
Daniel J. Cloherty, Esq.
Victoria L. Steinberg, Esq.
CLOHERTY & STEINBERG LLP
1 Financial Center, Ste 1120
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 481-0160
- and -
Ava J. Conger, Esq.
Jeffrey H. Fisher, Esq.
John P. Jett, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1100 Peachtree St NE, Ste 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-0000
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Layoffs Workers Without Notice, Maravilla Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADELA MARAVILLA, OSCAR CORREA, KAMRYN NIEMINSKI, and CIERRA BROWN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. OUTFOX HOSPITALITY LLC, FOXTROT VENTURES, INC., and
DOMS MARKET, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03366 (N.D. Ill.,
April 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' action to terminate their
employees, including the Plaintiffs, without cause, as part of, or
as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoff or plant closing on
April 23, 2024. The Plaintiffs and the Class were not provided 60
days advance written notice of their terminations, as required by
the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees
seek to recover up to 60 days wages and benefits.
Outfox Hospitality, LLC is a hospitality company, with its main
office located in Chicago, Illinois.
Foxtrot Ventures, Inc. is a provider of web and mobile application,
with its main office located in Chicago, Illinois.
Doms Market LLC is a supermarket operator, with its main office
located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 3
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually,
and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL
BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
similarly situated; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties request that the Court
vacate the following dates and deadlines:
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification
currently set for June 3, 2024.
-- Defendant's Deadline to File its Opposition to Plaintiffs' MCC
set
for July 22, 2024.
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File Their Reply to Defendant's
Opposition
to Plaintiffs' MCC set for Aug. 26, 2024.
-- The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
currently set to be heard on Sept. 26, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
-- Pretrial Conference currently set for Oct. 22, 2024.
-- Jury Trial currently set for Nov. 18, 2024.
On Sept. 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior
Court
of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled Brandon
Gay, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. Pacific Steel Group, an
unknown business entity; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants,
Case No. RG20075009.
On Nov. 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint
adding Israel Berber as a named Plaintiff in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda.
On Dec. 1, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court; On
Dec. 1, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff Gay's
Complaint.
On Dec. 29, 2024, the Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs'
First
Amended Complaint.
A copy of the Parties motion dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKPk7b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
Melissa Rinehart, Esq.
Joanna Burstedt, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: jacob@calljustice.com
m.rinehart@calljustice.com
j.burstedt@calljustice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lindsay Christine David, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 238-1900
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
E-mail: lindsay.david@procopio.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Dates in Berber
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL BERBER,
individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant
to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. PACIFIC STEEL
GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
request that the Court vacate the following dates and deadlines:
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification
currently set for June 3, 2024.
-- Defendant's Deadline to File its Opposition to Plaintiffs' MCC
set
for July 22, 2024.
-- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File Their Reply to Defendant's
Opposition
to Plaintiffs' MCC set for Aug. 26, 2024.
-- The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
currently set to be heard on Sept. 26, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.
-- Pretrial Conference currently set for Oct. 22, 2024.
-- Jury Trial currently set for Nov. 18, 2024.
On Sept. 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, entitled
Brandon Gay, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. Pacific Steel
Group, an unknown business entity; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG20075009.
On Nov. 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint
adding Israel Berber as a named Plaintiff in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda.
On Dec. 1, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court; On
Dec. 1, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff Gay's
Complaint.
On Dec. 29, 2024, the Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mua7kj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
Melissa Rinehart, Esq.
Joanna Burstedt, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: jacob@calljustice.com
m.rinehart@calljustice.com
j.burstedt@calljustice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lindsay Christine David, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 238-1900
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
E-mail: lindsay.david@procopio.com
PENNEY OPCO: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Amended to July 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELLE ARGUELLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Leshner entered an amended
scheduling order
regulating discovery and class certification motion filing
deadline
Event Current Date New Date
Deadline for Substantial May 28, 2024 NO CHANGE
Completion of Production
of Documents
Deadline to Raise Discovery N/A June 7,
2024
Disputes
Deadline to File Motion for June 27, 2024 July 26,
2024
Class Certification
Status Conference Aug. 21, 2024, Sept. 18,
2024,
at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00
a.m.
Penney is an American department store chain that operates 663
stores across 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o2rbYI at no extra
charge.[CC]
PENSKE TRUCK: Bid to Dismiss Cabral Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO CABRAL,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. PENSKE
TRUCK LEASING CO LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-01316-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Karoline Mehalchick will deny Penske's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, or in alternative,
a motion to strike filed by Penske.
Mr. Cabral alleges Penske violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") by leaving him and others a prerecorded
voicecall without consent. The operative amended complaint was
filed on Nov. 7, 2023.
On or around Aug. 17, 2021, Mr. Cabral alleges he received an
unsolicited prerecorded voicecall from Penske.
On Nov. 21, 2023, Penske filed the instant motion as well as a
brief in support.
Oral argument on Penske's motion was held on April 10, 2024.
Penske argues that Mr. Cabral lacks standing to bring this action,
asserting that Mr. Cabral has not alleged an injury beyond a mere
violation of the TCPA. Mr. Cabral disagrees and avers that Third
Circuit caselaw supports his contention that he has standing to
bring this action.
Mr. Cabral alleges "Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded calls
caused Plaintiff and the Class members actual harm, including
invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members." This allegation is sufficient to
meet his burden of establishing standing.
Penske offers full-service truck leasing and contract maintenance.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5KHEOI at no extra
charge.[CC]
PETRO-LUD INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 17, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEO HUNTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETRO-LUD, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00181-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered
a class certification scheduling order as follows:
-- Fact Discovery: Nov. 6, 2024
-- Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Sept. 25,
2024
-- Expert Disclosures: Nov. 20, 2024
-- Rebuttal Disclosures: Dec. 4, 2024
-- Expert Discovery: Jan. 3, 2025
-- Class Certification Motion Deadlines:
Filing: Jan. 17, 2025
Opposition: Feb. 7, 2025
Reply: Feb. 21, 2025
Hearing: Mar. 12, 2025
Petro-lud is a private exploration & production company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OaotjG at no extra
charge.[CC]
PFIZER INC: $50MM EpiPen Class Settlement to be Heard on June 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and Roberts Law Firm US, PC Announce A $50
Million Class Action Settlement with Pfizer on Behalf of Direct
Purchasers of EpiPen(R) or Generic EpiPen
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and Roberts Law Firm US, PC:
COURT-ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
If you purchased EpiPen(R) or generic EpiPen directly from the
manufacturer, you may receive a payment from a $50 million class
action settlement with Pfizer.
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Mylan N.V.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02065-DDC-TJJ (District of Kansas)
This is not a recall, safety, or other similar notice. No one is
claiming that EpiPen is unsafe or ineffective.
For more information and to file a claim, visit
www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
A proposed settlement ("Settlement") has been reached in a class
action lawsuit with Pfizer, Inc., Meridian Medical Technologies,
Inc., and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n/k/a King Pharmaceuticals
LLC) (together, "Pfizer"). Under the settlement, Pfizer agreed to
pay $50,000,000 into a settlement fund for the Direct Purchaser
Settlement Class ("Settlement Fund"). The lawsuit alleges that
Defendants Mylan, N.V., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mylan
Specialty, LP (together, "Mylan"), and Pfizer entered into an
illegal market allocation agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc. that substantially delayed the launch of generic EpiPen and
unlawfully extended Pfizer's and Mylan's monopoly over the
epinephrine autoinjector market. The settlement does not resolve
claims against Mylan, and the lawsuit against Mylan will continue
until it is resolved. The Court has not decided who is right.
WHO IS INCLUDED?
People or entities who purchased EpiPen(R) or generic EpiPen
directly from Mylan or Teva, for resale, at any time during the
period from March 13, 2014, until the date on which the Court
entered the Preliminary Approval Order, April 3, 2024.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, predecessors, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and all federal governmental entities.
HOW CAN YOU GET A PAYMENT?
If you are a member of the Class, you must submit a claim form
online at www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com or by mail to get paid. This
is the only way to receive a payment.
You may have received a claim form. If not, a claim form is
available at www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com. See the claim form for
instructions on how to submit a claim. If the Court approves the
Settlement, claims will be paid after any appeals are resolved.
The deadline to postmark or submit your claim online at
www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com or by email to
info@EpiPenDPPSettlement.com is July 24, 2024.
YOUR OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
OBJECT
You may write to the Court about why you do not like the
Settlement, the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses and costs, and service awards, and/or the plan of
allocation. If you object to the Settlement, you are still a member
of the Class and you must file a claim to receive a payment.
Objections must be filed with the Court and received by the parties
on or before May 28, 2024.
OPT OUT
You may write to the Settlement Administrator and exclude yourself
from the Class. Exclusion allows you to file your own lawsuit. If
you exclude yourself, you will not receive any payment and will not
be bound by the releases contained in the Settlement. The exclusion
deadline is May 28, 2024.
DO NOTHING
If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment. You will still
be a Class member, and therefore you will be bound by the releases
contained in the Settlement and will not be able to file or
continue to pursue your own lawsuit.
The Court scheduled a final approval hearing for June 25, 2024, at
9:00 a.m. Central Time to consider whether the settlement and plan
of allocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as any
objections to the settlement, the plan of allocation, and any
request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and costs,
and service awards. You do not need to attend, but you or your
attorney can do so at your own expense.
For more information about the Settlement and your options, please
visit www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com or call 1-866-778-6568.
PHARMERICA PS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON THAO, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. PHARMERICA PS, LLC dba
PHARMERICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; RES-CARE, INC. dba BRIGHTSPRING AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM
HEALTH SERVICES, a Kentucky corporation; PHARMERICA CORPORATION;
PHARMERICA, INC., an entity of unknown form; RX RELIEF dba RX
RELIEF, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-00085-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sheila Oberto entered an order setting the following
deadlines in accordance with the parties' report:
1. Mandatory initial disclosures must be exchanged by May 7,
2024.
2. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the
pleadings must be filed by no later than May 28, 2024.
3. Non-expert, fact discovery related to class certification
shall
be completed by no later than April 30, 2025.
4. Expert discovered related to class certification shall be
completed by no later than July 18, 2025.
5. The motion for class certification shall be filed by no later
than Aug. 15, 2025.
6. Any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be
filed by no later than Aug. 29, 2025.
7. Any reply brief in support of the motion for class
certification
shall be filed by no later than Sept. 8, 2025.
8. The motion for class certification shall be heard on Oct. 22,
2025, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable
Sheila
K. Oberto, United States Magistrate Judge, subject to being
taken under submission pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule
230(g).
9. A status conference to set further scheduling dates is set
for
March 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate
Judge Oberto. Telephonic appearances are approved; all
parties
appearing telephonically shall call (888) 557-8511, access
code
6208204# at the date and time for the conference. By no later
than Feb. 25, 2026, the parties shall file and email to
skoorders@caed.uscourts.gov in MS Word format a report
providing
(a) dates agreed to by all counsel for all remaining
deadlines
and (b) an updated status of the case.
On April 23, 2024, the Court held a scheduling conference where the
parties discussed their Joint Rule 26(f) Report.
PharMerica is the long-term care pharmacy.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9kdA1G at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
E-mail: Emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
r.shkodnik@d.law
PHX MINERALS: Schilling Sues Over Bylaws' Noncompliance to DGCL
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SCHILLING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAD L. STEPHENS, MARK T. BEHRMAN,
GLEN A. BROWN, LEE M. CANAAN, PETER B. DELANEY, STEVEN L.
PACKEBUSH, JOHN H. PINKERTON, and PHX MINERALS INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2024-0433 (Del. Ch., April 24, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for declaratory relief and breach of
fiduciary duty.
The Plaintiff brings this action to force reformation of the
Amended and Restated Bylaws of PHX Minerals Inc. consistent with
the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Defendants rejected the
demand of the Plaintiff to amend the Bylaws so that it will comply
with Section 228 of DGCL. Through the rejection, the Director
Defendants chose to instead commit to maintain the offensive
provision in violation of their fiduciary duties to the company and
its stockholders, says the Plaintiff.
PHX Minerals Inc. is a natural gas and oil mineral company, with
its principal executive office in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
Pleasantville, NY 10570
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newton Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
PORSCHE CARS: Faces Kohanof Class Suit Over Transfer Case Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMAN KOHANOF, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-03414-ODW-AJR (C.D. Cal., Apr. 25, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a
nationwide class of current and former purchasers or lessees of
2011 through 2018 Porsche Cayenne and Macan vehicles.
According to the complaint, the Class Vehicle contained a defect in
design, material, manufacturing or workmanship which results in the
transfer case failing. The Defect poses a safety risk to the driver
and passenger(s) of the Class Vehicles and is unreasonably
dangerous. Not only did the Defendant actively conceal the fact
that particular components within the Class Vehicles are defective,
but they did not reveal that the existence of this defect would
diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the Vehicles due to
safety concerns. The Defendant knew about the Defect yet,
notwithstanding its longstanding knowledge of this defect, the
Defendant has routinely refused to repair or replace the transfer
case, the suit contends.
In June 2015, the Plaintiff ordered for purchase a new 2016 Porsche
Cayenne for personal, family and/or household uses. His vehicle
bears the Vehicle Identification Number: WP1AA2A21GLA11447. The
Vehicle was delivered in the second half of 2015 or early 2016.
In late 2023, with less than 60,000 miles on the Vehicle's
odometer, the Vehicle began to exhibit kicking, jerking, bouncing,
clicking, and other transfer case-related issues.
In January 2024, the Plaintiff reached out to the Defendant to
demand that the repair be done under warranty. The Defendant
refused. The Plaintiff requested to speak with a supervisor. The
Defendant's customer service representative stated they escalated
the Plaintiff's call to a supervisor and that the Plaintiff should
expect a call back. Months passed and no one ever called Plaintiff
back.
As a result of the safety issues associated with the Defect,
including incorrect torque being applied to the driven wheels or
oil leaking and contacting the tires, the Plaintiff stopped using
his Vehicle.
The Defendant was engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle
components throughout the United State of America, including in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leon Ozeran, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF LEON OZERAN
8200 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 461-3730
E-mail: ozeranlaw@gmail.com
PROPAK LOGISTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE ROBERTS, v. PROPAK
LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00008-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 26, 2025
no later than:
-- All expert discovery shall be completed Dec. 19, 2025
no later than:
-- Any motion for class certification March 21, 2025
shall be filed no later than:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 21, 2025
certification shall be noticed for
hearing before Judge Calabretta on:
-- The Defendant's opposition shall be May 16, 2025
filed no later than:
Propak is a proactive provider of logistics, transportation and
supply chain management solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lK0yWi at no extra
charge.[CC]
QUANTUM METRIC: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Doty Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JALLEH DOTY and JEFFREY OGDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUANTUM METRIC, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-01154 (D. Colo., Apr. 25, 2024) sues the Defendant for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to CVS's
website, cvs.com, pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy
Act and Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Act.
According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are embedded in the
computer code on the Website, are used by the Defendant to secretly
observe and record website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and
other electronic communications, including Personally Identifiable
Information, such as users' prescription and over-the-counter
medications, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members did not provide their prior
consent to QM's intentional access, interception, reading,
learning, recording, and collection of their electronic
communications, the suit says.
In May 2023, Plaintiff Doty visited the Website. During the visit,
the Defendant allegedly recorded Plaintiff Doty's electronic
communications in real time, including Plaintiff Doty's mouse
clicks, keystrokes, and prescription medications.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
Class of all persons whose electronic communications were
intercepted through the use of Defendant's wiretap on the
Website.
The Defendant provides a software-as-a-service ("SaaS") platform of
the same name. The platform provides many features such as data
analytics, AI analysis, and session replay.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
RAHAL BIOSCIENCES: Petros Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMI PETROS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAHAL BIOSCIENCES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03182 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Protection Statues
and New York's General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of ARMRA Colostrum
dietary supplements. The Defendant advertised its products as
"research-backed" to "strengthen immunity," "ignite metabolism,"
"fortify gut health," "restore sleep," "improve mood, focus &
energy," "support sinus health," "enhance skin radiance," "activate
hair growth," and "fuel performance & recovery." In reality, the
Defendant relied on deeply flawed studies in making those
statements. As a result of its deceptive conduct, the Defendant is,
and continues to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of its
customers, says the suit.
Rahal Biosciences, Inc. is a manufacturer of dietary products, with
its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
RELIANT LIFE: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Deadlines Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES REED et al., v.
RELIANT LIFE SHARES LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08577-SB-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order
denying stipulation to continue class certification deadlines.
Accordingly, the parties' noncompliant stipulation is denied
because the facts identified by the parties suggest that Mathews's
medical emergencies might constitute good cause for a continuance
if the parties have been appropriately diligent and if his
testimony is essential to the class certification motion, the
denial is without prejudice to the parties' filing of a renewed
stipulation that complies with the Court's requirements.
On April 29, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to continue by
three weeks the briefing deadlines and hearing on Plaintiffs'
anticipated motion for class certification. The stipulation is
based on the unavailability of UMB Bank's vice president Scott
Mathews, whose deposition has been repeatedly rescheduled due to
medical issues. The stipulation does not explain why Mathews's
deposition testimony is necessary for determining whether a class
should be certified, nor does it provide a basis for concluding
that his medical
situation, which has already resulted in the rescheduling of
multiple depositions and is described as "fluid," will permit the
most recently scheduled deposition to proceed on May 23. Moreover,
the stipulation does not comply with the Court's requirements for
requesting a continuance.
The case management order repeatedly cautioned the parties that
failure to comply with these requirements "will result in the
denial of the request with prejudice."
Reliant is a financial services company that focuses on life
settlements, investment returns, escrow and trust services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xqmcUl at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 3, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRISELDA JAUREGUI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett entered an order granting the Joint Stipulation to continue
motion for class certification deadlines as follows:
1. The Motion for Class Certification Deadlines for this case
are
scheduled as follows:
Motion for Class Certification Deadline is set for April 3,
2025;
Opposition to Motion for Class Certification Deadline is set
for
May 6, 2025;
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification
Deadline
is set for June 3, 2025; and
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Deadline is set for
June 18, 2025.
On May 03, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue
Motion for Class Certification Deadlines.
Roadrunner is a less-than-truckload (LTL) with operations primarily
in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YKe4nY at no extra
charge.[CC]
RTX CORP: Court Appoints Northeast Pension as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Peneycad, v. RTX
Corporation et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01035-JAM (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Richardson entered an order:
-- Appointing the Northeast Pension Funds group as lead plaintiff
and
its choice of Saxena White, P.A.; and
-- Approving Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as lead counsel.
he Plaintiffs allege that the RTX Corporation and certain
individual executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The violations alleged in the class complaint arose from the
discovery that several Pratt & Whitney PW1000G Geared Turbofan
airplane engines were produced with metal containing microscopic
contaminants.
RTX is an "aerospace and defense company that provides systems and
services for commercial, military, and government customers."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZdZAaG at no extra
charge.[CC]
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Tully Seeks Unpaid OT for Utility Operators
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TULLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00494-PP (E.D. Wis., April 24, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a utility operator from
April 2022 until April 22, 2024.
Rust-Oleum Corporation is a products manufacturer, with its
principal office located in Vernon Hills, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
RX2GO INC: Court Refers Class Cert Bid to Mag. Judge Kuo in Shkolir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shkolir, et al., v. RX2GO,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07256 (E.D.N.C., Filed Sept. 28,
2023), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an order referring
the motion for class certification and motions for premotion
conferences and any resulting motions, to Magistrate Judge Peggy
Kuo.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
RX2GO INC: Court Refers Class Cert Bid to Mag. Judge Kuo in
Shkolir.[CC]
RX2GO INC: Court Refers Shkolir Class Cert Bid to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shkolir, et al., v. RX2GO,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07256 (E.D.N.C., Filed Sept. 28,
2023), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an order referring
the motion for class certification and motions for premotion
conferences and any resulting motions, to Magistrate Judge Peggy
Kuo.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
RYZE CLAIM: Berry Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MAGDALENE BERRY, and NATASHA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. RYZE CLAIM SOLUTIONS LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00085-RWS (N.D.
Ga., Apr. 26, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
owed to the Plaintiffs and on behalf of all other similarly
situated class members, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours within a work week without the payment
of any overtime compensation. Plaintiff Berry worked remotely from
her home. She was compensated by the Defendant on a piece-rate
basis, being paid $385 per claim closed, for the duration of her
work. She ended her contractual relationship with the Defendant in
Nov. 2023.
The Claims Adjuster's primary function was to evaluate insurance
claims and seek to resolve them by agreement. To avoid its
obligations under the FLSA, the Defendant willfully misclassified
Plaintiffs and numerous other Claims Adjusters as independent
contractors. As a result of this misclassification, no effort was
made to compensate Plaintiff Berry, Plaintiff Williams or all other
Claims Adjusters for hours worked over 40 in any work week, the
suit alleges.
Plaintiffs Berry and Williams and the class of similarly situated
contractor claims adjusters did not perform work that meets the
definition of any exemption under the FLSA, the suit adds.
Ryze is a national and privately held claims services firm which
provides residential and commercial property adjusting services
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff Berry was hired as a "Claims Adjuster" by Ryze
beginning in July of 2023 under an "independent contractor
agreement."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
12610 Race Track Road, Ste. 225
Tampa, FL 33626
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Order on Discovery Issues Entered in R.P. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.P., v. CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00522-LJC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order regarding discovery
issues and service of Doe defendants.
The parties in these two related cases have raised a number of
discovery issues in their Case Management Statements and at the
case management conference on April 30, 2024. The Court addresses
some of those issues as follows, as well as the deadline for
service of process in the R.P. case. The Court further notes that,
contrary to an assertion by counsel at the April 30 conference,
discovery is now open in both cases.
Any discovery disputes not resolved by this Order may be raised in
a manner consistent with this Court’s Standing Order.
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike remain under
submission and will be addressed in subsequent order(s).
The Plaintiffs in both cases seek police records concerning the
circumstances of their arrests. Such documents are routinely
produced in civil rights cases challenging police action. The
Defendants object on the basis that such records are protected
under state law because the plaintiffs are minors, and state law
procedures are available for the Plaintiffs to petition for their
disclosure.
Accordingly, and without waiting for a specific request for
documents, the parties are ordered to meet and confer as to whether
Defendants object to a Court order allowing discovery of police
records without any restriction based on the privacy interests of
the named Plaintiffs seeking such records.
The Defendants stand by their objection to disclosure, the parties
shall file a discovery letter brief consistent with this Court's
Standing Order no later than May 10, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=axZZgt at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Order on Discovery Issues Entered in J.T. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., et al., v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order regarding
discovery issues and service of Doe defendants.
The parties in these two related cases have raised a number of
discovery issues in their Case Management Statements and at the
case management conference on April 30, 2024. The Court addresses
some of those issues as follows, as well as the deadline for
service of process in the R.P. case. The Court further notes that,
contrary to an assertion by counsel at the April 30 conference,
discovery is now open in both cases.
Any discovery disputes not resolved by this Order may be raised in
a manner consistent with this Court’s Standing Order.
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike remain under
submission and will be addressed in subsequent order(s).
The Plaintiffs in both cases seek police records concerning the
circumstances of their arrests. Such documents are routinely
produced in civil rights cases challenging police action. The
Defendants object on the basis that such records are protected
under state law because the plaintiffs are minors, and state law
procedures are available for the Plaintiffs to petition for their
disclosure.
Accordingly, and without waiting for a specific request for
documents, the parties are ordered to meet and confer as to whether
Defendants object to a Court order allowing discovery of police
records without any restriction based on the privacy interests of
the named Plaintiffs seeking such records.
The Defendants stand by their objection to disclosure, the parties
shall file a discovery letter brief consistent with this Court's
Standing Order no later than May 10, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q0RViw at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAS INSTITUTE: Conspires to Fix Hotel Room Prices, Dai Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HANSON DAI, MAX CHISWICK, ADOLPH ROBLES, STEVEN STACK, MATTHEW
GILBERT, MICHAEL MOLINARO, TONY QIAN, and MARK LESTER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAS
INSTITUTE, INC., IDEAS, INC., CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC,
WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC.,
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS US, INC., OMNI HOTELS & RESORTS,
INC., and HYATT HOTEL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-02537 (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants agreed, conspired,
and/or combined to fix, raise, and stabilize hotel room rental
prices nationally and in the relevant sub-markets in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants fixed prices through a
shared pricing algorithm that they developed and through other
means of communication, interactions, and signals to and with their
co-conspirators. By sending their sensitive confidential pricing
and occupancy information to a third party to process, analyze, and
develop supra-competitive prices, the Defendants are able to
achieve their goal. Consumers have been harmed as a result, paying
higher prices for hotel rooms, and losing important sources of
competition, says the suit.
SAS Institute, Inc. is a software developer headquartered in North
Carolina.
IDeaS, Inc. is a subsidiary of SAS Institute, headquartered in
Bloomington, Minnesota.
Choice Hotels International, Inc. is a hospitality company
headquartered in North Bethesda, Maryland.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a hotel company headquartered in
Parsippany, New Jersey.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. is a multinational hospitality
company headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts US, Inc. is a hospitality company
headquartered in Delaware.
Omni Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a hospitality company headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.
Hyatt Hotel Corporation is a multinational hospitality company
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Email: dmogin@moginrubin.com
tlacomb@moginrubin.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Christopher K. L. Young, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
SEAWORLD PARKS: Parties in Ward Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00838 (M.D. Fla., May
3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing
the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for
class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in
their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
SIMSMETAL EAST: Faces Medina Suit Over Noise, Light & Odor Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIONEL MEDINA, EKATERINA VOROBEVA, KARISTA VAETH and JENNIFER
SCULLION, on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated
v. SIMSMETAL EAST LLC, SIMS MUNICIPAL RECYCLING NJ, LLC, SIMS GROUP
USA HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No. HUD-L-001589-24 (N.J. Super.,
Apr. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendants have negligently,
unreasonably, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, willfully and
grossly failed to properly construct, operate, repair and/or
maintain the Sims Facility, thereby causing significant intrusion
upon the property and lives of the Plaintiffs and the Class
Members, by excessive noise, excessive light, noxious and obnoxious
odors, dust and particulate matter, smoke and other residue of
fires both large and small, and explosions.
The Sims Facility constantly produces exceedingly loud noise and
continually emits noxious odors (which the Plaintiffs routinely
hear and smell); so as to continue work during overnight hours, the
Sims Facility turns on blindingly bright lights (which light pours
into Plaintiffs' homes, and, in tandem with the loud noises and
noxious odors frequently emanating from the facility, interferes
with Plaintiffs' sleep); it routinely discharges and/or allows to
be discharged literally tons of fine particulate matter and dust
(which may contain a mixture of toxic contaminants, and routinely
blows toward and into Plaintiffs' homes); and perhaps worst of all,
it has a troubling and lengthy history of massive fires and
explosions (which send smoke and shockwaves into the Plaintiffs'
homes), the Plaintiffs assert.
As a consequence, the Plaintiffs, Class Members and other Jersey
City residents have regularly complained about the Sims Facility to
prosecutors, police and even the public at large.
For instance, between 2021 and 2023, Jersey City police visited the
Sims Facility dozens of times on various complaints - including on
more than a dozen occasions to respond specifically to either fires
or noise issues.
The Plaintiffs and the Class Members they represent are all
residents of Port Liberte community, a multi-home Jersey City
development that sits slightly more than 1,000 feet from the
Defendants' recycling facility.
Simsmetal East is a scrap metal yard.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William C. Matsikoudis, Esq.
Derek S. Fanciullo, Esq.
Aspen-Jade C. Tucker, Esq.
MATSIKOUDIS & FANCIULLO, LLC
128 Monticello Avenue, STR 1
Jersey City, NJ 07304
Telephone: (201) 915-0407
- and -
Justin A. Meyers, Esq.
G. Martin Meyers, Esq.
Susan S. Singer, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF G. MARTIN MEYERS, P.C.
35 West Main Street, STE 106
Denville, NJ 07834
Telephone: (973) 625-0838
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Wilkes Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TODD C. WILKES and MOLLY WILKES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHSTATE BANK, NA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-4392-BHH-MHC (N.D. Ga., April 24, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence
per se, unjust enrichment, breach of bailment, invasion of
privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, declaratory and injunctive
relief, breach of implied contract, and violations of Georgia
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach in early February 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
SouthState Bank, NA is a regional bank in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4729 Roswell Road, Suite 208
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Charles Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 261-7711
Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com
SPERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Employees, Cattaneo Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER CATTANEO and BAYLA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC and TRUECOVERAGE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80524 (S.D.
Fla., April 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Smith and Cattaneo worked for the Defendants as hourly
plus commission paid employees in July 2023 and September 2023,
respectively.
Speridian Technologies, LLC is a business consulting company, with
its office located in Palm Beach County, Florida.
TrueCoverage LLC is an insurance company, with its office located
in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian L. Lerner, Esq.
KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP
312 SE 17th Street, Suite 300
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 527-1115
Facsimile: (954) 527-1116
Email: blerner@kvllaw.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Hamdard Suit Over Discriminatory Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmad Shoaib Hamdard, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00943-DLR (D. Ariz., Apr. 25, 2024)
challenges a discriminatory policy by Swift Transportation under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Arizona Civil Rights
Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
As a precondition of employment, Swift requires drivers to have
held state-issued U.S. driver's licenses for a period of at least
12 months regardless of how long they had a commercial driver's
license, regardless of their actual level of driving experience or
driving record, and without taking into account any licensure to
drive by a foreign state. This policy does not consider a driver's
actual level of driving experience or any other qualification for
employment, says the suit.
The Plaintiff sought employment with Swift as a driver. But his
application for employment at Swift was denied solely because at
the time he applied the Plaintiff had held an Oregon driver's
license for 10 months rather than the 12 required by Swift's
written policy. In denying the Plaintiff employment, Swift
knowingly failed to consider Plaintiff's foreign driving
experience.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was qualified for the position of a
driver at Swift, including because: (a) he had completed training
for a CDL at 160 Driving Academy; (b) he had in fact been issued a
CDL; (c) he had more than three years of driving experience; (d) he
had no record of denial, suspension, or revocation of a driver's
license whether in the United States or Afghanistan; (e) he had no
criminal record; and (f) he had been involved in no accidents or
incidents with a vehicle in the prior five years.
The Plaintiff seeks, individually and on behalf of all of those
similarly situated: a declaration finding Swift's discriminatory
policy unlawful; an injunction requiring Swift to cease enforcing
the discriminatory policy; an award of back pay and benefits; and
instatement to positions as applicants for priority consideration
for positions as drivers at Swift or, alternatively, an order for
front pay and benefits.
Mr. Hamdard is a legal resident of the United States, who is a
citizen of Afghanistan and of Afghan national origin. He resides in
Oregon.
The Defendant is a freight transportation company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: colin@bartondownes.com
- and -
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 208
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com
TALASCEND SL: Faces Ramsey Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TALASCEND SL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-11109-PDB-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 25, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Ramsey worked for the Defendant off and on as a lead quality
control inspector since approximately January 2020.
Talascend SL, LLC is a staffing services provider for oil and gas
industry, headquartered in Troy, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
TC HEARTLAND: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 28, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PRESCOTT, RICHARD
TILKER, SAMUEL GARCIA, and ROCHELLE WILSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case
No. 5:23-cv-04192-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts
entered an order modifying case schedule:
Event Continued Date
Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Feb. 28, 2025
Motion for Class Certification
and Disclose Expert Reports ISO
Class Certification:
Deadline for TC Heartland to File May 2, 2025
Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification, File Daubert Motions
in Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification, and Disclose Rebuttal
Reports in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Experts:
Class Certification and Daubert Hearing: Sept. 4, 2025
Cutoff for Fact Discovery: Oct. 7, 2025
Deadline to Conduct Mediation: Oct. 7, 2025
Cutoff for Expert Discovery: Nov. 11, 2025
Dispositive Motion/Daubert Hearing Jan. 22, 2026
Deadline:
Pretrial Conference: April 28, 2026
Trial: May 11, 2026
TC Heartland provides packaged food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fPDjlr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Ryan Ardi, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
Kelly M. Morrison, Esq.
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: asmith@jenner.com
kmorrison@jenner.com
dpanos@jenner.com
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Webb Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRADY M. MURPHY, MARK E. BALDWIN, THOMAS R. BATES, JR.,
CHRISTIAN A. GARCIA, JOHN F. GLICK, ANGELA D. JOHN, SHARON B.
MCGEE, SHAWN D. WILLIAMS, GINA A. LUNA, TETRA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2024-0445 (Del.
Ch., Apr. 25, 2024) is a verified stockholder class action
complaint for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of
TETRA's board of directors.
On Feb. 28, 2023, the Board adopted an expansive Section 382 Tax
Benefits Preservation Plan (the "NOL Pill") purportedly to preserve
the Company's NOLs. The NOL Pill has a three-year duration and is
set to expire under its own terms on Feb. 28, 2026.
In soliciting advisory stockholder approval of the NOL Pill at the
annual meeting of stockholders held on May 24, 2023, through a
proxy statement filed with the SEC on April 11, 2023, the Board
claimed that the expansive terms of the NOL Pill were necessary to
preserve the Company's tax attributes. In actuality, the voting AAU
features go far beyond what is necessary to protect the Company's
NOLs, the Plaintiff contends.
The NOL Pill approved by the Board is an unreasonable response to
any perceived threat to NOL carryforwards, since it sweeps far more
broadly than necessary to preserve the Company's tax attributes.
Instead, the NOL Pill's 4.99% ownership threshold, together with
its voting AAU features, works to stifle corporate democracy and
fails Unocal. The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff and the Class by prioritizing their own
personal, financial, and/or reputational interests and approving
the NOL Pill, which they used to entrench themselves by thwarting
any realistic threat of stockholder activism through the AAU
feature in the definition of "Beneficial Owner," the suit adds.
As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class have been and will
continue to be harmed, including because the NOL Pill inequitably
chills, and potentially even precludes the fair exercise of the
TETRA stockholders' franchise, says the suit.
Kenneth Webb is a TETRA stockholder and has held TETRA stock.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
Edward Timlin, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
Pleasantville, NY 10570
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (888) 715-1740
TOP GOLF: Court Enters Order on Class Certification in Molina
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN J. TRANCHEZ MOLINA,
v. TOP GOLF USA INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08636-FMO-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order:
-- Joint Brief
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party’s/parties' response.
-- Meet and Confer
In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a
timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later
than 35 days before the deadline for class certification
motions
set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order.
-- Supplemental Memorandum
After the joint brief is filed, each party may file a
supplemental
memorandum of points and authorities no later than 14 days
prior
to the hearing date.
Top Golf operates as an amusement and recreation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q5VQT0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TORRID LLC: Jillson Sues Over Alleged Falsified Reference Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL JILLSON and CARMEN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. TORRID LLC, a California limited
liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-03404-JLS-E (C.D. Cal., Apr.
25, 2024) sues the Defendant for its misleading and unlawful
pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website
www.torrid.com.
The products at issue are all goods that have at any time been
offered on the website, at a sale or discounted price from a higher
reference price. The products consist almost entirely (if not
entirely) of Torrid's in-house branded clothing under the Torrid,
Torrid Curve, CURV, and Lovesick brand names.
The Defendant advertises false, misleading, and inflated comparison
reference prices to deceive customers into a belief that the sale
price is a discounted bargain price. Anyone visiting the website
who buys an item on "sale" from a stricken former or regular price
is being misled. So too is anyone who buys an item on sale using an
automatically or manually applied coupon code. This is because that
item has not been listed for sale or sold on the website, in the
recent past and for a substantial time, at the former price. 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 and sold on the website, at the former and regular
price, in the recent past, for a substantial period of time, the
Plaintiffs say.
Beyond that, the Defendant's products sold on the website not only
have a market value lower than the promised former price, but the
market value of the products is also lower than the discounted
"sale" price. As a result, consumers are deceived into spending
money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing items they
would not have purchased, and/or spending more money for an item
than they otherwise would have absent deceptive marketing, the suit
added.
Plaintiff Jillson is a resident of the State of California and
County of Los Angeles. She was present in Los Angeles County at the
time she made her purchases from the website.
The Defendant is an online and brick-and-mortar retailer of women's
clothing, shoes, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (872) 365-7060
E-mail: awolf@milberg.com
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Certification Scheduling Order Modified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota of Dallas,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey
entered an order granting the Parties' Second Joint Motion to
Modify Class Certification Scheduling Order in all respects and
modifying the Class Certification Scheduling Order as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion for Class 90 days after ruling on
Certification motion for protective order
Defendant's Designation of 120 days after ruling on
Expert Witnesses motion for protective order
Plaintiff's Designation of 150 days after ruling on
Rebuttal Experts motion for protective order
Close of Class Certification 180 days after ruling on
Discovery motion for protective order
Defendant's Service of its 194 days after ruling on
Response to Plaintiff's motion for protective order
Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff's Service of his 210 days after ruling on
Reply to Defendant' Response motion for protective order
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification
Submission Date 240 days after ruling on
motion for protective order
Toyota of Dallas provides a wide selection of new & used Toyota
cars, trucks, and SUVs, including auto service center.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mbsRDk at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED SECURITY: Discolo Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS DISCOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-03161 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to timely pay wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to handle, move,
transport, and secure, inmates, prisoners, and similar persons for
about 10 years ending in or around March 2023.
United Security, Inc. is a security and protective services
provider based in Staten Island, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: (718) 740-1000
Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com
UNITED STATES: Mathis Suit Seeks to Certify People with Disability
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as W. MATHIS and K. DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01312-TNM
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
this case as a class action, with the following class definition:
"All people with a disability who are on or will be on parole
or
supervised release in the District of Columbia under the
Commission's and CSOSA's supervision, and who need
accommodations
in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or
supervised release."
The Plaintiffs' proposed class likewise satisfies the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because the Defendants,
the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency ("CSOSA"), are "acting or refusing] to
act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole."
Finally, the Plaintiffs' counsel is highly experienced in handling
class actions and other complex litigation involving people on
supervision and disability-discrimination claims, and should
therefore be appointed as counsel for the class.
United States Parole is the parole board responsible for granting
or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of,
incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xuUPZP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Allison Frankel, Esq.
Ashika Verriest, Esq.
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Michael Perloff, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (617) 650-7741
E-mail: afrankel@aclu.org
averriest@aclu.org
smichelman@acludc.org
mperloff@acludc.org
- and -
Hanna M. Perry, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 3rd Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 579-0633
E-mail: hperry@pdsdc.org
- and -
Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
Peter E. Davis, Esq.
Christine C. Smith, Esq.
Jordan L. Hughes, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
E-mail: samir.deger-sen@lw.com
peter.davis@lw.com
christine.smith@lw.com
jordan.hughes@lw.com
UNITED TOWING: Shanklin Seeks Tow Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SHANKLIN, MICHAEL CRAWFORD, DWAYNE MCWILLIAMS and LONNIE
NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED TOWING INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-11097-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich., April 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Shanklin, Crawford, McWilliams, and Norman worked for
the Defendant as tow truck drivers from October 2022 through May
2023, June 2022 through April 2023, October 2021 through August
2023, and August 2022 through August 2023, respectively.
United Towing Inc. is towing service company based in Dearborn,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce A. Miller, Esq.
Keith D. Flynn, Esq.
Kathleen R. Kosman, Esq.
MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335
Detroit, MI 48202
Telephone: (313) 964-4454
Facsimile: (313) 964-4490
Email: kflynn@millercohen.com
kkosman@millercohen.com
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Modification of Schedule Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling
order entered on Feb. 29, 2024 as follows:
Event Current Proposed New
Adjustment
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Class Expert June 7, 2024 July 12, 2024 35
days
Report(s)
USC's Deposition(s) of June 12-21, July 17-26, 35
days
Plaintiffs' Class Expert(s) 2024 2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sept. 25, 2024 Nov. 8, 2024 41
days
Class Certification
USC's Response to Oct. 25, 2024 Dec. 9, 2024 42
days
Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Nov. 8, 2024 Dec. 23, 2024 42
days
Support of Motion for
Class Certification
Court Hearing and Oral Nov. 25, 2024 Jan. 9, 2025 45
days
Argument on Motion for
Class Certification
The Plaintiffs allege that since 2008, USC submitted doctored data
to U.S. News & World Report to obtain an inflated ranking for the
USC Rossier School of Education, and then, working with 2U, Inc.,
used that ranking to deceptively advertise its online graduate
degree programs.
The Plaintiffs filed Favell I in Los Angeles County in December
2022 against USC and 2U, and the matter was removed on February 3,
2024, and assigned to Judge Garnett.
The Plaintiffs filed Favell I in Los Angeles County in December
2022 against USC and 2U, and the matter was removed on February 3,
2024, and assigned to Judge Garnett.
The Defendant is a private institution that was founded in 1880.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34OQOM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
Anna Haac, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
Spencer S. Hughes, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 919-5852
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ksimplicio@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
shughes@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael L. Mallow
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: mmallow@shb.com
VMSB LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition in Volpe
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC VOLPE, ENZO FERRER,
AND VINCENZO MATINO, each individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. VMSB LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 1:23-cv-23888-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting leave and deeming the Response
filed as of April 30, 2024, or, alternatively, requiring VMSB to
re-file the Response, and award such other relief the Court deems
proper.
Prior to midnight on April 29, counsel for VMSB timely served the
Response to Plaintiffs' counsel via email while informing counsel
that CM/ECF was down.
Early morning on April 30, undersigned counsel's paralegal
contacted the filing clerk and called support from CM/ECF and was
informed that a Notice of Filing indicating the technical failure
of the CM/ECF system should be filing with the Court prior to
filing the Response. VMSB promptly filed a Notice setting forth the
circumstances of the inability to file the night prior along with a
copy of the timely service e-mail to Plaintiffs' counsel and the
Response
A week later -- on May 6, 2024 -- counsel for Plaintiffs contacted
VMSB's counsel representing that both the April 30 Notice of Filing
nor the Response were untimely and therefore not in compliance with
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1, and the April 29 email attaching the Response
did not constitute proper service because only the CM/ECF filing
constituted service.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HWY7YN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 665-9211
E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew B. Zelmanowitz, Esq.
Nikki Branch, Esq.
BERGER SINGERMAN, LLP
201 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-9900
Facsimile: (954) 523-2872
E-mail: azelman@bergersingerman.com
nbranch@bergersingerman.com
DRT@bergersingerman.com
VOLTA INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Chau
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY CHAU, et al., v.
VOLTA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-07247-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting motion for summary
judgment and denying as moot motion for class certification.
The Court does not reach the remainder of Volta's arguments for
summary judgment. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
denied as moot, in light of the grant of summary judgment in
Volta's favor on all claims.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Volta, Inc.
and Volta Charging Industries, LLC and close the case.
Accordingly, the terminations at issue did not constitute a mass
layoff as defined by the WARN Act, and Volta's motion for summary
judgment on the WARN Act claim is granted.
The Plaintiffs fail to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to the
existence of a "mass layoff" under the Cal-WARN Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Volta, Inc.
and Volta Charging Industries, LLC for violations of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and the
California WARN Act ("Cal-WARN Act"), arising out of reductions in
Volta's workforce in September and October 2022.
Volta provides EV charging solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hj31EH at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALGREEN CO: Bargetto Seeks to Seal Documents
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA BARGETTO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case
No. 3:22-cv-02639-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting Plaintiff's administrative motion to
consider whether certain portions of the following materials filed
in connection with the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class
Certification should be sealed:
Ex. No. Document Portion(s) to Basis for
Seal Sealing
N/A Plaintiff's Highlighted Contains
Reply in portions on reference/analysis
of
Support of page 5. material designated
by
Motion for Walgreen Co. as
Class Confidential
pursuant
Certification to the Stipulated
Protective Order.
Exhibit 6 Excerpts Highlighted Designated by
Walgreen
to Reply from the portions on Co. as Confidential
Declaration deposition pages 49-50. pursuant to the
of Patrick of Kyle Stipulated
Protective
Carey In Tunison Order.
Support of dated
Plaintiff's February
Motion for 23, 2024
Class
Certification
Walgreen provides online medical products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wTZrCc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Carey, Esq.
Mary Haley Ousley, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 913-7800
Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
E-mail: pcarey@lexlawgroup.com
mhousley@lexlawgroup.com
- and -
Gideon Kracov, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV
801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 629-2071
Facsimile: (213) 623-7755
E-mail: gk@gideonlaw.net
YJOS LLC: Johnson Seeks to Recover Operator's OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE A. JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. YJOS, LLC DBA YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD
COLLECTIVE ACTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00427-HE (W.D.
Okla., Apr. 26, 2024) seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of
Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff and the hourly equipment technicians/operators
regularly worked between 60 and 80 hours per work week and did not
receive properly calculated overtime pay. The Defendant paid (and
continues to pay) the Potential Hourly Field Operator Workers Class
Members a 'day bonus' which is not included in the calculation of
the regular rate for purposes of paying overtime pay, which results
in improperly calculated overtime wages, the suit contends.
Accordingly, the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate the Hourly Field Operator Workers properly calculated
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff and the Potential Class Members are members of three
classifications of workers: (1) those persons who are current and
former non-exempt employees—Hourly Field Operator Workers—of
Yellowjacket OFS who were paid non-discretionary bonuses called
"Day Bonuses" who worked there within the last three years.
Plaintiff Johnson was a pumping equipment operator for Yellowjacket
OFS. The work performed for Yellowjacket OFS by the equipment
technicians/operators was not exempt as defined under the FLSA.
YJOS is a provider of pumping, wireline and tool fishing and other
specialized services to the oil and gas industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Hammons, Esq.
HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
325 Dean A. McGee
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-6100
Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
E-mail: assistant@hammonslaw.com
- and -
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, TX 75703
Telephone: (903) 596-7100
Facsimile: (903) 596-7100
E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***