/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240520.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 101
Headlines
3M CO: Continues to Defend AFFF Class Suit in British Columbia
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS Contamination Class Suit Ongoing in MA
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS Contamination Class Suit Ongoing in S.C.
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS Contamination Suit Ongoing in Delaware
3M CO: Discovery in Water Contamination Suit Extended Until October
3M CO: Trial of Drinking Water Contamination Suit Set for September
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
ALTIMMUNE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 25
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Narrows Bolduc's Claims Over Diversity Grants
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: W.D. Washington Dismisses Hooper Class Suit
ANTERO RESOURCES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 26, 2025
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Suit
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
ARHAUS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Class Settlement in Gatchalian Gets Final Nod
AVANTUS LLC: Class Settlement in Berryman Suit Gets Final Nod
BERRY DUNN: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Gambino Says
BNP PARIBAS: Court Certifies Class in Kashef Suit
C.R. LAURENCE: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
CALIFORNIA: Hanson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed
CALIFORNIA: McMillan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied
CANADA: Sup. Court Declines to Stay Sixties Scoop Class Action
CAPITAL GRILLE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Kallmyer Says
CEVA INTERNATIONAL: Cordova Suit Removed to C.D. California
CHEMED CORPORATION: Tate Suit Removed to E.D. California
CHOCOLATE PIZZA: Blind Can't Access Website, Karim Suit Alleges
CHOOSE YOUR HORIZON: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Interception
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: $642K in Attys. Fees Awarded in Patora Suit
COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set June 24
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Francis Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
CORTEVA INC: Seeks to Exclude Expert Testimony in Cockerill Suit
COUNTRY OAKS: Court Vacates May 20 Class Status Hearing
D. KOBY INC: Henning Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DALLAS JONES: Can File Exhibit in Opposition to Class Cert Bid
DAVID MITCHELL: Williams Terminated as Party in Class Action
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Data Sharing on Facebook
DIRECT BUILDING: Court Denies Jackson's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by June 7
DOE CORPORATION: Starling Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Extension of Briefing Deadlines Sought
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Must Oppose Harrison Class Cert Bid by June 7
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Class Settlement in Dimercurio Gets Final Nod
EVERBRIDGE INC: Sylebra Appeals Dismissal Securities Suit Ruling
EXTRA SPACE: Erkan Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Hernandez Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Oregon Sues Over Failure to Implement Security
GATOS SILVER: Plaintiff Reaches Further Settlement in Class Action
GEICO INDEMINTY: Fails to Pay Insureds for Vehicle Loss, Harn Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Collects Drivers' Data Without Consent, Garcia Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Decertifies Class in Riddell Class Suit
GLADSTONE AUTO: Appeals Atty.'s Fees Ruling in Ferguson FLSA Suit
HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
HARPER WOODS, MI: Carlock Sues Over Indigent's Unlawful Detention
HAVANA HARRY'S: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Action
HUB GROUP: Andujar Suit Moved From New Jersey to W.D. Tennessee
ICONTAINERS USA: Court Enters Scheduling Order in SX Class Lawsuit
ILLINOIS TOOL: Court Junks Bid to Continue Class Cert Filing
IMPERIAL COUNTY, CA: Essex Sues Over Deprivation of Civil Rights
INSIGHT GLOBAL: W.D. Washington Tosses Floyd Job Applicant Suit
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Habelt Files Certiorari Bid in Fraud Suit
ITHACA COLLEGE: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Akerman Suit
JENNIFER DECKARD: Court Certifies Class in Plagens Suit
KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Chin Suit
KEMPER SPORTS: Discovery in Wilhelm Due Jan. 2, 2026
KLN ENTERPRISES: Court Dismisses Trammell Suit With Leave to Amend
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend AMCA Class Suits
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Nolan Class Suit in M.D.N.C.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Wiggins Class Suit
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Reconsideration in Wilner Suit Denied
LI AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Violations of Securities Laws
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bids For Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set June 18
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Berg Suit
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Bid for Class Certification Reset to June 27
LX HAUSYS: Bid to Revise Certain Pretrial Deadlines Partly OK'd
MARC SALKOVITZ: Vorel Files Suit in D. New Jersey
MASIMO CORPORATION: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
McLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero Suit Removed to C.D. California
MPE PARTNERS: Parties Seek to Vacate & Reset Class Cert Deadlines
NEW YORK: Chinese American May File Proposed FAC in Suit v. DOE
NOAH'S ARK: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
NURTURE LLC: Must Advise Court on Response to Baby Food Complaint
OE FEDERAL CREDIT: Jimenez Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
OPTALIS PROFESSIONAL: Kendrix Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Dotterer
PIRCH INC: Former Employees Sue Over Illegal Layoffs
PLUG POWER: Faces Lee Securities Suit Over 9.87% Stock Price Drop
PORSCHE CARS: Bid for More Time to Respond to Abel Complaint Denied
PRAIRIE RIDGE: Appeals Remand Ruling in Doe Wiretapping Suit
QIFU TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Agreement Reached in Shareholder Suit
QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Over CPA Violations
QUICKEN LOANS: Seeks Denial of Mattson Class Certification Bid
RATEMDS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violations
RAYCO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Fetinci's Federal Claims Denied
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Fitterer Suit Without Prejudice
REVIVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Leave to Refile Exhibit Under Seal
SCHENKER INC: Must Oppose Wickham Class Cert Bid by June 21
SEA LIMITED: Faces Mirvaydulloev Suit in New York Court
SEA LIMITED: Faces Muraweh Suit in New York Court
SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Price-Fixing Antitrust Suit
SELENE FINANCE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
SHOWS CALI: Calogero Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo
SIRIUS XM: Bid to Compel Arbitration Remains Pending
SIRIUS XM: Court Stays Appeals in Stevenson Suit
SKIMS BODY: Faces Class Action for Wiretapping Facebook Visitors
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to May 28
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to Oppose Collective Cert. Bid
TALKSPACE INC: Class Cert Filing in Weizman Due March 28, 2025
TARGET CORP: Fabric Bandages Contain Toxic Substances, Maketa Says
TARGET CORP: Parties in Gudgel Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
TEKSYSTEMS INC: July 31 Filing for Class Certification Bid Sought
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Webb Class Suit in Delaware
TRANS UNION: Loses Bid to Compel Portillo's Discovery Responses
UNION PACIFIC: Class Cert Discovery in Tolson Due April 25
UNITED SUGAR: Controls Granulated Sugar Prices, Cowbell Alleges
UPP GLOBAL: Faces Vandeboe Suit Over Illegal Parking Citations
VALLEY MOUNTAIN: Fredrick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VROOM INC: Parties to Address Reg S-K Claims in Securities Suit
WABASH COLLEGE: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WHITEHORSE FREIGHT: Faces Dougherty Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Ky.
YATSEN HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Maeshiro Suit Remains Pending
ZIPONGO INC: Hulce Appeals Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit to 7th Cir
*********
3M CO: Continues to Defend AFFF Class Suit in British Columbia
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the AFFF class suit in the British Columbia civil
court.
In December 2023, a putative class action was filed against 3M
Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in British Columbia civil
court on behalf of Canadian individuals alleging personal injuries
from exposure to AFFF imported into Canada for firefighting and
other applications.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, and the recovery of health care cost
incurred by provincial and territorial governments.
In June 2023, the City of Springfield, Missouri sued 3M and other
defendants in the AFFF MDL. Springfield's complaint alleges that 3M
and other defendants are liable for damage to Springfield's public
water system from PFAS attributable to AFFF.
Springfield opted out of 3M's nationwide public water system
settlement and its lawsuit remains pending in the MDL.
In February 2024, Springfield notified 3M, the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources ("MDNR") and the EPA of its intent to file a
citizen suit against 3M alleging violations of the federal Clean
Water Act and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Separately, 3M has reported to the MDNR the presence of PFAS in
soil and water at the Springfield facility.
3M is addressing that matter under supervision of the MDNR.
3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS Contamination Class Suit Ongoing in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that the PFAS contamination class
suit discovery is ongoing in Massachusetts.
In Massachusetts, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
August 2022 in state court against 3M and several other defendants
alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by local paper
manufacturing facilities.
The lawsuit alleges property damage and also seeks medical
monitoring on behalf of plaintiffs within the Town of Westminster.
This case was removed to federal court.
In February 2023, the federal court consolidated this action with a
previously-filed federal case involving similar allegations and
claims against 3M’s co-defendants.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting
claims against 3M.
3M filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in March
2023.
The motion was granted in part and denied in part in December 2023.
In February and March 2024, 3M and the remaining defendants
answered the complaint and filed cross claims against one another.
The case is now proceeding in discovery.
3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS Contamination Class Suit Ongoing in S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that PFAS contamination class suit
discovery ongoing in South Carolina.
In South Carolina, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
South Carolina state court against 3M, DuPont and DuPont related
entities in March 2022.
The lawsuit alleges property damage and personal injuries from
contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at the
textile plant known as the Galey & Lord plant from 1966 until 2016.
The complaint seeks remedies including damages, punitive damages,
and medical monitoring.
The case has been removed to federal court.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November 2022, and 3M
and DuPont filed a joint motion to dismiss, which was largely
denied in September 2023.
The case is now proceeding in discovery.
3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS Contamination Suit Ongoing in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that PFAS contamination class suit
discovery is ongoing in Delaware.
In Delaware, 3M is defending one putative class action brought by
individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their water supply
resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.
Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating
facilities. DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been
named as defendants.
This case was removed to federal court, and in September 2022, the
court dismissed all but plaintiffs' negligence claim.
In November 2022, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
seeking to replead certain previously dismissed claims and, in
August 2023, the court once again dismissed all but plaintiffs'
negligence claim.
The case is now proceeding in discovery.
3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.
3M CO: Discovery in Water Contamination Suit Extended Until October
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that the water supply contamination
class suit discovery is extended until October 2024.
In Georgia, 3M, together with co-defendants, is defending a
putative class action in federal court in Georgia, in which
plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a class of individual
ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege their water supply
was contaminated by PFAS discharged from a textile mill.
In May 2021, the City of Summerville filed a motion to intervene in
the lawsuit, which was granted in March 2022.
This case is now proceeding through discovery, which has been
extended by the court through October 2024.
3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.
3M CO: Trial of Drinking Water Contamination Suit Set for September
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that PFOA contaminated drinking water
class suit trial set in September 2024.
3M and Middlesex Water Company are defending a putative class
action filed in New Jersey federal court in November 2021 by
individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex Water
Company that was allegedly contaminated with PFOA.
In May 2022, Middlesex Water Company filed a third-party complaint
against the Company in New Jersey state court in a putative class
action brought by customers of the water company, seeking
contribution and indemnity from the Company.
In November 2023, Middlesex Water Company dismissed its third-party
complaint against the Company in connection with the settlement of
Middlesex Water Company's separate action against 3M.
The parties in those two class actions are participating in the
mediation process that will conclude in April 2024.
Discovery in the action in federal court has resumed.
A trial date in the state court action has been set for September
2024.
3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edward Castillo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC. and
ALARM.COM, INC., Case No. 24CV003781 was removed from the Superior
Court of the County of Sacramento, California, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 9,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01322-WBS-DB.
The Complaint alleges two causes of action for violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nada I. Shamonki, Esq.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
2049 Century Park East. Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.586.3200
Facsimile: 310.586-3202
Email: NIShamonki@mintz.com
- and -
Scott T. Lashway, Esq.
Matthew M.K. Stein, Esq.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: 617.542.6000
Facsimile: 617.542.2241
Email: SLashway@mintz.com
MStein@mintz.com
ALTIMMUNE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Altimmune, Inc. (NASDAQ:ALT)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/altimmune-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=79161&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Altimmune, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
December 1, 2023 and April 26, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:
(i) Altimmune overstated the potential for its lead product
candidate, pemvidutide, to stand out from competing glucagon-like
peptide-1 agonists based on the drug's efficacy and tolerability
results observed in the MOMENTUM Trial;
(ii) accordingly, the MOMENTUM Trial results were less
significant to pemvidutide's clinical, commercial, and competitive
prospects than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(iii) as a result of all the foregoing, defendants had
overstated Altimmune's prospects for finding a strategic partner to
develop pemvidutide; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Altimmune stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/altimmune-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=79161&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Narrows Bolduc's Claims Over Diversity Grants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division, grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled CRYSTAL
BOLDUC, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00615-ALM (E.D. Tex.).
Pending before the Court is Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.'s Rule
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint.
The case arises out of Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.'s Delivery
Service Partner ("DSP") program and Amazon's diversity grants.
Through the DSP program, Amazon contracts with individual
companies--called DSPs--to deliver packages within their respective
communities. If accepted into the DSP program, eligible
Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native
American/Indigenous DSP owners receive a monetary stipend of
$10,000 pursuant to Amazon's diversity grant program to assist with
startup costs. DSPs owned by Whites or Asian Americans, however,
receive no such stipend.
The application process to become a DSP owner is "lengthy,
competitive, and highly selective." In 2021, Amazon accepted only
about 650 out of 21,000 DSP applicants into the DSP Program. In
2022, Amazon only accepted about 190 applicants out of 12,000.
Individuals seeking to become DSP owners must first submit an
online application that provides information about previous work
experience, leadership, financial health, and community
involvement. The online application also requires an applicant to
select geographically where he or she would want to operate as a
DSP owner if ultimately chosen. In addition, an applicant must
provide proof of access to $30,000 in liquid assets and pass a
credit check, background screening, and motor vehicle record
check.
If an applicant is chosen to proceed further in the DSP selection
process, he or she must participate in a recorded screening
interview and then a final round of interviews. Applicants are also
required to submit business plans. If successful in the final
interviews, an applicant is given the chance to discuss location
and financial details before Amazon makes a final decision. An
applicant can be given an offer to become a DSP owner if he or she
selected a geographic preference for which Amazon has an opening.
If there are no such openings, Amazon will ask the applicant to
join the Future DSP program until an opening becomes available
before giving an offer. Being in the Future DSP program does not
guarantee becoming a DSP owner.
Plaintiff Crystal Bolduc, a 44-year-old entrepreneur, desires to
participate in Amazon's DSP program and is able and ready to apply.
Because Bolduc is White, however, she is ineligible to receive the
$10,000 stipend that Amazon grants to DSP owners of an eligible
race to help offset startup costs.
Ms. Bolduc alleges that she started her online application for the
DSP program but paused the process because she learned that she
would not be eligible for the $10,000 diversity grant. She alleges
that she will not apply to the DSP program until Amazon eliminates
its racially discriminatory policy, either by extending its $10,000
benefits to whites and Asians or curtailing or eliminating the
benefit entirely. She alleges that she will immediately apply to
the DSP program once Amazon revokes its policy.
Ms. Bolduc further alleges that she is an exceptionally strong
candidate and that she would be accepted into the DSP program if
she were to apply. She alleges that she has, along with excellent
budgeting and financial skills, vast experience working as a
manager, dealing with insurance claims, and managing
profit-and-loss statements. She alleges that she interviews very
well and has never interviewed for a job that she hasn't received
an offer for. She also claims that she is capable of performing all
of the tasks required of a DSP, such as recruiting, hiring, and
coaching a team of hourly employees, managing a fleet of delivery
vehicles, and adapting to demand throughout the year.
On top of everything else, Bolduc claims that she has access to at
least $30,000 in liquid assets, is active in her community, and
would be open to having her business serve as an Amazon DSP in any
location.
On Feb. 21, 2023, Bolduc filed her Second Amended Class-Action
Complaint asserting a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981
for racial discrimination. Specifically, she claims that the
Defendant is violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 by awarding $10,000
to its Black, Latino, and Native American contractors while
withholding this benefit from its white and Asian contractors.
On March 24, 2023, Amazon filed the pending motion to dismiss. On
April 26, 2023, Bolduc filed her Response and on May 15, 2023,
Amazon filed its Reply.
Amazon moves under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss Bolduc's claim for
violation of Section 1981, arguing that Bolduc lacks standing.
Amazon makes both a facial and factual attack on the Court's
subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, Amazon moves under Rule
12(b)(6) to dismiss Bolduc's claim for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Each motion ultimately turns on
the effect, if any, of Bolduc's failure to apply for the DSP
program.
Because the Court ultimately determines that Amazon's Rule 12(b)(1)
motion should be granted, the Court will not address Amazon's Rule
12(b)(6) motion.
Because Bolduc is unwilling to apply for a DSP contract, which she
is by no means guaranteed to receive, Judge Mazzant says her first
purported injury—that she must pay $10,000 more to start a DSP
business because she is white—is merely hypothetical and
conjectural. She is currently not obligated to pay any amount of
startup costs because she has not applied to the DSP program, let
alone received any contractual offer from Amazon. This kind of
alleged injury is insufficient to show standing, Judge Mazzant
points out.
Neither is Bolduc in imminent danger of being denied equal
treatment for not receiving a $10,000 grant on account of her race.
In the Court's view, this alleged danger is not imminent because an
unpredictable chain of hypothetical events stands in the way.
Ms. Bolduc next alleges that her unwillingness to apply for the DSP
program, due to her ineligibility to receive the $10,000 grant on
account of her race, is an injury that she is experiencing now. The
Court's analysis of this injury also disposes of Bolduc's fourth
purported injury that diversity grant-eligible DSP applicants will
have more credible applications.
Ms. Bolduc argues that she is suffering from a constitutionally
cognizable injury because Amazon's racially discriminatory stipends
have deterred her from applying to the DSP program. But this kind
of alleged harm does not fit the mold of a concrete injury, Judge
Mazzant holds. Because Bolduc has willingly refused to apply to the
DSP program, Judge Mazzant finds she has not satisfied the general
standing requirement that a plaintiff submit to a policy before
bringing an action to challenge it.
The Court agrees with Amazon that Bolduc falls outside the class of
individuals potentially suffering a direct and personal injury: DSP
owners, who have been denied any contractual benefit due to their
race.
Ms. Bolduc's proposed theory that she is suffering a personal
injury in fact because Amazon's diversity grant policy has deterred
her from applying to the DSP program, Judge Mazzant holds. Bolduc
cites no authority from the realm of Section 1981 caselaw directly
supporting her novel theory of standing. And the Court is only
aware of authority that appears to contradict her position or that
has not encountered the exact issue.
While it is true, again, that under certain circumstances a
plaintiff can establish standing by alleging that applying would be
a futile gesture, Bolduc has not done so here, as Judge Mazzant
points out. The rationale conferring standing in such cases derives
from the specific condition that unlawful discrimination permeates
the application process itself.
Here, Judge Mazzant finds, among other things, that Bolduc has
offered no evidence establishing that applying to Amazon's DSP
program would have been in vain due to discriminatory practices in
the application process itself. Thus, the Court must conclude that
Bolduc will not necessarily be denied any contractual benefit due
to her race unless she is accepted into the DSP program. And, as
explained, Bolduc's acceptance into the DSP program is a
speculative matter and far from imminent.
The Court declines to accept, at face value, Bolduc's allegations
to the contrary that Amazon implements unlawful discriminatory
practices in the DSP application process. Amazon has offered a
sworn declaration from its DSP Acquisition Senior Manager in
support of its factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction.
Ms. Bolduc has not offered any evidence of her own to refute
Amazon's evidence. The Court, therefore, disregards Bolduc's
unsupported allegation that because of her ineligibility for the
$10,000 stipend, her application is less credible than applications
submitted by Black, Latino, and Native American applicants, which
resolves the parties' standing arguments on Bolduc's fourth
purported injury.
Because Bolduc has failed to demonstrate that she is suffering from
an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent,
Judge Mazzant finds she lacks standing to assert her Section 1981
claim. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Bolduc's only claim and the Court must dismiss the current lawsuit.
All other pending motions must, accordingly, be denied.
The Court, therefore, ordered that Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.'s
Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Crystal
Bolduc's Section 1981 claim is dismissed without prejudice. The
Court will render a Final Judgment consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order separately.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
April 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6pujfnt from
PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: W.D. Washington Dismisses Hooper Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, signed the parties'
Stipulation of Dismissal in the lawsuit styled ZACHARY HOOPER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00056-BJR (W.D. Wash.).
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff Zachary Hooper and Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC
stipulate as follows:
1. The putative class action lawsuit was removed to this Court
from King County Superior Court on Jan. 11, 2024;
2. No motion for class certification has been filed, and no
class has been certified;
3. The Plaintiff dismisses this lawsuit without prejudice as
to the Plaintiff's claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of the putative class or class members; and
4. The Plaintiff and Amazon agree that no party will be deemed
a prevailing party and no party will be awarded fees or
costs.
Based on the stipulation, Judge Rothstein rules that the lawsuit is
dismissed without prejudice as to all claims of Plaintiff Zachary
Hooper and dismissed without prejudice as to any claims of the
putative class and putative class members. No party is awarded fees
or costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3uaw6zvh from PacerMonitor.com.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Craig J. Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Brian Denlinger --
bd@ackermanntilajef.com -- Avi Kreitenberg --
ak@ackermanntilajef.com -- in Tacoma, Washington 98406, Attorneys
for the Plaintiff.
PERKINS COIE LLP, Andrew E. Moriarty -- AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com
-- Kyle D. Nelson -- KyleNelson@perkinscoie.com -- Shannon
McDermott -- SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com -- in Seattle, Washington
98101-3099, Attorneys for Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC.
ANTERO RESOURCES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 26, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, v. ANTERO
RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial
order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to May 17, 2024
join additional parties shall be filed by:
-- The motion for class certification shall be May 26, 2025
filed by:
-- The Defendant's opposition to any class June 27, 2025
certification motion shall be due on:
, Any reply shall be due on: July 11, 2025
Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=692gtG at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the U.S. Commodities
Exchange Act class suit.
On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.
On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second
named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC ("Maize").
AOT and Maize allege that members of the putative class
collectively suffered damages calculated to be between
approximately $500 million to over $2.0 billion as a result of the
Company's alleged actions.
On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities ("GP")
filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the
same operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to
represent sellers of ethanol.
On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC ("MRE") filed a
putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging
substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under
the Sherman Act.
On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC ("UWGP")
and five other ethanol producers filed a lawsuit in federal court
in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law.
The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP
complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021 and September 28,
2021, respectively.
On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the
GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved
to dismiss on September 27, 2021.
The court denied ADM's motion to dismiss on September 26, 2023.
UWGP filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which the
court dismissed on July 12, 2022.
UWGP has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
On October 26, 2021, GP filed a new complaint in Nebraska federal
district court, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations.
On March 18, 2022, the Nebraska federal district court granted
ADM's motion to transfer the GP case back to the Central District
of Illinois for further proceedings.
ADM moved to dismiss the complaint on May 20, 2022 and on December
30, 2022, the court dismissed GP's complaint with prejudice.
GP appealed the dismissal.
On January 12, 2024, the appellate court vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
On March 8, 2024, GP filed an amended complaint.
The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself in
these actions.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the
merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and
manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy,
and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for
human and animal nutrition.
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On January 24, 2024, following the Company's January 21, 2024
announcement of the investigation relating to intersegment sales, a
purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, as well as
Vikram Luthar and Ray Young.
The plaintiff alleges false and misleading statements in the
Company's disclosures and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.
The Company is unable to predict the final outcome of the
proceeding with any reasonable degree of certainty.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the
merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and
manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy,
and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for
human and animal nutrition.
ARHAUS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Arhaus, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARHS) resulting from
allegations that Arhaus may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Arhaus securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24680 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 29, 2024, after market hours, Arhaus
filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") announcing "the Company's previously issued
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in
Amendment No. 1 to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A
for the period ended September 30, 2023 (the 'Q3 Form 10-Q/A' and
such period, the 'Affected Period'), filed with the [] SEC on March
11, 2024, should no longer be relied upon due to the errors
described below and should be restated." In addition, Arhaus stated
it had "identified errors within the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2023 related to
certain cash receipts from landlord reimbursements prior to
showroom completion being incorrectly included in property,
furniture and equipment, net. The errors also resulted in
inaccurate cash flows ascribed to operating and investing
activities in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of
cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2023. The
Company currently estimates that the impact of the errors will
result in an increase in net cash provided by operating activities
and an increase in net cash used in investing activities in the
range of approximately $1 million to $5 million in the unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months
ended September 30, 2023."
On this news, Arhaus's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 5.9%,
to close at $12.66 per share on April 30, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Class Settlement in Gatchalian Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET GATCHALIAN, v.
ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-04108-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the parties'
class action settlement; and
-- granting Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs;
specifically, the Court awards the following: $123,500 in
attorneys' fees; $2,215.61 in litigation costs; and $2,000 as
an
incentive award for Plaintiff.
In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, "[w]ithin 21 days after the distribution
of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees," Class
Counsel shall file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides
the following, to the extent applicable:
The total settlement fund, the total number of class members,
the
total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not
returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of claim
forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the
number
and percentage of objections, the average and median recovery
per
claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to class
members,
the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment to class
members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the amounts
distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative
costs,
the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms of
percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any.
The Settlement Class is composed of all persons with addresses in
California to whom Atlantic Recovery sent voicemail messages and/or
text messages in an attempt to collect defaulted consumer debt on
behalf of DNF Associates, which was originally owed to Sallie Mae
Bank, from June 6, 2021, through the date of class certification.
(Dkt. No. 48-2 ¶ 2.3.) Excluded from the class are any class
members who timely mailed a request for exclusion; any officers,
directors, or legal representatives of Defendants; and any judge,
justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the
members of their immediate families and judicial staff.
The Plaintiff Harriet Gatchalian brought this putative consumer
class action against the Defendants for abusive, deceptive, and
unfair debt collection practices.
From June 2021 to October 2021, Atlantic Recovery Solutions left
numerous voicemails on and sent various text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone.
Atlantic is a debt collection agency that specializes in purchasing
and collecting overdue accounts.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gf14oJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AVANTUS LLC: Class Settlement in Berryman Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LONNIE R. BERRYMAN, JR.,
individually and as a representative of the Class, v. AVANTUS, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01651-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor Bolden
entered an order:
(1) granting the motion for final approval of the Settlement,
(2) certifying the Class for Settlement purposes,
(3) determining that the notice provided to the class was
appropriate and sufficient,
(4) granting the motion to award $267,242 in attorney fees to
Class
Counsel,
(5) granting the motion to award Mr. Berryman $7,500 as a named
plaintiff service award in recognition of his efforts on
behalf
of the Class.
Class Counsel had a well-informed appreciation of the strengths
and
weaknesses of the Action while negotiating the Settlement
Agreement;
The relief provided for by the Settlement Agreement is well within
the range of reasonableness in light of the best possible recovery
and the risks the parties would have faced if the case had
continued to trial.
The Settlement Agreement was the result of arms' length, good faith
negotiations and exchange of information by experienced counsel.
The reaction of the Settlement Class has been positive without any
objections or opt-outs.
On Dec. 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his class action Complaint
against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant had violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the
consumer reports it furnished.
The Settlement Class, which this Court has preliminarily certified
for settlement purposes, is defined as:
"All persons residing in the United States of America
(including
Its territories and Puerto Rico) who: (1) were the subject of
a
bi-merge or tri-merge report using the legacy Avantus system
and
branding from Dec. 13, 2019 through Nov. 3, 2023; (2) that
included at least one notation related to a deceased status in
the score section of the report; and (3) where at least one
of
the underlying consumer reporting agencies returned a credit
score."
Avantus operates as a credit reporting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=txS98S at no extra
charge.[CC]
BERRY DUNN: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Gambino Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA GAMBINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERRY, DUNN, MCNEIL & PARKER, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00146-JAW (D. Me., April 29, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of third-party beneficiary
contract, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its vendor's network systems following a
data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Berry, Dunn, Mcneil & Parker, LLC is a consulting and accounting
firm with its principal place of business in Portland, Maine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bauer, Esq.
443 Saint John Street
Portland, ME 04102
Telephone: (207) 804-6296
Email: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
BNP PARIBAS: Court Certifies Class in Kashef Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF, et
al., v. BNP PARIBAS SA, a French corporation; and B.N.P. Paribas US
Wholesale Holdings, Corp. (f/k/a BNP Paribas North America, Inc.),
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class for the reasons described
in the transcript of the oral argument held on May 7, 2024.
The class is defined as follows:
"All refugees or asylees admitted by the United States who
formerly lived in Sudan or South Sudan between November 1997
and
December 2011."
The Court finds that the class, estimated to be over 23,000
individuals, is sufficiently numerous such that joinder is
impracticable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(l).
The nineteen plaintiffs in this action will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
The Plaintiffs are to serve their proposals on the Defendants by
May 17, 2024. If the parties agree, the court shall be advised by
joint submission by May 21, 2024. If there is disagreement, they
are to be addressed in separate briefs by May 23, 2024, and in
replies by May 28, 2024.
The parties shall brief the question, whether determinations of
refugee and asylee status by USCIS or other immigration
determinations as to the same are 1) admissible, 2) presumptive, or
3) binding on all class members and BNPP, filing their respective
briefs on May 21, 2024, and their replies by May 28, 2024.
The parties shall appear for a status conference on June 11, 2024
at 2:30 p.m.
The Clerk shall terminate the open motion at ECF No. 417.
BNP Paribas is a multinational universal bank and financial
services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D3LM5v at no extra
charge.[CC]
C.R. LAURENCE: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Yoni Aldana Hernandez, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.R. LAURENCE, CO.,
INC., a California Corporation, OLDCASTLE BUILDINGENVELOPE, INC., a
Corporation; CRH AMERICAS, INC., a Corporation, HENRY MONROY, an
Individual; MARIA ROBINSON, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV28933 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03904.
On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Damages
against Defendants which sets forth the following causes of action:
Discrimination, Including Discriminatory Discharge, Based On Actual
Or Perceived Disabilities; Failure To Engage In A Good Faith
Interactive Process; Failure To Accommodate; Discrimination,
Including Discriminatory Discharge, Based On National Origin &
Immigration Status; Discrimination, Including Discriminatory
Discharge, Based On Religious Creed; Discrimination, Including
Discriminatory Discharge, Based On Age; Retaliation, Including
Retaliatory Discharge, Based On Actual Or Perceived Participation
In Protected Activities; Harassment And/Or Hostile Work
Environment, Base On Protected Characteristics & Activities;
Failure To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation;
Aiding, Abetting And/Or Inciting Violations Of The FEHA; and
Retaliatory Unfair Immigration-Related Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
Isaac D. Nieblas, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 579-0404
Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
Email: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com
Isaac.Nieblas@jacksonlewis.com
CALIFORNIA: Hanson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DENISE DANA HANSON, Plaintiff v. A. DULGOV,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00664-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California dismisses without prejudice the Petitioner's petition
for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer,
filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241 challenging the conditions of her confinement at the
Federal Correctional Institute in Dublin, California ("FCI
Dublin"). She has paid the filing fee.
The Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho in 2021. She claims the conditions at FCI
Dublin are harmful because of "toxic substances of black mold,
asbestos, natural gas leaks, dirty ventilation, lack of fresh food
and periodic brown drinking water," as well as insufficient
ventilation and heat. She also claims she has received inadequate
medical care for her "multiple comorbidities. She requests
"immediate release" from custody.
Judge Corley holds that the Petitioner may not bring her claims in
a petition for writ of habeas corpus because she is challenging the
conditions of her confinement, not her conviction or sentence.
In Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth
Circuit addressed the circumstances in which a prisoner can
challenge the conditions of confinement in a habeas petition and
seek release from custody based upon those conditions. The court
stated, "[T]he relevant question is whether, based on the
allegations in the petition, release is legally required
irrespective of the relief requested . . . [o]r stated differently,
a successful claim sounding in habeas necessarily results in
release, but a claim seeking release does not necessarily sound in
habeas."
The Pinson court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of
a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 claiming federal
prison officials failed to implement adequate safety protocols in
response to COVID-19. The court held the petition did not allege
facts to support the contention that no set of conditions would
cure the constitutional violations, necessitating a remedy of
release, and as other remedies short of release could remedy the
allegedly unsafe conditions, the claims must be brought in a civil
rights case.
Judge Corley opines that here, as in Pinson, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the Petitioner's claims regarding the
alleged unsafe conditions and inadequate medical care at FCI
Dublin. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has indicated in a
class action brought by FCI Dublin inmates that they plan to close
the facility and transfer the inmates (see California Coalition for
Women Prisoners, et al., v. United States Federal Bureau of
Prisons, et al., No. C 23-4155-YGR (PR)).
The Plaintiff does not allege facts, when liberally construed,
showing that no relief short of release is adequate to cure these
alleged constitutional violations, Judge Corley says. Under Pinson,
a habeas petition is not the appropriate remedy for her claims, and
she must instead bring them into civil rights action in a new case,
Judge Corley adds.
Accordingly, Judge Corley holds that this petition will be
dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner bringing her claims in a
civil rights complaint in a new case.
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The
Clerk will enter judgment and close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3rxfeheh from PacerMonitor.com.
CALIFORNIA: McMillan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled SHARON
KAYE MCMILLAN, Plaintiff v. WARDEN JUSINO @ FCI DUBLIN, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-04451-RFL (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Sharon Kaye McMillan, a federal prisoner at Federal
Correctional Institution Dublin, brings this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. She paid the
filing fee.
In 2011, McMillan was convicted in the District of South Dakota and
sentenced to 210 months (United States v. McMillan, et al., Case
No. 19-cr-50054-JLV SI (D.S.D. Sept. 30, 2011)). She is
incarcerated in this district. McMillan argues the prison should be
closed and seeks to be released to a halfway house or home
confinement due to several illnesses and injuries, and the presence
of asbestos, mold, and other substances at her facility. She also
raises claims regarding inadequate medical care, but does not
specifically enumerate what care was inadequate or denied. She also
states that she is at risk due to sexual assault by correctional
officers and transgender inmates at the facility.
Similar to Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023), Judge
Lin holds that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider McMillan's
habeas petition. She does not allege facts sufficient to show that
her release is legally required or that relief short of release is
inadequate to cure the alleged constitutional violations.
Judge Lin says that does not mean McMillan is without a remedy. To
seek release from custody, McMillan may file a motion for
compassionate release in the District of South Dakota, assuming she
has satisfied all applicable exhaustion requirements. She could
also potentially file a civil rights action in this district
regarding the conditions at the prison and her allegedly inadequate
medical care.
There is already a class action pending concerning alleged sexual
misconduct by FCI Dublin officials. Judge Lin notes that McMillan
may be a member of that class action, California Coalition for
Women Prisoners, et al. v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons,
et al., No. C 23-4155-YGR (PR). The Court does not take a position
as to whether McMillan would potentially be precluded from
maintaining an individual civil rights suit based on the same
alleged sexual misconduct, due to the class action.
Although courts have limited discretion to recharacterize a habeas
petition as a civil rights complaint, the Court declines to do so
here. If converted into such a complaint, Judge Lin explains that
the petition would be subject to the procedural and substantive
requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. McMillan will be
provided a blank civil rights form and in forma pauperis
application, if she wishes to pursue such a claim.
Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The petition is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction; and
2. The Clerk of the Court will send McMillan a blank civil
rights form and in forma pauperis application.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 25, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36ufexpu from PacerMonitor.com.
CANADA: Sup. Court Declines to Stay Sixties Scoop Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the BC
Supreme Court has refused to stay a class action lawsuit regarding
the "Sixties Scoop," rejecting claims that it is duplicative and an
abuse of process in relation to another ongoing federal class
action.
Sarah Tanchak, as representative plaintiff, commenced a class
action concerning the "Sixties Scoop", the events generally
beginning in the 1950s and continuing to the 1990s, where children
of Indigenous families were taken and placed with non-Indigenous
foster or adoptive parents. Meanwhile, Shannon Varley and Sandra
Lukowich are the representative plaintiffs in another action, which
was certified as a national class proceeding.
The BC Supreme Court noted that the Tanchak action targets both the
federal government and the Province of British Columbia. The Varley
action, on the other hand, only names the federal government as a
defendant and is focused on similar allegations but solely against
Canada.
Arguments from the defendants suggested that the Tanchak action was
redundant since it covered grounds similar to those settled in a
national agreement in 2018 and those being litigated in the Varley
action. However, the BC Supreme Court concluded that the Tanchak
action, specifically against the BC province, is distinct and
justified. It highlighted that the national settlement explicitly
allowed for the continuation of actions like Tanchak's against the
province.
Further, the court noted that while the two actions have
overlapping facts, the claims against the province in the Tanchak
action are not duplicative of the Varley action. The court
emphasized that the claims concern different defendants and thus
maintain a separate legal basis for proceeding.
Despite the controversy surrounding the management and progression
of the Tanchak action, particularly allegations of delay and
non-compliance with previous court orders, the court decided
against halting the action. It determined that not enough evidence
was presented to show that continuing the Tanchak action would
undermine the administration of justice or that it did not serve a
legitimate purpose.
The court's decision also touched on the broader implications of
class actions in ensuring access to justice for vulnerable
populations, acknowledging the importance of allowing such cases to
be heard, particularly when they involve allegations of historical
injustices against Indigenous peoples. This ruling allows the
Tanchak action to proceed in its claims against the Province of
British Columbia. [GN]
CAPITAL GRILLE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Kallmyer Says
---------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY KALLMYER, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL GRILLE OF MARYLAND, LLC, and CAPITAL GRILLE
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01273-AAQ (D. Md., Apr. 30, 2024)
sues the Defendants for failing to pay the Plaintiff and all
similarly situated workers their earned minimum wages, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act's and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.
The suit says that the Defendants pay their tipped employees,
including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by
taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA and the
MWHL.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice whereby
tipped employees were required to spend a substantial amount of
time performing directly supporting work, including cleaning and
stocking the serving line; cleaning booths, chairs, high chairs and
booster seats; cleaning menus; cleaning soft drink dispensers and
nozzles; cleaning tables; filling and cleaning ketchup and syrup
bottles; filling and cleaning salt and pepper shakers; replacing
soft drink syrups; rolling silverware; setting tables; stocking
ice; sweeping, cleaning and mopping floors; taking dishes and
glasses from the tables to the kitchen; and/or taking out trash.
As a result of these violations, Defendants have lost the ability
to utilize the tip credit and therefore must compensate the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full
minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all
hours worked, the suit asserts.
The FLSA Class Members are all current and former tipped employees
who worked for the Defendants for at least one week during the
three-year period prior to the filing of this action to the
present.
The Maryland Class Members are all current and former tipped
employees who worked for the Defendants in Maryland for at least
one week during the three-year period prior to the filing of this
action to the present.
Plaintiff Kallmyer worked for the Defendants as a server from
August 2022 to May 2023. She was paid $3.63 per hour.
Capital Grille is a full-service restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
WYLY & COOK, PLLC
1415 North Loop West, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77008
Telephone: (713) 236-8330
Facsimile: (713) 863-8502
E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
CEVA INTERNATIONAL: Cordova Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thelma Herrera Cordova, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEVA INTERNATIONAL INC.
a Delaware stock corporation; CEVA FREIGHT MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC. a Delaware stock corporation; CEVA CONTRACT LOGISTICS
U.S., INC., a Delaware stock corporation; CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; CMA CGM LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company; KEITH HITCHCOCK, an individual; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 24STCV07650 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 9, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-03910.
On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil action against
Defendants which asserted the following causes of action: failure
to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time
penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages;
failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest on deposits;
violation of Labor Code and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Conor J. Dale, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 394-9400
Email: conor.dale@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Orlando J. Arellano, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: orlando.arellano@jacksonlewis.com
CHEMED CORPORATION: Tate Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charmaine Tate, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CHEMED CORPORATION, VITAS
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, VITAS HOSPICE SERVICES, LLC, and VITAS
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 24CV003641 was
removed from the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento,
California, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on May 9, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-at-00580.
The Complaint in this case alleges that Defendants employ a third
party, Invoca, which records and intercepts calls to their customer
service line for artificial intelligence analysis—and that these
recordings violate of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David R Singh, Esq.
Amy Tu Quyen Le, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
Phone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
Email: david.singh@weil.com
amy.le@weil.com
- and -
Keya I Patel, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
Email: keya.patel@weil.com
CHOCOLATE PIZZA: Blind Can't Access Website, Karim Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHOCOLATE PIZZA COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03245 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 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,
Chocolatepizza.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, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts,
inaccessible contact information, changing of content without
advance warning, 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 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.
Chocolate Pizza Company, Inc. is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
Manhasset, NY 11030
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
CHOOSE YOUR HORIZON: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Interception
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHOOSE YOUR HORIZON, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02798-LB
(N.D. Cal., May 9, 2024), is brought for legal and equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant of
intercepting communications that contain protected medical
information.
This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California
residents who have accessed and used chooseketamine.com (the
"Website"), a website Defendant owns and operates. The Defendant
aids employs, agrees, and conspires with Meta, Google, and Twilio
(together, the "Third Parties") to intercept communications sent
and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including
communications containing protected medical information.
The Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years.
Plaintiff routinely accesses Facebook on her computer. Pursuant to
the systematic process described herein, Defendant aided and
assisted the Third Parties with intercepting Plaintiff's
communications, including those that contained personally
identifiable information ("PII"), protected health information
("PHI"), and related confidential information. Defendant aided and
assisted these interceptions without Plaintiff's knowledge,
consent, or express written authorization.
After placing her order from the Website, Plaintiff began receiving
targeted advertisements from Choose and other advertisements
related to ketamine therapy on Facebook. By failing to receive the
requisite consent, Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality
and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's PII and PHI, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff visited the Website and purchased low-dose ketamine
therapy as a medical treatment.
The Defendant specializes in "Patient-centered oral ketamine
assisted experiences."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: $642K in Attys. Fees Awarded in Patora Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, litigation costs and service award in the lawsuit
styled Jeannie Patora, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Defendant,
Case No. 7:23-cv-01118-VB (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Jeannie Patora, Elizabeth Dixon, and Arnold Thomas filed
their Motion on April 11, 2024. Having considered the Settlement
Agreement; the Motion, memorandum of law, supporting declarations
and exhibits; the lack of any opposition or objection to the
Motion; all arguments presented at the hearing on this matter; all
relevant papers on file herein; and finding good cause appearing,
the Court finds it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this
Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1367 and
personal jurisdiction over the Parties.
Judge Briccetti notes that no objections to the fee and expense
provision of the Settlement Agreement or Motion were made.
The Court awards $641,666.66 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel.
As of April 2024, Class Counsel, collectively, have devoted
approximately 740 hours, with a lodestar of $579,844 to achieve the
Settlement in this Litigation.
The Court also finds that Class Counsel have incurred $20,195.18 in
litigation costs. Judge Briccetti finds all of these costs were
reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case
and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case.
The Court finds that Class Counsel are entitled to reimbursement
for these costs and incorporates, by reference, the findings made
at the April 25, 2024, Final Approval Hearing.
In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that
the Settlement Agreement created a Settlement Fund of $1.925
million in cash for the benefit of the Settlement Class pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Briccetti directs Class Counsel to allocate the awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses among Counsel in a manner that, in
their judgment, reflects the contributions of such counsel to the
prosecution and settlement of this Litigation.
The Court further approves an incentive award of $1,000 for each of
the three Settlement Class Representatives—Jeannie Patora,
Elizabeth Dixon, and Arnold Thomas—for their active participation
in this Litigation.
The Attorneys' Fee, Litigation Costs, and Service Award set forth
in this Order will be paid and distributed in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 25, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2hr6bw4w from PacerMonitor.com.
COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set June 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Compass Minerals International, Inc. (NYSE: CMP)
securities between November 29, 2023 and March 22, 2024. Compass
Minerals provides essential minerals in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and internationally.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Compass Minerals International, Inc. (CMP) Overstated its Business
Prospects
The complaint alleges that Compass Minerals began a series of
equity investments in Fortress North America, LLC, which it has
described as "a next-generation fire retardant business dedicated
to developing and producing a portfolio of magnesium chloride-based
fire retardant products to help combat wildfires." On May 5, 2023,
Compass Minerals fully took over Fortress. In 2023, Fortress only
sold its fire retardant products to the United States Forest
Service.
According to the complaint, during the class period, 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 due to safety
issues presented by its fire retardant, and (2) Compass Minerals
materially overstated the extent to which testing had confirmed
that its fire retardants were safe.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 25, 2024, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the U.S. Forest Service would not be
entering into a contract for the use of magnesium chloride-based
aerial fire retardants for the 2024 fire season. On this news, the
price of Compass Minerals stock fell $3.00 per share, or 17.09%, 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%, to close at
$13.69.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Compass Minerals International, Inc. Shareholders who want
to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions
with the court by June 24, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Compass Minerals
International, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Francis Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Francis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05927
(D.N.J., May 8, 2024), is brought for the consequences of
Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
members' Private Information; its failure to reasonably provide
timely notification to Plaintiff and Class members that their
Private Information had been compromised; and for Defendant's
failure to inform Plaintiff and Class members concerning the
status, safety, location, access, and protection of their Private
Information.
As part of its operations, Continuum collects, maintains, and
stores highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging
to patients, including, but not limited to their full names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers
(collectively, "personally identifying information" or "PII"),
information regarding medical treatment, health insurance
information, and other protected health information (collectively,
"private health information" or "PHI") (PII and PHI collectively,
"Private Information").
On October 18, 2024, Continuum experienced a data breach incident
in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information
systems and databases (the "Data Breach"). Continuum's subsequent
investigation determined that the unauthorized actors were able to
access and steal Private Information concerning Plaintiff and Class
members. On April 29, 2024, Continuum sent a notice to individuals
whose information was accessed in the Data Breach.
Because Continuum stored and handled Plaintiff's and Class members'
highly sensitive Private Information, it had a duty and obligation
to safeguard this information and prevent unauthorized third
parties from accessing this data. Ultimately, Continuum failed to
fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached
Continuum's information systems and databases and stole vast
quantities of Private Information belonging to Continuum's clients'
patients, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Data
Breach--and the successful exfiltration of Private
Information--were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of
multiple failings on the part of Continuum.
The Data Breach occurred because Continuum failed to implement
reasonable security protections to safeguard its information
systems and databases. Moreover, before the Data Breach occurred,
Continuum failed to inform the public that its data security
practices were deficient and inadequate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a patient of the Consensus Medical Group, which
was a healthcare provider that made use of Continuum Health
Alliance's services.
Continuum Health Alliance, LLC provides health management and
patient care coordination services to patient-facing healthcare
service providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
CORTEVA INC: Seeks to Exclude Expert Testimony in Cockerill Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM NEWTON, OLIVER MAJOR, and DARRELL D. BENSON,
SR., individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT SPECIALTY
PRODUCTS USA, LLC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE BENEFIT PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting Defendants'
Daubert motion to exclude the testimony and report of the
Plaintiffs' purported actuarial expert Ian H. Altman because: (1)
he is admittedly not qualified to offer an expert opinion on the
sufficiency of ERISA Plan communications; (2) he did not employ a
reliable methodology to calculate Plaintiffs' purported damages;
(3) his opinion is irrelevant; and(4) the number and scope of the
errors in Altman's opinions make his testimony unreliable.
The grounds for this Motion are set forth in Defendants'
accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is incorporated herein by
reference in its entirety. The Defendants request that the Court
grant its requested relief in the form of the attached proposed
Order.
The Plaintiffs engaged Ian Altman to opine on two issues: (1) the
sufficiency of communications sent to class members concerning the
impact of the Spin-Off on Early and Optional Retirement benefits,
and (2) purported damages to class members who the Plaintiffs
believe were denied the opportunity to age into Early Retirement
benefits (if under age 50), or to receive Optional Retirement
benefits (if over age 50).
Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed
company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UIrHt6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nipun J. Patel, Esq.
Cory A. Thomas, Esq.
Todd D. Wozniak, Esq.
Kayla Pragid, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
One Liberty Place, Suite 3300
1650 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 252-9600
E-mail: Nipun.Patel@hklaw.com
Cory.Thomas@hklaw.com
Todd.Wozniak@hklaw.com
Kayla.Pragid@hklaw.com
COUNTRY OAKS: Court Vacates May 20 Class Status Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erma Parker et al., v.
Country Oaks Partners, LLC et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00195-CJC-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac Carney entered an order vacating
the May 20 hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court believes it in the interest of justice for this motion to
be heard and considered by the judge to whom this case will be
reassigned upon the Court's retirement.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Erma Parker alleges
that Defendant Country Oaks Partners, LLC, a long-term skilled
nursing facility where Plaintiff was a resident, did not employ
enough caregivers to carry out its functions, and that this
"chronic understaffing" led to violations of residents' rights.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Sun Mar Management Services is
liable for the same wrongs under an alter ego theory.
Country Oaks provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WbbQNp at no extra
charge.[CC]
D. KOBY INC: Henning Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Henning, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. D. KOBY, INC. and MARK CORBIN Case No. 1:24-cv-00565-WCG (E.D.
Wis., May 8, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight
time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by
simply shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from said
employees' weekly timesheets for all hours worked and/or work
performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of
Defendants, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants into the position of
Manager working primarily at Defendants' Shawano, Wisconsin
location in September 2023.
D. Koby, Inc. owns, operates, and/or manages "Little Ceasars"
locations in the State of Wisconsin and elsewhere.[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
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
DALLAS JONES: Can File Exhibit in Opposition to Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY MCCLURG, v. DALLAS
JONES ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CLAY'S TRUCKING, DANA PORTER, BROCK
PORTER, and ALFREDA JONES (as Executrix of the Estate of Dallas
Jones), Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order granting the Defendant
Dallas Jones Enterprises, Inc.'s motion to file exhibit two to its
response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Class
Certification Under Seal, consistent with the requirements set
forth in the Protective Order.
Exhibit Two to Clay's Trucking's Response in Opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall remain under seal
with this Court.
Dallas Jones operates as an auto parts and accessories store.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tLbriw at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVID MITCHELL: Williams Terminated as Party in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSIE WILLIAMS and ABDUL
LOVE, v. DAVID MITCHELL, RICHARD ARNOLD, and LATOYA HUGHES, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02340-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy
Rosenstengel entered an order terminating the Plaintiff Jessie
Williams as a party in the action.
The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case for Williams's
claims against David Mitchell, Latoya Hughes, and Richard Arnold.
The Clerk is further directed to assign the undersigned judge to
the newly severed case and to file the following documents from the
original case in the new case:
(1) This Memorandum and Order;
(2) The Complaint;
(3) Williams's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis;
(4) Order Granting Williams's Motion to Proceed IFP;
(5) Consent/Non-Consent Form (sealed);
(6) The Court's Order for Service of Process;
(7) The Answer;
(8) Initial Scheduling Order;
(9) Motion for Summary Judgment; and
(10) Defendants' Rule 56 Notice.
Finally, the Clerk is directed to change the caption of this case
to: Abdul Love, Plaintiff v. Mitchell, et al., Defendants. Only
Plaintiff Love will proceed in this action. Each plaintiff is
reminded that his response to Defendants' summary judgment motion
is due June 10, 2024
Because of the overlap of the claims in this case, and the
potential for future consolidation of discovery or the trial, the
undersigned shall be assigned to the newly severed case.
The Court notes that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
the issue of exhaustion is currently pending. The motion raises the
issue of exhaustion as to each plaintiff. As such, the pending
motion will be filed in Williams's severed case. Each plaintiff
will now have until June 10, 2024, to file a response to the motion
in their respective cases. Defendants reply, if any, is due June
24, 2024.
The Plaintiffs Jessie Williams and Abdul Love, inmates of the
Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this action for
deprivations of their constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983. Their Complaint alleged that the defendants delayed
their access to evening meals during the month of Ramadan and
substantially burdened the practice of their religion. They brought
claims pursuant to the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA").
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CFQUfN at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Data Sharing on Facebook
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Delta
class action claims airline shares customer information with
Facebook.
Who: Eternada Fudge and Reyhaneh Mansoori filed a class action
lawsuit against Delta Air Lines Inc.
Why: Fudge and Mansoori claim Delta broke its contract with
consumers by unlawfully sharing their personal information with
Facebook parent company Meta Platforms.
Where: The Delta Facebook class action lawsuit was filed in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court in California.
Delta Air Lines unlawfully disclosed the information of its
customers with Facebook, a new class action lawsuit claims.
Plaintiffs Eternada Fudge and Reyhaneh Mansoori's class action
lawsuit claims Delta Air Lines broke its contract with consumers by
installing a tracking pixel on its website that discloses the
personal information of its customers with Facebook parent company
Meta Platforms.
"Defendant's sharing of this personal and identifying information
with Facebook is in breach of the Conditions of Carriage and
incorporated Privacy Policy to which Plaintiffs and Class Members
agreed," the Delta data privacy class action states.
Fudge and Mansoori want to represent a nationwide class and
California subclass of consumers who were registered Facebook users
and who provided their personal information to Delta using
www.delta.com while purchasing airfare and had that information
shared with Facebook.
Fudge and Mansoori argue Delta broke a promise to its customers
that the airline would not sell their name or other personal
information to third parties.
The personal information shared by Delta with Facebook includes
departure dates and airports, arrival dates and airports, travel
classes and number of travelers, loyalty statuses and language and
currency used by customers, the Delta class action alleges.
In addition to allegedly breaching its contract with consumers,
Fudge and Mansoori claim Delta is guilty of violating the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of punitive damages and actual,
statutory or nominal damages for themselves and all class members.
A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Delta in
May 2023 over allegations the airline misrepresented the total
environmental impact of its business operations by claiming to be
"carbon neutral."
Has Delta shared your personal information with Facebook? Let us
know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Alexander E. Wolf, John J. Nelson
and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman
PLLC and Alec H. Schultz of Hilgers Graben PLLC.
The Delta data privacy class action lawsuit is Fudge, et al. v.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 24STCV10440, in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN]
DIRECT BUILDING: Court Denies Jackson's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss counterclaim in the lawsuit styled GERARD
JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT BUILDING SUPPLIES LLC d/b/a RENU
SOLAR, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01569-MWB (M.D. Pa.).
On Oct. 25, 2023, Plaintiff Gerard Jackson filed an Amended
Complaint against Defendant Direct Building Supplies, LLC, alleging
a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") on
behalf of himself and a putative class. After the Court denied its
Motion to Dismiss, Direct Building Supplies filed an Answer with a
Counterclaim on Jan. 31, 2024. Pending before the Court is
Jackson's Motion to Dismiss Direct Building Supplies' Counterclaim
filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 9(b),
and 12(b)(6).
Since 2018, the Plaintiff has filed "upwards" of twenty TCPA
lawsuits before the Court. In fact, Jackson previously filed a TCPA
suit against Direct Building Supplies in the Court of Common Pleas
of Centre County (Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d
780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016)). This matter was "resolved" in April 2021,
and the Defendant added Jackson to its do-not-call list. Direct
Building Supplies notes that it is unclear how he continues to
receive so many allegedly violative calls.
In the present lawsuit, Jackson brings a TCPA claim on behalf of
himself and a putative class against Direct Building Supplies.
Sometime between April 2021 and Sept. 27, 2021, Jackson "consented
to being contacted by submitting 'opt-in' data requesting a phone
call to a third-party vendor." This data provided Jackson's phone
number and his home address under the name Barry Johnson.
Curiously, an "apparent fake email address of 'bluebrrd@gmail.com'"
was also submitted by the Plaintiff.
On Sept. 28, 2021, the third-party vendor contacted Jackson. After
confirming his interest, the third-party vendor transferred the
Plaintiff to the Defendant's representative. Over the course of
this call, Jackson responded to "Barry" and "Mr. Johnson" and
feigned an interest in purchasing solar products from Direct
Building Supplies. This individual gave the Defendant both
Jackson's home address and another seemingly fake email address of
"bluebird3224@gmail.com" and requested an at home appointment to
purchase solar products.
The representative, then, confirmed an appointment at the
Plaintiff's home on Oct. 8, 2021, and Jackson requested that
information be sent to "bluebird3224@gmail.com" so that he may
review the company performing the work. But when asked for his real
name and his wife's name, the Plaintiff promptly hung up the
phone.
The representative then emailed "Barry" at the
"bluebird3224@gmail.com" email address to confirm the appointment.
Jackson responded by indicating his lack of interest and asking for
a copy of the Defendant's do not call policy. The Plaintiff did not
sign the email and "did not rebut" the representative's use of the
name Barry.
Direct Building Supplies maintains that Jackson submitted the
opt-in data for purposes of manufacturing a TCPA claim against the
Defendant by inducing its third-party vendor into calling a number
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Further, the
Defendant asserts that it called Jackson's number in reliance on
the opt-in data submitted by the Plaintiff that 'Barry Johnson' was
interested in purchasing solar products. Finally, Direct Building
Supplies claims damages in the form of ongoing fees and costs,
prior expenditures, and reputational damage.
In support of his Motion, Jackson argues that the Defendant: (1)
lacks standing to maintain this counterclaim; (2) has failed to
meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard; and (3) did not
plead all the elements of fraud.
Judge Brann finds that Direct Building Supplies has satisfied Rule
9(b)'s heightened pleading standard by injecting precision or some
other measure of substantiation into its counterclaim.
Judge Brann also finds that the Defendant's counterclaim clearly
identified the relevant representations as the false name and
e-mail address submitted to the third-party vendor. These
representations are "material to the transaction at hand" because
they are allegedly the reason the third-party vendor and the
Defendant contacted Jackson.
As alleged, Judge Brann says these false representations exemplify
an "intent" to mislead the Defendant "into relying on" them in
order to manufacture a TCPA claim. Direct Building Supplies has
also demonstrated justifiable reliance on the representations. At
this stage, Judge Brann holds these allegations sufficiently show
justifiable reliance.
Finally, Judge Brann concludes that the Defendant has sufficiently
alleged that its resulting injury was proximately caused by its
reliance on the false representations. Despite Jackson's
contention, there is conduct that is traceable to him when the
factual allegations are accepted as true, as required under Rule
12(b)(6). Accordingly, Direct Building Supplies has adequately pled
its claim for fraud.
Finally, Judge Brann says the Defendant's third-party complaint
against TechMedia Group does not alter the analysis in this
Memorandum Opinion. In that complaint, Direct Building Supplies
brought two indemnification claims and one count of breach of
contract. In the breach of contract claim, the Defendant asserts
that TechMedia Group did not use industry best practices and did
not adhere to all applicable state and federal laws.
Based on this allegation, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant
will recover twice for the same injury if it is allowed to maintain
its counterclaim. In making this argument, the Plaintiff relies, in
part, on the gist of the action doctrine.
Without deciding the issue, Judge Brann notes that the Defendant's
counterclaim is likely compulsory under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 13(a). Even if that were not the case, only discovery
will reveal whether Jackson or the third-party vendor is
responsible for the alleged conduct. For that reason, the Court
cannot currently conclude that the "true gist or gravamen of the
claim" is contractual in nature. These are arguments that the
Plaintiff is certainly welcome to renew at a later time, but they
do not currently support dismissal, Judge Brann holds.
Accordingly, Judge Brann denies Jackson's Motion to Dismiss. The
Plaintiff is directed to file an answer to the counterclaim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 22,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/jbpcwup9 from
PacerMonitor.com.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by June 7
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTSON et al v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00656 (D.D.C., Filed March
7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered an order on
motion for extension of time to file response/reply:
-- The Defendant shall file an opposition to plaintiffs' motion
for
class certification on or before June 7, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC]
DOE CORPORATION: Starling Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doe Corporation. The
case is styled as Kimberly Starling, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Doe Corporation Utilizing Telephone
Numbers (877) 839-3536 and (833) 562-0947, Case No.
3:24-cv-00262-CHB (N.D. Tex., May 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R MILTENBERGER PLLC
1360 N White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
- and -
Max Scott Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM LLC
1515 Market Street #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Extension of Briefing Deadlines Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARRISON and GRACE
HEATH, on behalf of themselves, the ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING,
INC. ESOP, and all other similarly situated individuals, v.
ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION
MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE,
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES,
NICOLE JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER KHAN, and LORI SPAHN, Case No.
1:21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their joint motion to extend deadlines for
briefing on Class Certification, such that the Defendants'
opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion be due
June 7, 2024 and Plaintiffs' reply be due July 3, 2024.
The requested extension of the existing deadline will not disrupt
the other deadlines set by this Court.
The undersigned counsel represents that they are serving a copy of
this motion contemporaneously with their clients.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify the Class on May 1.
The affirmative expert disclosure deadline is June 24. The Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel Michelle Yau has a scheduling conflict the week
of June 22 to June 28 and will be largely unavailable during that
period.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GqMkhO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Caroline Bressman, Esq.
Ryan Wheeler, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
cbressman@cohenmilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Rinefierd, Esq.
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
William J. Delany, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 857-0620
E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
wdelany@groom.com
prinefierd@groom.com
- and -
W. Bard Brockman, Esq.
Katelyn Harrell, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PASNER LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street, NW
One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309-3488
E-mail: bard.brockman@bclplaw.com
katelyn.harrell@bclplaw.com
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Must Oppose Harrison Class Cert Bid by June 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison v. Envision
Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00304 (D. Colo., Filed Jan. 29, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting first motion for
extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify
class.
-- The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification
motion is now due by June 7, 2024
-- The Plaintiffs' reply is due by 7/3/2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).[CC]
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Class Settlement in Dimercurio Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO DIMERCURIO, et al.,
v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
parties'
class action settlement; and
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs;
specifically, the Court awards the following: $1,200,000 in
attorney's fees; $56,117.98 in combined litigation and
settlement
administration costs; and $30,000 for incentive awards for the
named Plaintiffs ($7,500 each).
The Court holds this Order in abeyance for 90 days to allow time
for any state or federal agencies to object to the settlement under
CAFA. At the conclusion of this period, the parties shall file a
notice with the Court indicating whether any objections have been
received. If not, this Order will become final in accordance with
the parties’ stipulation.
In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, "[w]ithin 21 days after the distribution
of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees," Class
Counsel shall file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides
the following, to the extent applicable:
The total settlement fund, the total number of class members,
the
total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not
returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of claim
forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the
number
and percentage of objections, the average and median recovery
per
claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to class
members,
the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment to class
members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the amounts
distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative
costs,
the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms of
percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any.
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/.
Class Counsel shall "summarize this information in an easy-to-read
chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases," and
"post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the easy-to-read
chart, on the settlement website."
The Plaintiffs allege Defendant's standby practices violate
California's wage-and-hour laws, Unfair Competition Law, and
Private Attorneys General Act. Following class certification, the
parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily
approved.
The certified class is defined as "all Operators working at the
[Shell] refinery . . . in Martinez, California, who were scheduled
for standby at any time from June 4, 2015, up to and continuing
through Jan. 31, 2020." There are two certified sub-classes:
2016 to 2019 Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class:
"All Class Members who have been employed and separated from
employment (either by involuntary termination or resignation) at
the refinery of Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products
US
in Martinez, California, at any time from June 4, 2016 through
June
3, 2019, and who, upon separation from employment, did not
timely
receive all wages owed as a result of reporting obligations."
2019 to 2020 Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class:
"All Class Members who have been employed and separated from
employment (either by involuntary termination or resignation) at
the refinery of Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products
US
in Martinez, California, at any time from June 4, 2019 through
Jan. 31, 2020, and who, upon separation from employment, did not
timely receive all wages owed as a result of reporting
obligations."
The Plaintiffs are operators at a Shell oil refinery owned by
Equilon Enterprises, LLC.
Equilon is an oil refining and marketing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mFRFr7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVERBRIDGE INC: Sylebra Appeals Dismissal Securities Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund Ltd, et al., filed
an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 18, 2024
entered in the lawsuit styled SYLEBRA CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND
LTD, SYLEBRA CAPITAL PARC MASTER FUND, AND SYLEBRA CAPITAL MENLO
MASTER FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. EVERBRIDGE, INC., DAVID MEREDITH, PATRICK
BRICKLEY, and JAIME ELLERTSON, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02249-FWS-RAO, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
This putative class action lawsuit was filed on April 4, 2022 in
the Central District of California against the Company, Jaime
Ellertson, Patrick Brickley, and David Meredith (the Company's
former Chief Executive Officer) by Sylebra Capital Partners Master
Fund Ltd, Sylebra Capital Parc Master Fund, and Sylebra Capital
Menlo Master Fund (collectively, "Sylebra").
In September 2022, Sylebra filed an amended and restated complaint
(the "First Amended Complaint").
The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws by
the Company and certain of its officers and directors arising out
of purported misrepresentations in the information the Company
provided to investors regarding the Company's organic and inorganic
revenue growth, and the status of integrating acquisitions, which
allegedly artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock
during the period from November 4, 2019 to February 24, 2022.
On August 14, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Fred W. Slaughter on March 18, 2024. Judge
Slaughter held that the Motion is GRANTED and the Second Amended
Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
the claims dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned as Sylebra Capital Partners Master
Fund Ltd, et al. v. Everbridge, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-2474, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
April 18, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due for Appellant on April 23,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript Order was due for Appellant on April 30,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript is due for Appellant on May 30, 2024;
-- Appeal Opening Brief is due for Appellant on July 10, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief is due for Appellee on August 12,
2024;
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the
petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees EVERBRIDGE, INC., et al., are represented by:
Michael Carl Tu, Esq.
COOLEY, LLP
355 S Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
EXTRA SPACE: Erkan Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIHAL ERKAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03168 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 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, Extraspace.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, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels
for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics,
inaccurate drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some
interactive elements and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Extra Space Storage, Inc. 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
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Hernandez Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Mortgage
Corporation. The case is styled as Andres Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. CACE24006440 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
May 8, 2024).
the case type is stated as "Other."
Freedom Mortgage Corporation -- https://www.freedommortgage.com/ --
provide exceptional mortgage servicing to homeowners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Oregon Sues Over Failure to Implement Security
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Pena Oregon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GARDAWORLD CASHLINK LLC d/b/a GARDAWORLD
CASH, Case No. 2:24-cv-03862 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2024), is brought
arising out of Defendant's failure to implement and maintain
reasonable security practices to protect consumers' sensitive
personal information.
For their business purposes, Defendant store and transmit
personally identifiable information ("PII") from customers
including, but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and other sensitive
personal information. Between October 30, 2023 and November 16,
2023, an unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's system
containing personal information and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and the
Class members' PII, including their names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and/or insurance,
benefit, and other personal information (the "Data Breach").
The Defendant's "Notice of Data Breach" letter sent to Plaintiff
and other affected individuals on or around March 22, 2024, was
misleading and inadequate and did not provide great detail
regarding how the Data Breach occurred. Further, Defendant's letter
failed to indicate whether any information accessed and/or
exfiltrated by the unauthorized person was recovered.
The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to
implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
secure, protect, and safeguard the PII they collected from
consumers for business purposes and stored on their systems or
networks. This included ensuring information would not be shared
with unauthorized parties and that all third-party providers had
security procedures in place to maintain the security and integrity
of any data to which Defendant gave them access and sufficiently
prevented unauthorized access to Defendant's systems.
The Defendant breached that duty by, inter alia, failing to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices
to protect PII from unauthorized access and storing and retaining
Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information on inadequately
protected systems. They also breached that duty by failing to
monitor, test and ensure third parties to which it gave access to
customer data had adequate security controls. The Data Breach
happened because of Defendant's inadequate cybersecurity, which
caused Plaintiff's and Class members' PII to be accessed,
exfiltrated, and disclosed to unauthorized third parties in the
Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided his personal information to Defendant.
GardaWorld CashLink LLC doing business as GardaWorld Cash is
incorporated in Delaware and conducts substantial business in
California, including but not limited to, providing its cash
management and other related services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
F. Jay Rahimi, Esq.
LOS ANGELES LEGAL SOLUTIONS
17200 Ventura Blvd., Suite 115
Encino, CA 91316
Phone: (818) 510-0555
Facsimile: (818) 510-0590
Email: jay@lalslaw.com
GATOS SILVER: Plaintiff Reaches Further Settlement in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group reports that the court-appointed representative of a
class of shareholders of Gatos Silver, Inc. ("Gatos Silver") has
reached a settlement with the remaining Defendants in the class
action, including Gatos Silver.
Gatos Silver has agreed to pay US$3,000,000 to settle the claims
made against it in the class action. In connection with the
settlement, the action will be dismissed against (i) the directors,
officers, and employees of Gatos Silver who were also named as
Defendants; (ii) Electrum Silver and its affiliates which were also
named as Defendants; and (iii) certain underwriters against which
the action had previously been discontinued.
Tetra Tech, Inc. ("Tetra Tech") previously paid C$1,000,000 to
settle the claims made against it in the class action. The Court
approved the Tetra Tech settlement on April 16, 2024.
The settlement class is defined as all persons and entities (other
than certain "excluded persons"), wherever they may reside or be
domiciled, who:
(i) purchased Gatos Silver securities under Gatos Silver's Impugned
Prospectuses filed in October 2020 and July 2021 and in the
distributions to which they related; or
(ii) acquired Gatos Silver securities during the period from
October 28, 2020 until January 25, 2022 at 6:52 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time ("Class Period") on any Canadian exchange (including,
without limitation, the Toronto Stock Exchange) or any Canadian
alternative trading system.
The class action was commenced following Gatos's disclosure in late
January 2022 that the mineral reserve statement for its Cerro Los
Gatos mine in Mexico was affected by error and materially
overstated. The Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, the
materially overstated mineral reserve statement was incorporated in
Gatos's offering and continuous disclosure documents released
throughout the Class Period.
The settlement and dismissal of the action against Gatos Silver and
the other remaining Defendants is subject to the approval of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If approved by the Court, the
settlement will settle, extinguish, and bar all claims of the
Settlement Class against those Defendants relating in any way to or
arising out of the proceeding. The settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims. Gatos Silver and the other remaining Defendants do
not admit any wrongdoing or liability.
The class is represented by the law firms of Siskinds LLP,
Eighty-One West Law PC, and CFM Lawyers LLP (together, "Class
Counsel"). Class Counsel is seeking the approval of legal fees not
to exceed 25% of the Settlement Amount under the settlement with
Tetra Tech (i.e. $250,000) and 25% of the Settlement Amount under
the settlement with Gatos Silver and the other remaining Defendants
(i.e. US$750,000), plus disbursements and applicable taxes.
A hearing to approve the settlement with Gatos Silver and the other
remaining Defendants will be held on June 28, 2024, during which
the Court will consider whether the proposed settlement and Class
Counsel's fees and disbursements are fair and reasonable and should
be approved, and consider a Plan of Allocation for the distribution
of the net settlement funds to eligible Class Members. Class
Members who wish to object to or comment on the settlement, Class
Counsel's fee and disbursement request, or Plan of Allocation
should do so by no later than Friday, June 7, 2024. If the
settlement is approved, all Class Members (who did not previously
opt out) will be bound by it.
To be eligible for compensation from the settlements with Tetra
Tech and Gatos Silver, Class Members must submit a Claim Form to
the Administrator at https://www.cdngatossettlement.com by October
30, 2024.
For complete details regarding the proposed settlement, including
how to object/comment and how to make a claim for compensation,
please consult the long-form notice available, in English and
French, on Class Counsel's websites at
https://www.cfmlawyers.ca/active-litigation/gatos-silver-inc-tsx-gato/
and https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/gatos-silver/, or visit
cdngatossettlement.com. [GN]
GEICO INDEMINTY: Fails to Pay Insureds for Vehicle Loss, Harn Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL HARN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01873-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract and final
declaratory/injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated vehicle owners for their losses
when their vehicles were damaged during an accident in violation of
its own automobile insurance contract. According to the complaint,
the Defendant did not offer payment or paid for the diminution in
value resulting from vehicle damage.
GEICO Indemnity Company is an insurance firm with its principal
place of business in Chevy Chase, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent J. Savage, Esq.
Matthew R. Bradley, Esq.
SAVAGE TURNER PINCKNEY SAVAGE & SPROUSE
P.O. Box 10600
Savannah, GA 31412
Telephone: (912) 231-1140
Email: lwickline@savagelawfirm.net
mbradley@savagelawfirm.net
GENERAL MOTORS: Collects Drivers' Data Without Consent, Garcia Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GARCIA, III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR, LLC,
and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No
2:24-cv-03515 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Children's Internet Protection
Act, California Constitutional Right to Privacy, California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law, and for unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendants' tracking, interception,
transmission, and collection of Americans' driving behavior data
with secret computer systems automatically installed in their
vehicles or on their cellular telephones. The OnStar-related
applications on General Motors (GM) vehicles, with names such as
MyChevrolet, MyBuick, and MyCadillac, allow GM and OnStar to
collect, record, store, and transmit data relating to driver
behavior, including the vehicle's condition. Neither GM nor OnStar
provide consumers with any disclosure that their driver behavior
data is being or will be collected, gathered, stored, transmitted,
or sold to third parties. The Plaintiff and other Class members
suffered actual harm and the risk of future harm as a result of
GM's and OnStar's illicit activities.
General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.
OnStar LLC is a subsidiary of General Motors LLC, with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a global data and analytics
company, with its principal place of business in Alpharetta,
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2320
Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Decertifies Class in Riddell Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT RIDDELL, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00254-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen Limbaugh, Jr. entered an order:
-- denying Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Edward
Stockton;
-- granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to
exclude
the testimony of Dr. Werner Dahm;
-- granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for
summary Judgment;
-- decertifying the class; and
-- denying Defendant's motion to reconsider class certification.
The plaintiff shall file briefing addressing this Court's concerns
about the suitability of the class representative, the viability of
this case given the reduction in class size, and any proposal for a
renewed motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff's brief is due June 10, 2024. Defendant may file a
response by June 24, 2024. Plaintiff may file a reply by July 3,
2024. The trial date set for July 2024 is hereby vacated, and the
parties should include in their briefing a new proposal for a trial
schedule.
The Court excludes Dr. Dahm's opinions that (1) a deficiency in the
design of the piston rings in Class Vehicles is the root cause of
the alleged oil consumption defect, and (2) that the piston ring
design defect is present in all Class Vehicles. In addition, "the
Court excludes Dr. Dahm's testimony to the extent it summarizes or
restates evidence already in the record without applying a reliable
methodology to interpret or analyze such evidence."
Because it now appears that plaintiff Riddell is not a suitable
class representative, this Court must decertify the class. Because
the class is decertified for reasons not relevant to the
Defendant's motion to reconsider class certification, that motion
is denied.
The Plaintiff Robert Riddell is a Michigan resident who purchased a
new 2012 Chevrolet Silverado with a Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8
Vortec 5300 engines in 2012 in Ballwin, Missouri. The Plaintiff
alleges that Gen IV engines contain defective piston rings that
cause excessive oil consumption. That "Oil Consumption Defect"
allegedly causes reduced engine lubricity, which, in turn, causes
engine damage and malfunction. The Plaintiff alleges that GM knew
about the defect but failed to disclose it to the people who bought
trucks and SUVs containing the Gen IV 5.3L engines, and GM has
refused to offer an effective repair.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mseUkf at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLADSTONE AUTO: Appeals Atty.'s Fees Ruling in Ferguson FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLADSTONE AUTO, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit entitled CAROL FERGUSON and LYNDA FREEMAN, on behalf of
themselves and, in addition, on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. MARIA SMITH, an individual; GLADSTONE AUTO, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company; and CARROS, INC., an Oregon
corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-SB, in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon.
The suit filed on March 1, 2018 seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, and prejudgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Stacie Beckerman entered an Order on March 12, 2024 granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave, and granting in part and denying in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and nontaxable
expenses and cost bill. The Court awarded the Plaintiffs
$556,853.00 in attorney's and paralegal fees, $13,208.52 in taxable
costs, and $33,376.39 in nontaxable expenses.
The appellate case is captioned as Ferguson, et al. v. Smith, et
al., Case No. 24-2407, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 17, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on April 22,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on April 26,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on May 28, 2024;
-- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on July 5, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on August 5, 2024;
and
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. [BN]
HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Harbor Diversified, Inc. ("Harbor" or the "Company") (OTC
Pink: HRBR). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton
at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether Harbor and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
You have until July 8, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Harbor securities during the Class Period. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On March 29, 2024, Harbor filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission which revealed
that, on March 26, 2024, the audit committee (the "Audit
Committee") of the board of directors of Harbor concluded, after
considering the recommendations of management, that the Company's
previously issued (i) consolidated financial statements and related
disclosures as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022
contained in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, (ii) interim
consolidated financial statements and related disclosures contained
in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q as of and for the first three
quarters of the year ended December 31, 2022, and (iii) interim
consolidated financial statements and related disclosures contained
in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q as of and for the first three
quarters of the year ended December 31, 2023 (collectively, the
"Non-Reliance Periods") should no longer be relied upon due to
misstatements contained in such financial statements, and that such
financial statements should be restated. In addition, the Company
indicated that the Audit Committee's conclusion was based on
management's review of the accounting for certain revenue under the
capacity purchase agreement (the "United Agreement") previously
entered into between Air Wisconsin Airlines LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and United Airlines, Inc. Specifically,
management determined that the decision to recognize all of the
approximately $52.3 million in revenue and interest income in the
consolidated financial statements and related disclosures prepared
for the Non-Reliance Periods relating to certain disputed amounts
under the United Agreement was not consistent with Accounting
Standards Codification Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with
Customers.
On this news, Harbor's stock price fell $0.28 per share, or 14.25%,
to close at $1.73 per share on April 1, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
HARPER WOODS, MI: Carlock Sues Over Indigent's Unlawful Detention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CARLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HARPER WOODS; GLEN HEANEY, MATTHEW
CLOSURDO, DANIEL MCCAW, GEORGE SPARKS, JAMES RUTHENBERG, and TED
STAGER, in their individual capacities as officers of the Harper
Woods Police Department; WAYNE COUNTY; 32A DISTRICT COURT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11122-JEL-CI (E.D. Mich., April 29,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Equal Protection & Due Process, Substantive Due Process, and
Procedural Due Process, and individual claims for violations of
Fourth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments, 42 U.S. Code, and
Michigan State Law.
The Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of himself as an
individual and on behalf of a class of similarly situated people
subjected to the Defendants' wealth-based post-arrest detention
scheme. Indigent in Wayne County, including in Harper Woods, are
routinely jailed because they cannot afford bail. Meanwhile,
similarly situated individuals who can afford bail are routinely
released. This unnecessary, unconstitutional, and costly
wealth-based discrimination against indigent people accused of
crimes in Harper Woods is the result of the 32A District Court's
policy and practice of making no inquiry whatsoever into an
arrestee's ability to pay before imposing bail requirements. This
wealth-based pretrial detention system violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as
courts around the country have held in analogous situations, says
the PLaintiff.
City of Harper Woods is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its
principal place of business in Wayne County, Michigan.
Wayne County is a charter county duly organized and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal
place of business in Wayne County, Michigan.
32A District Court is a third-class district court, with its
principal place of business in Wayne County, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shereef H. Akeel, Esq.
Hasan Kaakarli, Esq.
Daniel W. Cermak, Esq.
Hayden Pendergrass, Esq.
AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC
888 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 350
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 269-9595
Email: shereef@akeelvalentine.com
hasan@akeelvalentine.com
daniel@akeelvalentine.com
hayden@akeelvalentine.com
HAVANA HARRY'S: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORIS AREVALO, JUAN
AREVALO VILLALOBOS, TOMAS AVENDANO, SANDRA BAIRES, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. HAVANA HARRY'S II
INC., NIEVES FEAL and ARTHUR CULLEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-20555-MD
(S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order:
-- decertifying the conditionally certified collective action, and
-- granting attorney's fees and costs in connection with defending
the class action proceedings, after a motion is fully briefed,
together with all other relief as the Court deems just and
adequate.
The Court should decertify the collective action because there is
no evidence of a plan or policy to commit overtime violations, and
there are an insufficient number of employes to certify an FLSA
collective action.
On Sept. 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a
collective action.
After multiple extensions of deadlines requested by the Plaintiffs,
the Court was finally able to enter a scheduling order, recently on
March 26, 2023.
The Plaintiffs now seek to add Bonilla as a party Plaintiff. The
motion is set for hearing on May 28, 2024. On Aug. 21, 2023,
Bonilla gave a Sworn Statement stating that he wished to join this
action. He did not attest that there were other kitchen staff that
were not paid overtime.
Havana Harry's is Miami's top Cuban restaurant.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mCzk9Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 448-9292
E-mail: em@eddymarbanlaw.com
- and -
Elee E. Dammous, Esq.
DAMMOUS LAW PLLC
14100 Palmetto Frontage Rd. Suite 370
Miami Lakes, FL, 33016
Telephone: (833)-326-6687
E-mail: elee@dammouslaw.com
HUB GROUP: Andujar Suit Moved From New Jersey to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JORGE ANDUJAR and FRANKLIN PENA BATISTA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-16987-MEF-JSA (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants
the Defendant's motion to transfer venue.
Before the Court is Defendant Hub Group Trucking Inc.'s motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Plaintiffs
Jorge Andjuar and Franklin Pena Batista oppose the motion. No oral
argument was heard.
The lawsuit is a putative class action alleging violations of the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law ("NJWHL"). The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as
truck drivers from approximately 2011 until 2023 and were
classified as independent contractors.
The Defendant is an Illinois corporation involved in interstate
trucking and commerce; it maintains significant operations in
Memphis, Tennessee.
On Sept. 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their present Complaint,
contending that the Defendant violated New Jersey law by improperly
classifying them, along with a putative class of other drivers, as
independent contractors instead of employees. The Plaintiffs seek
to certify a class on behalf of the following: "individuals who,
either individually or through a closely held corporation,
performed delivery services for Defendant and were based out of New
Jersey within the past 6 years and were classified as independent
contractors."
At issue is an Independent Contractor and Equipment Lease Agreement
("the Agreements") that reflect the terms and conditions of the
parties' working relationship. The Agreements contain a forum
selection provision.
On Dec. 18, 2023, the Defendant filed the present motion to
transfer this case to the Western District of Tennessee based on
the forum selection clause in the Agreements. The Defendant
contends that the forum selection clause compels transfer pursuant
to the Supreme Court's decision in Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W.D. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013), because
the clause is valid and mandatory, covers the Plaintiffs' legal
claims, and because the public interest considerations weigh in
favor of transfer to Tennessee.
In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that their claims do not come
within the scope of the forum selection clause, and that the clause
should not be enforced because litigating their claims in Tennessee
would be highly inconvenient. On reply, the Defendant contends that
the forum selection provision clearly encompasses the Plaintiffs'
wage claims because the Agreements are the sole documents governing
the parties' employment relationship. The Defendant agrees with the
Plaintiffs that if the case is transferred, the court in the
Western District of Tennessee should address the parties' choice of
law dispute.
Judge Allen notes that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that they
executed Agreements that contain the forum selection clause.
However, contrary to the language of the Agreements, the Plaintiffs
commenced suit in New Jersey and contend they should be permitted
to remain here.
The Court finds the forum selection clause is valid, enforceable,
and encompasses the Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, Judge Allen opines
that this case fits squarely within the framework of Atlantic
Marine. Since there are no unusual circumstances that would warrant
disregarding a valid forum selection clause, Atlantic Marine
requires that the Defendant's motion to transfer be granted.
Based the valid forum selection clause and given the Supreme
Court's directive in Atlantic Marine and the Plaintiffs' failure to
address the public interest factors, Judge Allen says the case will
be transferred to the Western District of Tennessee, pursuant to
Section 1404(a).
For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to transfer is granted,
and the Court will transfer this case to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee. The Clerk will not transfer
this case for fourteen days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jtxjc3m from PacerMonitor.com.
ICONTAINERS USA: Court Enters Scheduling Order in SX Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SX HOLDINGS LLC and
MOHAMED MAHMOUD, on behalf of themself and all others similarly
situated, v. ICONTAINERS USA, INC., and ICONTAINERS SOLUTIONS SL,
Case No. 1:22-cv-20824-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Darrin
Gayles entered an order setting class certification deadlines and
referring certain motions to Magistrate Judge.
Supplemental Initial Disclosures (pursuant June 28, 2024
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)):
Fact discovery concerning the merits of Jan. 31, 2025
Plaintiffs' individual claims and fact
discovery related to class certification
shall be completed by:
Plaintiff(s) shall disclose experts, Feb. 14, 2025
expert witness summaries, and reports as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by:
Defendants shall serve rebuttal expert Apr. 25, 2025
report(s) directed to class certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by:
Expert discovery regarding experts for May 30, 2025
class certification, including all expert
depositions, shall be completed by:
Plaintiffs shall file Class Certification June 16, 2025
Motion with any Expert Reports, declarations
and evidence in support thereof by:
Defendants shall file Response to Class July 16, 2025
Certification Motion with any Rebuttal
Expert Reports, declarations, and evidence
in support thereof by:
Plaintiffs shall file Reply to Defendants' Aug. 6, 2025
Response to Class Certification Motion by:
iContainers provides online freight forwarding services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g26oUH at no extra
charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS TOOL: Court Junks Bid to Continue Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina L. Hess v. Illinois
Tool Works, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05171-MRA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order denying
stipulation to continue class certification filing, briefing, and
hearing because the parties have not demonstrated good cause or
extraordinary circumstances to continue the class certification
briefing deadlines or vacate the discovery and trial dates.
The parties shall comply with the Court's forthcoming Civil Trial
Order.
This action was transferred from Judge Dale Fischer to Judge Monica
Ramírez Almadani on Feb. 23, 2024.
On May 3, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Class
Certification Filing, Briefing, and Hearing Schedule, seeking to
continue class certification briefing deadlines set pursuant to the
Court's Jan. 5, 2024, Order.
The Defendant produces engineered fasteners and components,
equipment and consumable systems, and specialty products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Su8Uu at no extra
charge.[CC]
IMPERIAL COUNTY, CA: Essex Sues Over Deprivation of Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELICIA ESSEX, individually and as personal representative of the
Estate of DELBERT ESSEX, deceased, and KRISTINA ESSEX, individually
and a personal representative of the Estate of DELBERT ESSEX,
deceased, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, a governmental entity,
NAPHCARE, a Delaware limited liability company; ROSEMARY DOHERTY,
individually; J. ROMAN, individually and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00763-WQH-VET (S.D. Cal.,
April 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm; failure to
train, supervise and discipline; unconstitutional custom, policy or
practice; state created danger; interference with familial
relations; negligence; violation of Bane Act; and failure to summon
medical care.
The Plaintiffs bring this action under the 14th Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as codified at
42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983, for injuries and death resulting from the
Defendants' substantial and deliberate indifference to Mr. Essex's
health and welfare while in their custody. The Plaintiffs state a
claim against the Defendants for failure to establish policies,
procedures and training which caused Mr. Essex to suffer from
numerous medical conditions, alcohol withdrawal, and ultimately
died, and which action constituted a clear deprivation of his
constitutional rights.
County of Imperial is a government entity in California.
NaphCare is a provider of correctional healthcare services based in
Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Mikel, Esq.
Cameron Sehat, Esq.
THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, PLC
5100 Campus Dr., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 825-2000
Email: cameron@sehatlaw.com
j.mikel@sehatlaw.com
INSIGHT GLOBAL: W.D. Washington Tosses Floyd Job Applicant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled ALEXANDER FLOYD, Plaintiff v.
INSIGHT GLOBAL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01680-BJR
(W.D. Wash.).
The Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), RCW 49.58, promotes
pay equity in Washington State by addressing business practices
that contribute to income disparities. On Jan. 1, 2023, a revised
provision took effect, which requires certain employers to disclose
the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of other
compensation and benefits, in each posting for an available
position. Employees and job applicants are entitled to remedies for
violations of this provision, which may include statutory damages.
Within a few months, multiple plaintiffs, represented by Emery
Reddy, PLLC, filed multiple putative class-action lawsuits against
various companies, who had job postings that are alleged to be
non-compliant with the EPOA job-posting provision. This case is one
of 27 lawsuits with virtually identical complaints filed in King
County Superior Court and subsequently removed to this Court by the
Defendants. This case was removed to this Court on Nov. 2, 2023,
and Defendant Insight Global LLC filed a motion to dismiss.
Having reviewed the materials and the relevant legal authorities,
the Court grants Insight Global's motion and dismiss Mr. Floyd's
complaint with leave to amend.
Washington State passed its first equal pay legislation, the Equal
Pay Act, in 1943, and amended it for the first time in 2018, at
which time it became known as the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act
("EPOA").
On Sept. 20, 2023, Alexander Floyd submitted a job application
online through LinkedIn.com for a Network Engineer in the Greater
Seattle area with Insight Global. He alleges that the job posting
on LinkedIn did not disclose the wage scale or salary range. He
filed suit against Insight Global in the King County Superior Court
on Oct. 6, 2023. He claims to represent more than 40 potential
class members, who also applied for jobs with Insight Global for
positions that did not disclose the wage scale or salary range.
Mr. Floyd asserts three causes of action: (1) Violation of RCW
49.58.110; (2) Injunctive Relief; and (3) Declaratory Relief. He
seeks statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to RCW 49.58.070(1).
Insight Global removed the case to this Court on Nov. 2, 2023, on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Insight Global filed a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6), arguing that Mr. Floyd, as a job applicant, does not
have a private cause of action to sue Insight Global for failure to
comply with the EPOA.
Insight Global contends that Mr. Floyd's cursory allegations are
insufficient to provide standing or a factual basis for his
statutory claim, noting that he filed three other lawsuits based on
nearly identical alleged violations. Insight Global first argues
that Mr. Floyd lacks standing to bring a private cause of action,
adding that he fails to allege that he applied in good faith with
the intent of gaining employment or that he suffered any injury.
Insight Global also argues that Mr. Floyd fails to plausibly allege
a cause of action under RCW 49.58.110.
The Court concludes that the statute authorizes a job applicant to
bring a civil action for violation of RCW 49.58.110.
The Court also concludes that a violation of the statutory
provision at issue here—a job posting with no compensation
information included—is a technical or procedural violation that
by itself does not manifest concrete injury but requires a "bona
fide" applicant before there is a risk of harm.
Although Mr. Floyd's declaration shows that he may be capable of
amending his complaint to support standing, the Court does not
consider his declaration as part of his pleading. Judge Rothstein
also notes that ordinarily, leave to amend a complaint should be
freely given unless the court determines that the pleading could
not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.
Therefore, Judge Rothstein holds that the prudent course is to
permit Mr. Floyd to amend his complaint.
Insight Global contends that Mr. Floyd has also failed to allege
the necessary elements to state a claim for the violation of RCW
49.58.110, specifically arguing that he fails to allege plausible
harm that he incurred due to the inadequate job posting.
Because Mr. Floyd's Complaint is being dismissed for lack of
standing, with leave to amend, the Court does not address the
parties' additional arguments.
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant Insight Global, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of standing, with leave to amend. The Plaintiff
may file an amended complaint within 15 days of the date of this
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 25, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8ae7evve from PacerMonitor.com.
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Habelt Files Certiorari Bid in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mark Habelt filed with the Supreme Court of United States
a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Mark
Habelt, Petitioner vs. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 23-1134.
Response is due today, May 20, 2024.
The Plaintiff petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
in the case titled MARK HABELT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Plaintiff v. IRHYTHM
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; KEVIN M. KING; MICHAEL J. COYLE; DOUGLAS J.
DEVINE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-15660. The panel
dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction due to appellant's lack of
standing, an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of a
putative securities fraud class action.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 2021, Mark
Habelt was the first shareholder to file a securities fraud class
action against digital healthcare company iRhythm Technologies
(IRTC.O), accusing the company in federal court in San Francisco of
misleading investors with overly optimistic statements about U.S.
regulatory proceedings to set a reimbursement rate for iRhythm's
premier heart monitoring product. iRhythm's share price dropped
sharply when the reimbursement rate was ultimately slashed from
$311 to $115.
Habelt did not ask to be appointed to lead the class action when
institutional investors emerged in the case. But even after a
Mississippi pension fund was designated lead plaintiff and filed
amended complaints on behalf of the class, Habelt's name remained
on the pleadings.
On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021.
The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to iRhythm
Technologies and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Michael J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and former
Chief Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine.
The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.
On October 27, 2021, iRhythm Technologies filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2022, entering
judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants.
On April 29, 2022, the original named plaintiff appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On October 11, 2023, after briefing by the parties and oral
argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
The appellant now files a petition for rehearing en banc.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appelant-Petitioner MARK HABELT, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Xiao Wang, Esq.
University of Virginia, School of Law
Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
E-mail: x.wang@law.virginia.edu
ITHACA COLLEGE: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Akerman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Akerman v. Ithaca College,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01565-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Therese
Wiley Dancks entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as
follows:
-- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall
be
made on or before June 10, 2024.
-- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made
on
or before June 10, 2024.
-- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before
Sept. 27, 2024, by Plaintiff.
-- Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be served by June 7, 2024.
-- Discovery Motions due Apr. 8, 2025.
This action has been referred into the Mandatory Mediation Program.
The Court has discussed with the parties the time frame for
completion of the Mandatory two-hour mediation session. Mandatory
Mediation shall be completed by Oct. 31, 2024. The Court will
issue a separate order referring this case into the Mandatory
Mediation Program.
Ithaca has a liberal arts focus, and offers several
pre-professional programs, along with some graduate programs
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qtyVeJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
JENNIFER DECKARD: Court Certifies Class in Plagens Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PLAGENS, et al.,
v. JENNIFER D. DECKARD, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02744-JPC (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, final approval of
the settlement, and associated relief, except to the extent the
motion seeks awards to the Plaintiffs beyond their pro rata shares
of the settlement.
The Court also entered an order:
-- Certifying Rule 23 class for purposes of settlement;
-- Appointing The Rosen Law Firm as class counsel;
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives;
-- Approving settlement of the securities class action, including
the plan of allocation and notice procedure;
-- Approving the release of Plaintiffs' claims;
-- Awarding The Rosen Law Firm $2,000,000 in attorney's fees;
-- Approving the payment of $82,181.60 in litigation expenses and
up
to $500,000 in settlement administration costs; and
-- Denying the $10,000 service award to Dr. Phelps, the $10,000
service award to Mr. Baron, and the $5,000 service award to
Mr.
Arjani.
The Court finds that the class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3); therefore, the Court certifies the following
class for purposes of settlement:
"All persons and entities who purchased Covia and/or Fairmount
Santrol common stock, or purchased call options or sold put
options on Covia and/or Fairmount Santrol common stock, between
March 10, 2016 and June 29, 2020, both dates inclusive, and
were
damaged thereby."
The settlement class excludes (a) persons who suffered no
compensable losses; (b) Defendant, current and former officers
and
directors of the company at all relevant times, members of
their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant or
any
person excluded from the class has or had a majority ownership
interest at any time; and (c) persons or entities who file
valid
and timely requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class.
On Dec. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging that violations of federal securities law caused a
significant drop in the share price of Covia stock and substantial
losses to the Plaintiffs. Following private mediation and
negotiations, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court
previously approved preliminarily.
The Plaintiffs are former shareholders of Covia Holdings
Corporation and/or its predecessor, Fairmount Santrol Holdings
Inc.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HW4884 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Chin Suit
----------------------------------------------
KE Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2024, that on February 26, 2024, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss "Chin v. KE
Holdings Inc. et al.," No. 1:21-cv-11196
Plaintiffs were granted leave to replead to address the complaint's
deficiencies identified by the court. Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint on March 18, 2024. On April 10, 2024, the court
ordered motion-to-dismiss briefing for Second Amended Complaint to
be completed in June 2024.
On December 30, 2021, the company and certain of the company's
current officers and directors were named as defendants in said
putative securities class action filed in federal court. Plaintiffs
allege, in sum and substance, that the company's disclosures were
materially false and/or misleading because they inflated the
company's GTV, inflated its revenues and inflated the number of
stores and agents using the company's platform. The case was
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of these alleged misstatements and
omissions in the company's SEC filings and public disclosure
documents, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.
KE Holdings Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company with equity
interests in Beike (Tianjin) Investment Co., Ltd., Jinbei (Tianjin)
Technology Co., Ltd., Beike Jinke (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.,
and Beike (China) Investment Holdings Limited, all of which are our
wholly-owned PRC subsidiaries. Its platform Beike is an integrated
online and offline application for housing transactions and
services.
KEMPER SPORTS: Discovery in Wilhelm Due Jan. 2, 2026
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY M. WILHELM, v.
KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
8:24-cv-00501-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac Carney
entered scheduling order as follows:
[1] All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed
by Jan. 2, 2026. Discovery motions must be filed and heard
prior to this date.
[2] The parties shall have until March 2, 2026 to file and have
heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend
the
pleadings.
[3] A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, May 4, 2026 at
03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is required.
[4] The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, May 12, 2026 at
08:30 AM.
[5] The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 − Private
Mediation. The parties shall have until Jan. 15, 2026 to
conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file with
the
Court a Joint Status Report no later than five (5) days
after
the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court of their
settlement efforts and status.
[6] The Plaintiff shall have until Aug. 4, 2025 to file and have
heard any class certification motion.
Kemper offers municipal and public golf courses, private clubs,
resorts, development.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S252Jb at no extra
charge.[CC]
KLN ENTERPRISES: Court Dismisses Trammell Suit With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
dba Wiley Wallaby, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01884-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
On Oct. 16, 2023, Plaintiff Mark Trammell filed a class action
complaint against Defendant KLN Enterprises, Inc., dba Wiley
Wallaby. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of
California. The Defendant manufactures and sells licorice candies
including, Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice.
The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant,
alleging claims for: (1) violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) breach
of express warranty.
On Dec. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). On Jan. 12, 2024,
the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. On Jan. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a reply.
On Feb. 13, 2024, the Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local
Rule 7.1(d)(1), submitted the motion on the parties' papers.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with
prejudice. Specifically, the Defendant argues that: (1) the
Plaintiff fails to plead his claims, which the Defendant argues are
all grounded in fraud, with sufficient particularity as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); (2) the Plaintiff's CLRA claim does not pass
the reasonable consumer test; (3) the Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief; and (4) the
Plaintiff cannot pursue equitable remedies because he has failed to
plead facts establishing that his legal remedies are inadequate.
Judge Huff finds that the Plaintiff fails to set forth what is
false or misleading about Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice's
labeling and why it is false, and thus fails to give the Defendant
notice of the particular misconduct, which is alleged to constitute
fraud.
Because the Plaintiff has not alleged with sufficient particularity
that the malic acid used in Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice is
artificial and functions as a flavor, Judge Huff holds that the
Plaintiff's claims fail to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
standard and must be dismissed.
Judge Huff also finds that the Plaintiff does not sufficiently
allege in his complaint that he seeks or intends to purchase Wiley
Wallaby Very Berry Licorice again. Moreover, the Plaintiff fails to
allege any facts in his complaint that plausibly demonstrates "a
real and immediate" threat of repeated injury in the future. The
Plaintiff's future harm is, thus, "conjectural or hypothetical" and
not "actual and imminent."
The Plaintiff cites to Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d
956, 967 (9th Cir. 2018), arguing that it supports his argument
that he has standing to bring a claim for injunctive relief.
Davidson is distinguishable because the plaintiff in that case
alleged a desire to purchase the products again, as Judge Huff
holds. The Plaintiff failed to do so here. Furthermore, Judge Huff
explains that, unlike in Davidson, in which the plaintiff faced a
future injury because she still could not rely on the defendant's
claims about its products' "flushability" without first purchasing
and using the flushable wipes, the Plaintiff admits that he now has
knowledge that enables him to make an appropriate choice with
respect to Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice.
Thus, Judge Huff says, there is no longer any risk that Plaintiff
will be misled the next time he looks at a Wiley Wallaby Very Berry
Licorice label. Accordingly, Judge Huff rules that the Plaintiff
lacks standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief and that
claim is dismissed.
To the extent the Plaintiff's claims seek equitable relief, Judge
Huff dismisses them because the Plaintiff failed to state a claim
for equitable relief.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint with leave to
amend. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty
(30) days from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies in
his complaint if he can do so.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3j6fjf3v from PacerMonitor.com.
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend AMCA Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated
multidistrict AMCA incident class suits.
Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District
Courts.
Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care
providers who used AMCA.
These lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in
the District of New Jersey.
On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.
The consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the Company did
not adequately protect its patients' data and failed to timely
notify those patients of the AMCA Incident.
The Complaint asserted various causes of action, including but not
limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes.
The Complaint sought damages on behalf of a class of all affected
Company customers.
On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all
claims.
On December 16, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's Motion to Dismiss.
On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
alleging claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
confidence, invasion of privacy, and various state statutory
claims, including a claim under the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss certain claims of the Amended
Complaint.
On May 5, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's Motion to Dismiss.
The Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in the
multi-district litigation.
Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[CC]
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Davis class suit in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for
Hillsborough County, Florida.
On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.
The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.
In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida
Second District Court of Appeal.
On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal
reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling
issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court.
On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted
jurisdiction of the lawsuit.
The court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020.
On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion
approving the result of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal
in favor of the Plaintiff.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[CC]
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Nolan Class Suit in M.D.N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Nolan class suit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
On December 29, 2021, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Nathaniel J. Nolan, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company's patient acknowledgement of
estimated financial responsibility form is misleading.
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment under the consumer
protection laws of Nevada and Florida that the form is materially
misleading and deceptive, an injunction barring the use of the
form, damages on behalf of an alleged class, and attorney's fees
and expenses.
On February 28, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all
claims.
On February 13, 2023, the court entered an order granting the
Company's Motion to Dismiss.
On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.
On April 10, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding
the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[CC]
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Wiggins Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Wiggins class suit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
On February 13, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, Michael
Wiggins and Teri Stevens v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company's website
includes a computer code created by Google that sent information to
Google related to Plaintiffs and their online activities.
Plaintiffs assert statutory and common law claims against the
Company and seek to represent a class of all persons whose health
information was allegedly shared with Google from the Company's
website before March 8, 2023.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
On April 12, 2024, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Stay Proceedings.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.[CC]
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Reconsideration in Wilner Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies the motion for reconsideration
filed in the lawsuit entitled NOCHUM WILNER, et al., Plaintiffs v.
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
7:15-cv-09374-VR (S.D.N.Y.).
Currently before the Court is Stern Thomasson LLP's (STLLP's)
motion to reconsider the Court's Dec. 12, 2023 Order, which awards
attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
On Jan. 25, 2022, Judge Paul E. Davison approved a final settlement
agreement that awarded a total of $53,000 for "Class Counsel's
attorney's fees and litigation expenses." Abraham Kleinman of
Kleinman LLC, Philip Stern of STLLP, and Andrew Thomasson of STLLP,
all appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. On July 31, 2023, after
the case settled, Yongmoon Kim of the Kim Law Firm (KLF) filed a
notice of appearance to initiate this attorney's fee dispute. On
Jan. 25, 2021, Philip Stern became Of Counsel to KLF.
Abraham Kleinman, KLF, and STLLP, each filed submissions proposing
how the $53,000 should be divided. On Dec. 12, 2023, the Court
issued an order dividing the $53,000 by first allocating costs of
$512.60 to Kleinman LLC, $6,021.45 to STLLP, and $40.26 to KLF, and
then dividing the remaining balance by awarding attorney's fees of
$15,320.48 to Kleinman and $31,105.21 to Philip Stern and KLF.
On Dec. 26, 2023, STLLP moved to reconsider under Local Rule 6.3,
and KLF filed their opposition papers on Jan. 9, 2024.
STLLP contends that the Court should grant the motion for
reconsideration because (1) the Court erred when it held that
"because STLLP was a 'dissolved' partnership, 'STLLP is now --
essentially -- Thomasson'"; (2) neither KLF nor Kleinman
"questioned STLLP's right to recover its unpaid, accrued attorney's
fees"; and (3) class representatives Nochum and Etsy Wilner
contemplated that STLLP would receive compensation.
Judge Reznik finds that STLLP failed to present sufficient evidence
to grant a motion to reconsider, and that whether KLF and Kleinman
question STLLP's right to recover is not a sufficient basis for
granting a motion to reconsider. Even if Nochum and Etsy Wilner
contemplated that STLLP would receive compensation, Judge Reznik
points out that STLLP failed to present sufficient evidence to
grant a motion to reconsider.
Also, as the Court mentioned in its Order, the Class Action
Settlement Agreement -- a document signed by Nochum and Etsy Wilner
-- specifically defines class counsel as "Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
and Philip D. Stern, Esq."
For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. The Clerk of the Court is requested to terminate
the pending motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 22,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3fdk8k from
PacerMonitor.com.
LI AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Violations of Securities Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Li Auto Inc. ("Li Auto" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LI) and
certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed
under 24-cv- 03470, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Li Auto securities between February 26, 2024 and
March 20, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Li
Auto securities during the Class Period, you have until July 9,
2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
Li Auto operates in the energy vehicle market in the People's
Republic of China and designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
smart electric vehicles. The Company's product line includes
multi-purpose vehicles and sport utility vehicles.
In early 2024, Li Auto made a series of announcements touting the
purportedly high demand for its electric vehicles and representing
that the Company was "consistently improving operating efficiency
throughout the year." In late February 2024, Li Auto announced that
it expected to deliver between 100,000 and 103,000 vehicles in the
first quarter of 2024, "representing an increase of 90.2% to 95.9%
from the first quarter of 2023." Shortly thereafter, on March 1,
2024, Li Auto launched its first battery electric vehicle model,
the Li MEGA. According to the Company, the Li MEGA "provides big
families with a blend of energy replenishment experience as
efficient as traditional [internal combustion engine] vehicle
refueling, next-generation design and exceptionally low drag
coefficient, roomy and comfortable space, flagship-level
performance and safety features, and superior intelligent
experience."
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Li Auto had overstated the demand for its vehicles and the
efficacy of its operating strategy in launching the Li MEGA;
(ii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to meet its Q1 2024
vehicle deliveries estimate;
(iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial condition; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 21, 2024, Li Auto issued a press release disclosing that,
"[d]ue to lower-than-expected order intake, the Company now expects
its vehicle deliveries for the first quarter of 2024 to be between
76,000 and 78,000 vehicles, revised from the previous vehicle
delivery outlook of between 100,000 and 103,000 vehicles." In
addition, the Company stated that the Li MEGA had an operating
strategy that was "mis-paced," noting that operations were planned
as if the model had already entered the "scaling phase" of
sales-that is, the phase focusing mainly on customer acquisition,
team building, and operational efficiency for sustainable
growth-while it was still in the early "validation" period, during
which the Company would focus on creating a product market fit by
idea validation and product refinement. Further, the Company stated
that it will revert to the validation phase of sales by shifting
its focus toward its core user group, target sales to cities with
stronger purchasing power, and then will look to expand to a
broader user base.
On this news, Li Auto's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $2.55 per ADS, or 7.48%, to close at $31.53 per ADS on March
21, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bids For Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set June 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Lincoln National Corporation (NYSE: LNC)
securities between November 4, 2020 and November 2, 2022. Lincoln
National is a holding company that operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) Misled Investors Regarding its
VUL Business
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL
business;
(2) as a result, the goodwill associated with the life
insurance business was overstated;
(3) as a result, the Company's policy lapse assumptions were
outdated;
(4) as a result, the Company's reserves were overstated; and
(5) therefore, the Company's reported financial results and
financial statements were misstated.
When the truth came out in the Company's third quarter 2022
financial results, Lincoln National's stock price fell $17.27, or
33%, to close at $34.83 per share on November 3, 2022.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Lincoln National Corporation. Shareholders who want to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with
the court by June 18, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Lincoln National
Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Berg Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 3, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
KRIZIA BERG, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and
SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, in his individual and official capacities,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
On August 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a Complaint against Defendants
County of Los Angeles, and Alex Villanueva, in his individual and
official capacity as Los Angeles County Sheriff, asserting that the
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department had used excessive force against
peaceful protesters and unlawfully detained them in violation of
their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
First, Defendants indiscriminately launched so-called "less-lethal"
weapons, including 40 mm projectiles, pepper balls, and tear gas
and other chemical agents against persons engaged in peaceful
protests. Indeed, this Court issued a Preliminary Injunction issued
on July 6, 2021 enjoining the use of certain projectiles against
peaceful protesters based on similar evidence presented in support
of this motion.
Second, during the height of the COVID pandemic, the LASD made mass
arrests of peaceful protesters, illegally detained them in tight
zip ties, and held them in crowded vehicles in close proximity for
several hours without access to water or restrooms, while failing
to maintain proper COVID safety protocols, the suit alleges.
On September 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application
for Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants. The Plaintiffs
sought to enjoin LASD from the "indiscriminate" use of (1)
"less-lethal" projectiles on crowds of protesters if there is no
immediate threat and no order to disperse with time to comply and
(2) chemical agents or irritants to disperse or control crowds of
protesters without adequate warnings and time to comply.
The Court denied the TRO and set an expedited briefing schedule for
a motion for preliminary injunction. The Court granted Plaintiffs'
MPI on May 28, 2021 and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
LASD from using less-lethal weapons against peaceful protesters
except in limited necessary circumstances and requiring LASD, when
feasible, to issue warnings before using less-lethal weapons.
The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 30, 2021,
which Defendants answered on August 13, 2021.
On November 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class which the Court granted on April 3, 2024 through an Order
entered by Judge Dolly M. Gee.
The appellate case is captioned as Berg, et al. v. County of Los
Angeles, et al., Case No. 24-2433, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 18, 2024.[BN]
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Bid for Class Certification Reset to June 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks III v. Lundquist
Consulting, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01916 (N.D. Cal., Filed March
25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting the
parties' request to extend all deadlines in this case by 30 days.
-- As this is the parties' third request to extend case deadlines,
no
further extensions shall be granted absent extraordinary
circumstances, the Court says.
-- The case deadlines are reset as follows:
Joint Status Report Re: Mediation due by June 12,
2024
Motions for Class Certification and June 27,
2024
Plaintiff's Class Certification Expert
Disclosures due by:
Close of expert discovery is: July 24,
2024
Opposition and Defendant's Class Aug. 21,
2024
Certification Expert Disclosures due by:
Reply due by: Sept. 18,
2024
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Lundquist is a company that specializes in bankruptcy management
solutions within the financial services industry.[CC]
LX HAUSYS: Bid to Revise Certain Pretrial Deadlines Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SINUHE CABRERA TORRES and
PEDRO DOMINGUEZ BALDERAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. LX HAUSYS AMERICA, INC.; CL GLOBAL, LLC; and
TOTAL EMPLOYEE SOLUTION SUPPORT, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01283-MLB-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina Cannon
entered an order granting in part the joint motion to revise
certain pretrial deadlines.
-- CL Global and TESS must respond to the complaint on or before
June 17, 2024.
-- If CL Global and/or TESS moves to dismiss the complaint under
Rule 12(b), then:
-- The parties must file their Joint Preliminary Report and
Discovery Plan and serve their initial disclosures within 21
days
after the Rule 26(f) conference.
-- The Plaintiffs must move for class certification within 60
days
after all live Defendants have filed their answers or
defaulted.
LX Hausys manufactures and markets building materials.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TQRcFE at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARC SALKOVITZ: Vorel Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MARC SALKOVITZ, et
al. The case is styled as Ainslie H. Vorel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARC SALKOVITZ, PAMELA
SALKOVITZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-05933 (D.N.J., May 8, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Kevin Malone, Esq.
GIBBONS P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 596-4533
Fax: (973) 596-0545
Email: rmalone@gibbonslaw.com
MASIMO CORPORATION: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Masimo Corporation (NASDAQ: MASI) resulting from
allegations that Masimo may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Masimo securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24978 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 7, 2024, after market hours, Masimo
filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") which, among other things, announced
that the "Company received a civil investigative demand from the
DOJ [Department of Justice] pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. Secs. 3729-3733, dated March 25, 2024, seeking documents and
information related to customer returns of the Company's Rad-G(R)
and Rad-97(R) products, including returns related to the Company's
recall of select Rad-G(R) products in 2024."
On this news, Masimo's stock price fell $15.98 per share, or
11.75%, to close at $120.02 per share on May 8, 2024, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
McLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jordan Orozco Madero and Esteban Orosco on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. McLANE
FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2024-01385663-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 8, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03853.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to allege a single cause of
action for violations of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), on behalf of a putative group of
"aggrieved employees" based on the following alleged California
Labor Code violations: failure to pay minimum wages in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission's
("IWC") Wage Order 9-2001; failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and IWC Wage Order
9-2001; and failure to reimburse employees for the business use of
their personal cell phones in violation of Cal. Lab. Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.820.8800
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, SBN 258363
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Phone: 415.659.2600
Facsimile: 415.659.2601
Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
MPE PARTNERS: Parties Seek to Vacate & Reset Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Walther, Trent
Kumfer, Jayme Lea, Megan Kelsey, Dave Lowe, Carol Whisler, and
Michele Porter, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the 80/20, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, v. John Wood, Brian Eagle, Patrick Buesching, Patrice Mauk,
Rodney Strack, MPE Partners II, L.P., MPE Partners III, L.P., and
Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order denying
the Defendant Eagle and the MPE/Officer Defendants' motion to
vacate the class certification deadline as moot, and to vacate and
reset the class certification deadline to 60 days following an
order denying the Defendant Eagle and the MPE/Officer Defendants'
motion to stay discovery, if that motion is denied.
If the Court grants Defendant Eagle and the MPE/Officer Defendants'
motion to stay discovery, the Parties will confer and propose an
alternative case schedule if and when necessary.
On April 24, 2024, Defendant Eagle and the MPE/Officer Defendants
moved for a protective order to stay discovery. These Defendants
take the position that a stay of discovery pending a ruling on
their motions to dismiss allows this Court to decide threshold
legal questions without subjecting the parties to costly and
burdensome discovery.
Also on April 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
Defendant Eagle and the MPE/Officer Defendants to promptly complete
their document productions in response to Plaintiffs' first sets of
document requests, which have been pending since last year.
The Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification is
currently June 7, 2024.
On May 8, 2024, the Defendant Eagle and the MPE/Officer Defendants
moved to vacate the deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class
certification.
MPE focuses on lower middle market leveraged buyouts,
recapitalizations, and build up investments.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AzaipU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charlie C. Gokey, 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
E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David K. Herzog, Esq.
Molly E. Harkins Broadhead, Esq.
HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 4400
Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989
Telephone: (317) 822-4400
Facsimile: (317) 381-5643
E-mail: dherzog@hooverhullturner.com
mbroadhead@hooverhullturner.com
- and -
Philip J. Gutwein II, Esq.
Emily A. Kile-Maxwell, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-0300
Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: philip.gutwein@faegredrinker.com
emily.kilemaxwell@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
Guenther K. Fanter, Esq.
Ann M. Caresani, Esq.
Mary Pat Brogan, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 416-8185
E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
kfanter@bakerlaw.com
acaresani@bakerlaw.com
mbrogan@bakerlaw.com
NEW YORK: Chinese American May File Proposed FAC in Suit v. DOE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gary Stein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Opinion & Order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
first amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned CHINESE AMERICAN
CITIZENS ALLIANCE GREATER NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-08964-LAK-GS (S.D.N.Y.).
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' letter-motion seeking
leave to file a First Amended Complaint (the "Proposed FAC"). For
the most part, the Proposed FAC streamlines the Plaintiffs'
pleading by dropping certain Defendants, causes of action, and
allegations. Not surprisingly, Judge Stein notes the Defendants do
not object to these proposed amendments. However, the Proposed FAC
also names three additional individual defendants.
The Defendants oppose the FAC to the extent it would add two of
those defendants, Craig Edwards and Serge St. Leger. For the
reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend is denied to the extent that the Proposed FAC
seeks to add Edwards and St. Leger as Defendants, but is otherwise
granted.
The putative class action was commenced with the filing of a
Complaint on Oct. 27, 2020. The Plaintiffs are (a) the Chinese
American Citizens Alliance Greater New York, an organization that
advocates for Chinese-American interests in the City of New York,
and (b) five Asian-American individuals with children attending New
York City public schools at the time of the Complaint. The
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Defendants violated their
free speech rights and other constitutional rights while the
Plaintiffs were protesting New York City Department of Education
("DOE") policies during a Town Hall meeting at the James Madison
High School in Brooklyn on Feb. 4, 2020.
The Complaint names as Defendants the DOE, the City of New York
("City"), then-current DOE Chancellor Richard A. Carranza,
then-current Mayor Bill De Blasio, and Jason Marino, an Assistant
Principal at James Madison High School. Also named are seven "John
Doe" Defendants (identified as John Doe Nos. 2 through 8),
including another Assistant Principal at James Madison and several
New York City Police Department ("NYPD") Officers and NYPD School
Safety Officers, all of whom are alleged to have played a role in
the events of Feb. 4, 2020.
The Defendants answered the Complaint on Jan. 19, 2021, and on July
1, 2021, the parties jointly requested a referral to a Magistrate
Judge for a settlement conference. A settlement conference was held
before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on Aug. 5, 2021, but
no settlement was reached. For the next two years, the docket
reflects no activity of substance. In September 2023, the referral
Order was amended to include general pretrial supervision and
reassigned to Judge Stein.
On Oct. 19, 2023, Judge Stein held an Initial Case Management
Conference with the parties and the next day entered a Case
Management Plan and Scheduling Order ("Scheduling Order"). The
Scheduling Order set a deadline of Nov. 17, 2023, to amend
pleadings or join any other parties. In a joint letter to the Court
dated March 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs expressed their intention to
file an amended complaint and the parties requested an extension of
the discovery deadlines in the Scheduling Order.
Following a status conference on April 2, 2024, the Court extended
the discovery deadline to June 28, 2024, and directed the
Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file their proposed
amended complaint. The Plaintiffs submitted their motion for leave
to file the Proposed FAC on April 9, 2024. The Proposed FAC
dismisses ex-Chancellor Carranza, ex-Mayor De Blasio, and five of
the John Doe Defendants; narrows the number of causes of action
from 13 to eight; and drops the Plaintiffs' class action
allegations. It also adds three new Defendants: (1) Craig Edwards,
a Borough Safety Director for the DOE; (2) Serge St. Leger, the
Senior Director of Community Partnerships for the DOE; and (3) NYPD
Police Officer Yergey Dym.
In the Proposed FAC's factual allegations concerning the events of
Feb. 4, 2020, Edwards is substituted in numerous places for the
individual identified as "John Doe No. 2" in the original
Complaint. Likewise, St. Leger is substituted for "John Doe No. 2"
in certain allegations and added as one of the actors in other
allegations. Dym (sometimes misidentified as "Dyon" in the Proposed
FAC) appears to be substituted for "John Doe No. 5" in certain
allegations and named as an additional actor in other allegations.
Seven of the eight causes of action in the Proposed FAC are
asserted against all Defendants, including Edwards, St. Leger, and
Dym. These include three claims for violations of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, three claims
for violations of the Plaintiffs' rights under the New York State
Constitution, and a claim for assault and battery brought on behalf
of Plaintiff Siu-Liu Linda Lam.
By letter dated April 15, 2024, the Defendants opposed the
Plaintiff's motion to amend, solely "to the extent that it adds
defendants Craig Edwards and Serge Saint Leger." The Plaintiffs
responded to the Defendants' opposition in an April 16, 2024
letter, and the parties each provided additional letters supporting
their respective positions on April 17, 2024.
The Defendants argue that, to the extent the Proposed FAC adds
claims against Edwards and St. Leger as defendants, those claims
are untimely and do not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). The
Defendants do not make a similar argument (or any other argument)
to oppose adding Dym as a defendant, and accordingly, the Court
deems the Defendants to have consented to the Proposed FAC insofar
as it adds claims against Dym.
Although the Plaintiffs do not explicitly invoke it, Judge Stein
notes that some district courts have "fashioned an exception" to
the Second Circuit's rule that the plaintiff's lack of knowledge of
a John Doe defendant's name does not constitute a mistake of
identity sufficient to trigger Rule 15(c)(1)(C), citing Escoffier
v. City of N.Y., No. 13 Civ. 3918 (JPO) (DF), 2017 WL 9538603, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017).
This exception, which originates with Byrd v. Abate, 964 F. Supp.
140 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), allows an otherwise-untimely amendment where
the information as to the "John Doe" identities is particularly
within the defendant's knowledge, the plaintiff has diligently
attempted to ascertain those identities through discovery, and the
plaintiff seeks to amend shortly after learning of those
identities.
Despite the Plaintiffs' failure to cite the Byrd v. Abate exception
or N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 1024, the Court considered both of these
relation-back theories. To avail themselves of either theory, Judge
Stein says the Plaintiffs must have exercised "diligence" in
attempting to ascertain the identities of Edwards and St. Leger and
to add them as defendants during the limitations period. The
record, however, makes abundantly clear that the Plaintiffs did not
exercise the diligence required, Judge Stein holds.
Under these circumstances, Judge Stein opines that the Defendants'
failure to respond to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatories for more than
two years does not excuse the Plaintiffs' own failure to do
anything to prompt or compel a response during this period. Merely
serving the Interrogatories in 2021 does not show diligence when
the Plaintiffs inexplicably sat on their hands until after the
statute of limitations expired, Judge Stein says.
Accordingly, Judge Stein holds that the Plaintiffs' proposed claims
against Edwards and St. Leger do not relate back to the Complaint
under Rule 15(c). As a result, those claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend is, therefore, denied to the extent the Proposed FAC seeks
to add Edwards and St. Leger as defendants.
However, Judge Stein holds that because the other changes made by
the Proposed FAC satisfy Rule 15(a)(2)'s liberal pleading standard
and are not opposed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend is granted with respect to those changes.
For the reasons stated, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file the Proposed FAC is granted in part and denied in
part. The Plaintiffs were allowed to file a First Amended Complaint
in conformity with this Opinion & Order by no later than May 9,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 25,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/55675khz from
PacerMonitor.com.
NOAH'S ARK: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
YAIR ROSALES GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOAH'S ARK BAGELS CORP., doing
business as ARK BAGELS, and MOHAMED ABDO MOSLEH, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03235 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide a wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a general helper,
cook/grill person, cleaner, and dishwasher at Ark Bagels restaurant
in New York, New York from July 2023 through February 26, 2024.
Noah's Ark Bagels Corp., doing business as Ark Bagels, is a
restaurant company in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
NURTURE LLC: Must Advise Court on Response to Baby Food Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION. This
document relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 1:22-cv-05402-MKV
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York directs the Defendant to advise
the Court of its intent to answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
On March 27, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why
this case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA") as pleaded in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("CC"), or, in the alternative, file an amended complaint curing
the deficient jurisdictional allegations.
The Court simultaneously denied the Defendant's then-pending motion
to dismiss without prejudice based on the apparent lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
On April 5, 2024, the Defendant filed a letter arguing that the
Plaintiffs did not adequately allege jurisdiction under CAFA in the
CC. On April 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an opposing letter and
a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("FACC"). On
April 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a letter, with the consent of
the Plaintiffs, requesting an extension of time to respond to the
FACC pending the Court's ruling on the March 27 Order. The Court
granted Defendant's request.
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' submissions and the
FACC. It appears, on the face of the FACC, that the Plaintiffs'
allegations are sufficient to invoke this Court's jurisdiction
under CAFA.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Defendant to file a letter no
later than May 7, 2024, advising the Court of its intent to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to the FACC and a proposed schedule for
such response. In the event the Defendant intends to move to
dismiss the FACC, the Defendant will advise the Court whether it
will rest on the briefing previously submitted in connection with
its prior motion to dismiss, whether it intends to supplement its
briefing, or whether it intends to file new briefing entirely.
To that end, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to file a redline
document comparing the FACC to the CC to aid the Defendant in
determining its response.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 25, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j5mzbxm9 from PacerMonitor.com.
OE FEDERAL CREDIT: Jimenez Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Jimenez, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
4:24-cv-02746 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2024), is brought to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and for
Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to
Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been subject
to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party.
This class action arises out of the recent targeted ransomware
attack and data breach ("Data Breach") on the Defendant's network
that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data.
As a result of the Data Breach, Class Members suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional
distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information. The specific
information compromised in the Data Breach includes, but is not
limited to, personally identifiable information ("PII"), such as
full name, Social Security number, driver's license or government
ID number.
Up to and through April 2024, Defendant obtained the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an
Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network, from which
unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve sensitive
PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII--which were entrusted to Defendant, their officials,
and agents--were compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
Data Breach
The Defendant maintained the PII in a negligent and/or reckless
manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on Defendant's
computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for
improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a
known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that
failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks
left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, being a customer of
Defendant.
OE Federal is the country's largest labor-based credit union.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 305.975.3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
OPTALIS PROFESSIONAL: Kendrix Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennetta Kendrix, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Optalis Professional Services, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-11222-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 8, 2024), is brought arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("OMWFSA") for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and
overtime wages.
Under the FLSA and OMWFSA, employers must pay all non-exempt
employees an overtime wage premium of pay one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all time they spend working in
excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spent
working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant in the nursing staff
department since June 2023.
The Defendant owns and operates skilled nursing facilities in Ohio
and Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: (847) 986-5889
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin St.
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Dotterer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dotterer v. Phillips &
Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:24-cv-01098-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Phillips is in the financial services industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tNYnkJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
PIRCH INC: Former Employees Sue Over Illegal Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------
Roxana Popescu of San Bernardino Sun reports that former employees
of Pirch, the high-end kitchen furnishing store that filed for
bankruptcy last month, have filed a class-action lawsuit against
the retailer.
In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday, former Pirch worker Liza Rogers
and others in the class allege that Pirch failed to follow state
and federal laws when it laid them off abruptly several weeks ago.
Pirch did not respond to a request for comment.
The class has not been certified yet.
Specifically, employees say Pirch failed to follow the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.
They are suing for 60 days' pay and benefits, and attorneys' fees.
"The Defendant violated the WARN Acts by failing to give the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the Defendant
at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, as
required by the WARN Act," the lawsuit states.
The complaint also says that Rogers and about 150 other employees
were terminated on or around April 9 as part of a mass layoff.
Pirch could also be liable for a civil penalty of up to $500 a day
for each day it violates California labor code, the complaint
states.
On April 19, Pirch filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
In the bankruptcy filing, Pirch stated that its liabilities far
surpass its assets, which implies that not all creditors will be
repaid, and some or all will not receive the entirety of what is
allegedly owed.
According to the lawsuit, in a WARN Act claim, each class member
gets priority for the first $15,150 of what is owed under U.S.
bankruptcy code. Amounts owed beyond that are considered lower
priority.
Rogers, in an email interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune,
shared how she was impacted by the abruptness of the layoff.
The sudden job change has left her asking difficult questions, she
added.
"Do I work for myself? Do I find another employer? Do I sell my
house and move out of this state or country?" she wrote.
This is the latest of multiple lawsuits that have been filed
against the luxury furniture and bath appliance retailer.
Customers have also asked for criminal inquiries into the company,
and Rogers filed a complaint with the state regarding the alleged
WARN Act violation.
In late March, Pirch closed the doors to all of its retail
locations, giving the public -- and stakeholders such as customers,
merchants and landlords -- no explanation.
Since then, it has filed several WARN notices: one round in early
April and a second round that was processed April 30 for Pirch
locations in San Diego, Los Angeles and Riverside counties.
Before it closed, Pirch had stores throughout Southern California,
and was planning on opening a showroom in Santa Monica. [GN]
PLUG POWER: Faces Lee Securities Suit Over 9.87% Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONGHO LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B. MIDDLETON,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00598-MAD-DJS (W.D.N.Y., Apr. 30, 2024) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased
or otherwise acquired Plug securities between March 1, 2023 and
Jan. 16, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
On Nov. 9, 2023, Plug announced its third quarter 2023 results,
including third quarter GAAP earnings-per-share ("EPS") of -$0.47,
missing consensus estimates by $0.16, and third quarter revenue of
$198.71 million, missing consensus estimates by $23.02 million.
On Dec. 6, 2023, Morgan Stanley downgraded Plug's stock from an
"Equal Weight" to an "Underweight" rating, as well as slashed its
price target on the stock from $3.50 to $3.00, citing liquidity
concerns and worsening hydrogen economics.
On Jan. 11, 2024, Susquehanna downgraded Plug's stock from a
"Positive" to a "Neutral" rating, as well as cut its price target
on the stock from $5.50 to $4.00, citing "delays related to both
Plug's green hydrogen production facility build-out and securing
external funding sources to finance its growth plans[.]"
On Jan. 17, 2024, Seeking Alpha reported that "the market appears
to have reset expectations ahead of [Plug]'s planned January 23
business update with CEO Andy Marsh and CFO Paul Middleton." For
example, Seeking Alpha noted that "Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew
Percoco maintained his Underweight rating and $3 price target,
anticipating downside to Plug's $2.1B revenue and 25% gross margin
guidance for FY 2024 announced during its Q4 earnings call."
On this news, Plug's stock price fell $0.30 per share, or 9.87%, to
close at $2.74 per share on Jan. 17, 2024.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff acquired Plug's securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Plug provides hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions for the electric
mobility and stationary power markets in North America and Europe,
focusing on proton exchange membrane ("PEM") fuel cell and fuel
processing technologies, fuel cell-battery hybrid technologies, and
related hydrogen storage and dispensing infrastructure.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq.
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
68 3rd Street, Suite 249
Brooklyn, NY 11231
Telephone: (212) 752-5455
Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
E-mail: nathant@hbsslaw.com
reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
PORSCHE CARS: Bid for More Time to Respond to Abel Complaint Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, denies the unopposed motion
for enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint filed in the lawsuit titled ROBERT JOHN ABEL, Plaintiff
v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE
AG, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00593-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.).
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Porsche Cars North
America, Inc.'s ("PCNA") Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time
to Respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and to Suspend
Case Management Report Deadlines (the "Motion").
Plaintiff Robert John Abel commenced this putative class action on
July 17, 2023, in the District of New Jersey. On Sept. 18, 2023,
the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. The Honorable
Judge Robert Kirsch approved a stipulated briefing schedule, which
gave the Plaintiff until Dec. 8, 2023, to amend the First Amended
Complaint and required PCNA to serve him with its motion to dismiss
by Jan. 8, 2024.
According to Judge Kirsch's Order transferring the case to the
Middle District of Florida, PCNA served the Plaintiff with a motion
to dismiss, and he elected to stipulate transferring the litigation
rather than respond to the motion to dismiss. As a result, seven
(7) months have transpired since the First Amended Complaint was
filed, and the case is not closer to resolution than it was on day
one, Judge Byron says.
With this tortured history as context, Judge Byron notes that PCNA
proposes to dispense with submitting a Case Management Report and
offers a briefing schedule that may finally result in a motion to
dismiss being fully briefed in the next four (4) months, assuming
PCNA is denied leave to file a reply.
"This is completely unacceptable. This Court moves cases with
alacrity, and it is fully expected that this case will be trial
ready within two (2) years from the date the Complaint was filed,
meaning no later than July 2025," Judge Byron opines.
Class action complaints are routinely Track II matters and are
resolved within a schedule of twenty-four (24) months. This
schedule includes the filing of dispositive motions four (4) months
before the commencement of the trial.
Judge Byron points out that the Plaintiff has had the past nine (9)
months to decide how to frame his theory of the case and has
already amended the complaint once. PCNA's request to afford the
Plaintiff another thirty (30) days to ponder whether a second
amendment is necessary is not justified. Further, PCNA offers no
justification for requiring forty-five (45) days to file a
"renewed" motion to dismiss, with the result being that at least
seventy-five (75) days will have expired before the first motion to
dismiss is docketed in this case.
Continuing with this leisurely pace, Judge Byron says, PCNA
suggests the Plaintiff should have 45 days—rather than the
twenty-one (21) days allowed by Local Rule 3.01(c)--to respond. The
Middle District of Florida does not unnecessarily protract
litigation, and so the Motion is denied, Judge Byron holds.
PCNA was to file an answer or a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint on May 6, 2024. While twenty-one (21) days is the norm,
PCNA has already drafted the motion to dismiss. If PCNA files a
motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff may file a response thereto in
accordance with the Local Rules. Finally, the parties will file the
Case Management Report as required, with the objective being a
trial date in July 2025—the outside date for a Track II case.
For these reasons, Judge Byron denies PCNA's Unopposed Motion for
Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint and to Suspend Case Management Report Deadlines.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 25, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sha43xz7 from PacerMonitor.com.
PRAIRIE RIDGE: Appeals Remand Ruling in Doe Wiretapping Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PRAIRIE RIDGE HEALTH, INC., et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 20, 2024 entered in the lawsuit
styled JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRAIRIE RIDGE HEALTH, INC., and PRAIRIE
RIDGE HEALTH FOUNDATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00426,
in the United States District Court for the Western District Of
Wisconsin.
This suit was previously removed from the Circuit Court for
Columbia County, Wisconsin, to the Western District of Wisconsin on
June 23, 2023.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in unlawful
wiretapping and invaded her privacy by allegedly using the Meta
Pixel on Defendants' public website.
On July 24, 2023, the Plaintiff file a motion to remand the case to
state court.
On March 20, 2024, District Judge James D. Peterson entered an
Order granting Plaintiff's motion.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe v. Prairie Ridge
Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1631, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 18, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellants Prairie Ridge
Health Foundation, Inc. and Prairie Ridge Health, Inc. on April 25,
2024;
-- Transcript information sheet was due May 2, 2024; and
-- Appellants' brief is due on or before May 28, 2024 for
Prairie Ridge Health Foundation, Inc. and Prairie Ridge Health,
Inc.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants PRAIRIE RIDGE HEALTH, INC. and PRAIRIE RIDGE
HEALTH FOUNDATION, INC. are represented by:
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
Plaintiff-Appellee JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Alex Phillips, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
- and -
Paul Turkevich, Esq.
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS & MENSING, PLLC
1221 McKinney Street
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 655-1101
QIFU TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Qifu Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2024, that a consolidated
securities suit against it has been dismissed in September 2022.
The company's and certain of its current and former directors or
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action filed in federal court, captioned "In re 360 DigiTech, Inc.
Securities Litigation," No. 1:21-cv-06013 (U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, amended complaint filed on
January 14, 2022).
This case was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased company securities between April 30, 2020 and July 8,
2021 and who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged
misstatements and omissions in its public disclosure documents in
connection with its compliance and data collection practices.
On January 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
On March 15, 2022, the company filed a motion to dismiss it.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on May 31, 2022. In
July 2022, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint without prejudice, and granted Plaintiffs leave
to replead by September 26, 2022.
On September 26, 2022, the lead plaintiff notified the court that
he does not intend to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court
entered an order of judgment in favor of the defendants in
September 2022, and the plaintiff's deadline to appeal the judgment
has now lapsed. The company considers the case to effectively be
closed.
Qifu Technology, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates
credit-tech platform under the "360 Jietiao" brand in the People's
Republic of China.
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Agreement Reached in Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Quantumscape Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2024, that in April 2024, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle consolidated
actions that it is currently facing. Said securities class action
litigations allege a purported class that includes all persons who
purchased or acquired the company's securities between November 27,
2020 and April 14, 2021.
The consolidated complaint names the company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its Chief Technology
Officer as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants purportedly made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business,
operations, and prospects, including information regarding its
battery technology.
Beginning in January 2021 class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District court for the Northern District of
California by purported purchasers of Company securities. This was
consolidated on June 21, 2021.
On January 14, 2022, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was substantially denied. On December 19, 2022, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
The original QuantumScape Corporation, now named QuantumScape
Battery, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, was
founded in 2010 with the mission to revolutionize energy storage to
enable a sustainable future. The company is focused on the
development and commercialization of its solid-state lithium-metal
batteries. Planned principal operations have not yet commenced. As
of September 30, 2023, the company had not derived revenue from its
principal business activities.
QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Over CPA Violations
----------------------------------------------
montreal.citynews.ca reports that a class action lawsuit is being
filed against Quebec's government-run marijuana shops, the Societe
Quebecoise du Cannabis (SQDC).
The Legal Advisors and Cannabis Consultants (Groupe SGF) launched a
class action on behalf of Gabriel Belanger against the SQDC,
alleging it doesn't comply with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Belanger alleges he's forced "to make blind purchases when he
orders recreational cannabis products on the SQDC website."
The lawsuit claims all cannabis products sold online that mention a
"rotating variety" in their description does not comply with the
CPA, since the law states consumers must have access to a
description that includes the characteristics and technical
specifications of the product.
"The SQDC, a state corporation, appears to us to be violating its
own Consumer Protection Act and it seems abnormal to us that
cannabis consumers in Quebec are forced to make blind purchases
when purchasing cannabis on the only legal cannabis sales site in
the province," said Groupe SGF lawyer Maxime Guerin in a press
release.
The class action lawsuit includes all individuals who have
purchased cannabis in the "dried flower" and "pre-rolled"
categories whose description on the SQDC website has said "rotating
variety" since Oct. 17, 2018. [GN]
QUICKEN LOANS: Seeks Denial of Mattson Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUICKEN LOANS
INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00989-YY (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order denying class certification in this action
for the same reasons it denied class certification in Plaintiff
Mattson's substantially-identical Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") case against New Penn Financial, LLC ("New Penn").
The record here contains the same factual dispute concerning the
residential or business phone status of the Plaintiff's telephone
number that this Court relied-upon in New Penn to twice deny class
certification of the same claims for violation of the TCPA that
Plaintiff asserts against Rocket Mortgage here.
In New Penn, this Court held that denial of class certification is
appropriate because resolving the dispute about whether Plaintiff's
telephone line was a business or residential line "depends on the
individualized 'hotly contested' fact issues that are unique to the
Plaintiff", and therefore, "individualized issues regarding
Plaintiff's mixed-use telephone number will predominate this
litigation."
There is nothing different about this case that warrants any
different conclusion. As such, this Court should grant this Motion
without hesitation, deny class certification, and order the case to
trial on Plaintiff's individual TCPA claims.
In 2017, the Plaintiff filed this putative nationwide class action
against Rocket Mortgage alleging violations of the TCPA's
provision, restricting certain solicitation calls to "residential
telephone subscribers" with telephone numbers properly registered
on the federal do-not-call list.
The Defendant is an online direct-lending platform for residential
mortgages and home loan products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jt6LpI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
James P. Laurick, Esq.
KILMER VOORHEES & LAURICK, P.C.W.
732 NW 19th Avenue
Portland, OR 97209
Telephone: (503) 224-0055
Facsimile: (503) 222-5290
E-mail: jlaurick@kilmerlaw.com
- and -
Brooks R. Brown, Esq.
Kyle Tayman, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: bbrown@goodwinlaw.com
ktayman@goodwinlaw.com
RATEMDS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against doctor rating website RateMDs.com
has been certified by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The lawsuit was filed by Dr. Ramona Bleuler, a Vancouver physician,
alleging that RateMDs violated provincial privacy laws and
"violated her right to be left alone" by publishing profiles and
reviews of professionals health without their consent.
Privacy was also violated by failing to verify reviews for accuracy
and categorizing medical professionals in the same field by review,
the statement said.
Bleuler alleges in the suit that his information is operated by a
for-profit company and that medical professionals cannot delete
their profile.
RateMDs.com features profiles of healthcare professionals with
contact information and user-submitted reviews.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of health professionals in British
Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and
Quebec.
According to a summary of his defense, included in court records,
RateMDs has stated that the information on their website is
publicly available and non-personal and therefore does not violate
privacy.
The latest health and medical news are sent to you by email every
Sunday.
"Defendants assert that healthcare professionals, including
Plaintiff, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
regarding the ratings and reviews posted on RateMDs.com," the
summary states, adding that defendants believe that "the public
interest required that reviews remain available on the website
because they help potential patients make informed decisions about
engaging with certain healthcare professionals.
However, Justice Michael Thomas said whether the information is
publicly available does not determine whether there is a violation
of privacy.
The judge said the fact that medical professionals can report
reviews is "insufficient" and may require them to either
participate in the website in a "manner that could violate their
professional obligations" or simply leave reviews inaccurate remain
there.
Furthermore, he said privacy concerns go beyond just publishing
names and contact details, but also involve the information
collected, centralized and competitively classified against other
professionals by a purpose-driven entity. lucrative.
"I do not find it clear and obvious that Plaintiff does not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the information
posted by Defendants," Thomas wrote in his ruling.
"This information, which in some cases is publicly available and
generally concerns professional activities, may nevertheless give
rise to a violation of privacy if it is collected, managed and
disclosed by the defendants in the manner and under the
circumstances alleged. "
Bleuler said in the lawsuit that individuals have the right to post
reviews, but claims the violation of privacy lies in RateMD
soliciting and creating a repository of reviews from which medical
professionals are ranked .
"The problem lies not in individual reviews, but in the aggregation
of reviews, in matching the reviews with the basic information of
each healthcare professional, and in the comparative ranking of
healthcare professionals based on the reviews " the judge wrote.
RateMDs was quoted in court documents as saying that Bleuler
"attempts to assert a claim of confidentiality to stifle justified
criticism of the way she practices medicine."
RateMDs did not respond at the time of publication with a comment.
[GN]
RAYCO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Fetinci's Federal Claims Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled AZIZ FETINCI, et al., Plaintiffs v. RAYCO
LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-11720-SFC-KGA
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion
& Order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over
state-law claims.
The Plaintiffs, who are independent truck owner-operators, filed
this putative class action on July 18, 2023, based upon
federal-question jurisdiction. There are five named Plaintiffs: 1)
Aziz Fetinci; 2) Armada Trucking Services, LLC; 3) Muhamed Fetic;
4) Express Line Logistics, Inc.; and 5) Kenan Hujdur. The
Plaintiffs assert claims against the following three Defendants: 1)
Rayco Logistics, LLC; 2) Bravo Logistics, LLC; and 3) Ray Laamari.
The Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint states that this action
arises in part under 49 U.S.C. Sections 14102 and 14704(a)(1) and
(2), and 49 C.F.R. Part 376, et seq., for violation of the leasing
regulations. The counts in the complaint allege violations of
regulations issued in relation to those federal statutes: 1)
Violation of 49 C.F.R. Section 376.12(d), et seq., Specify
Compensation (Count I); 2) Violation of 49 C.F.R. Section
376.12(g), et seq., Documentation of Rates and Charges (Count II);
3) Violation of 49 C.F.R. Section 376.12(h), et seq., Documentation
of Chargeback Items (Count III); 4) Violation of 49 C.F.R. Section
376.12(j), et seq., Insurance Costs (Count IV); and 5) Violation of
49 C.F.R. Section 376.12(k), et seq., Escrow Funds (Count V1).
The Complaint also includes two state-law claims brought under
Michigan law: 1) Breach of Contract and 2) Fraudulent Concealment.
Finally, the Complaint also includes a count labeled "Fraudulent
Concealment Federal Law," that is not a substantive count, but
rather, an attempt to toll the statutes of limitation that apply to
the Plaintiffs' purported federal claims.
The matter is currently before the Court on the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendants contend that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' purported
federal claims and, as a result, cannot exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state claims either. The parties have briefed
the issues, and the Court heard an oral argument on April 12,
2024.
As explained in the Opinion & Order, Judge Cox says the Sixth
Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether a private right of
action for damages exists under 49 U.S.C. Section 14704(a)(2). The
Eighth Circuit has ruled that such actions can be pursued, and many
courts, including district courts within the Sixth Circuit, have
followed that decision.
Judge Cox holds that this Court will follow the Eighth Circuit's
lead and allow the Plaintiffs' federal claims to proceed in this
case. But the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs' state-law breach of contract and fraud claims
in this putative class action and dismisses those claims without
prejudice.
The Court rejects the Defendant's challenge to the Plaintiffs'
federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state-law claims and dismisses
them without prejudice.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' state-law claims may raise
complex issues of state law. In addition, the Court finds that the
potential for jury confusion in this case would be great if the
Plaintiffs' federal claims were presented to a jury along with the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims.
Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reason for
this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the Plaintiffs' state-law claims in this putative class action. As
such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
any state-law claims in this action and dismisses them without
prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court orders that the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is denied as to the challenges made to the Plaintiffs'
federal claims and those claims remain in this action.
The Court further orders that the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in this action,
and dismisses the breach of contract and fraudulent concealment
claims without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 25,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2njt8ndc from
PacerMonitor.com.
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Fitterer Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THOMAS FITTERER, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., and CACH, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-19068-RK-JBD (D.N.J.), Judge Robert Kirsch of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses the complaint without
prejudice.
The matter comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Resurgent Capital Services L.P. and CACH, LLC, seeking
dismissal of Plaintiff Thomas Fitterer's Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). The Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition, and
the Defendants filed a reply brief.
The Court has considered the parties' submissions, and resolves the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth
in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds the Plaintiff lacks
Article III standing, and therefore, the Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction to hear this dispute. As such, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
The putative class action arises out of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On
Aug. 13, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a credit card account with
HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A. Thereafter, the Plaintiff used the credit
card to purchase goods and services primarily for personal, family
and household purposes.
Around April 2012, the Plaintiff stopped making payments due on
this credit card, incurring a debt of $8,215.73, which amount did
not include any interest. Thereafter, HSBC referred this debt to
CACH. Approximately four years later, on March 4, 2016, CACH
obtained a default judgment (the "Judgment") against the Plaintiff
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County,
Special Civil Part ("Collection Court") in the amount of $8,272.73,
which includes the principal debt of $8,215.73 and $57 in court
fees.
CACH referred the debt to Resurgent, who subsequently sent a debt
collection letter (the "Collection Letter") to the Plaintiff dated
March 25, 2021. By this point, the Collection Letter referenced the
amount of debt owed as $8,710.51. On May 27, 2021, the Plaintiff's
counsel sent Resurgent a letter with an offer to settle the debt
for $4,800. The Defendants accepted the Plaintiff's offer, thus,
resolving the matter for $4,800, a fraction of the Judgment the
Defendants had received against the Plaintiff.
On June 28, 2021, the Plaintiff paid the discounted settlement
amount of $4,800, which the parties agreed would result in the
dismissal of the Collection Action. Accordingly, on Aug. 30, 2022,
CACH filed a warrant to satisfy the Judgment in Collection Court.
Within four months of the Plaintiff resolving the Collection Action
for a fraction of the Judgment, the Plaintiff initiated a putative
class action in this Court on Oct. 21, 2021. He seeks to assert
claims on behalf of all New Jersey Consumers and their successors
in interest who were sent debt collection letters and/or notices
from the Defendants, in violation of the FDCPA.
The one-count Complaint claims that the Defendants violated several
provisions of the FDCPA, including Sections 1692e and 1692g, by
making false and misleading representations and failing to
effectively convey the amount of the debt in the Collection Letter
by reporting the debt owed as $8,710.51 without explaining if such
an amount includes interest, costs, or fees.
On Oct. 30, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant Motion. For the
reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court notes the
subject Complaint borderlines on the frivolous.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for lack
of standing, contending that he fails to assert a concrete
injury-in-fact. Specifically, the Defendants claim that the
Plaintiff did not suffer any harm or adverse impact flowing from
their alleged violation of the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff presents two arguments in opposition. First, he
argues that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss relies on evidence
outside the Complaint in violation of Rule 12(b)(l). Second, he
contends that his informational injury qualifies as an
injury-in-fact sufficient for Article HI standing purposes.
In the instant case, Judge Kirsch finds that the Plaintiff
incorrectly characterizes the Defendants' argument as a facial
attack on jurisdiction, which would limit them to the information
in the Complaint. Given that the Defendants answered the Complaint
and discovery occurred, the Court construes the Motion to Dismiss
as a factual attack on jurisdiction and may consider information
outside the Complaint. Further, Judge Kirsch finds that the
Judgment obtained in the state court proceedings is properly
judicially noticed, and can be referenced under a facial or factual
attack on jurisdiction.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for lack
of standing. Specifically, the Defendants argue that he suffered no
injury-in-fact. The Plaintiff argues that the Complaint properly
alleges an injury-in-fact sufficient for standing under Article
III.
Judge Kirsch holds that the informational statements in the
Collection Letter are not an actual injury unless the Plaintiff
acted on them. The Plaintiff settled his debt for $4,800,
significantly less than the original Judgment. Even under the
"least sophisticated debtor standard," Judge Kirsch points out that
the assertion that he relied on the Collection Letter in a harmful
manner given such a settlement strains the bounds of credulity to
the point of contrivance and absurdity.
Judge Kirsch opines that even under the guidance established in
Deutsch v. D&A Servs., LLC, 2023 WL 2987568 (3d Cir. April 18,
2023), the Plaintiff has not established what adverse effects he
experienced by the alleged misleading information. He alleges no
more than confusion caused by the Defendants' Collection Letter,
and without more, insufficiently establishes standing under Article
III.
Further, even construing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under a
facial challenge, and thus, only considering the facts of the
Complaint in the light most favorable to him, the Court concludes
that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. He fails to
establish that he relied on the representations in the Collection
Letter, as the Complaint is devoid of allegations that he
detrimentally took a course of action due to his confusion or
uncertainty that ultimately caused him some harm.
As such, the Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that the least
sophisticated consumer would be confused by the Collection Letter,
without additional facts regarding actions or inactions he has
taken upon receipt, fail to establish standing, Judge Kirsch
holds.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies identified in this Opinion within thirty (30) days of
the date this Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 25,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/24fuh9by from
PacerMonitor.com.
REVIVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Reviva Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
RVPH) resulting from allegations that Reviva Pharmaceuticals may
have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Reviva Pharmaceuticals securities you may
be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket
fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law
Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor
losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24451 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 15, 2024, Reviva Pharmaceuticals filed
with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K. In this current report,
Reviva Pharmaceuticals announced that "the Company's previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2022 included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K, the interim
financial statements for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2022 included in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, and each of the
interim financial statements for the quarterly periods in fiscal
2023 included in its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q (cumulatively,
the "Restatement Periods") should be restated to correct historical
errors related principally to the timing of recognition of the
Company's estimated accrual of certain research and development
expenses, and should therefore no longer be relied upon."
On this news, the price of Reviva Pharmaceuticals stock fell by
$0.21 per share, or 5.69%, to close at $3.48 on April 15, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Leave to Refile Exhibit Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to leave to
refile provisionally under seal Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of
Eunice Leong in Support of Rivian Defendants' Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Here, the Plaintiffs have designated portions of the transcript
included within Exhibit 12 as confidential. In filing Exhibit 12,
the Rivian Defendants mistakenly moved to only partially, rather
than fully, seal it. On May 9, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs
informed the Rivian Defendants that Exhibit 12 had been filed
publicly on the docket and requested that the Defendants
"immediately move to re-file Exhibit 12 under seal." The Rivian
Defendants thus request leave to provisionally file Exhibit 12
partially under seal in accordance with the confidentiality
designations served by the Plaintiffs. By
submitting this Application, the Rivian Defendants do not agree or
admit that Exhibit 12 should be maintained fully under seal.
The Rivian Defendants deposed Lead Plaintiff Sjunden AP-Fonden on
Feb. 15, 2024, during which the parties reserved their rights to
designate the transcript pursuant to the agreed-upon protective
order in this case.
On Feb. 29, 2024, the Rivian Defendants filed their Opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Defendants include ROBERT J. SCARINGE, CLAIRE MCDONOUGH,
JEFFREY R. BAKER, KAREN BOONE, SANFORD SCHWARTZ, ROSE MARCARIO,
PETER KRAWIEC, JAY FLATLEY, PAMELA THOMAS-GRAHAM, MORGAN STANLEY &
CO., LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, BOFA
SECURITIES, INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC, NOMURA
SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO., RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INC., WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC.,
ACADEMY SECURITIES INC., BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC, CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS
LLC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SAMUEL
A.
RAMIREZ & CO., INC., SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, and TIGRESS
FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology and outdoor recreation company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GysHFy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Boris Feldman, Esq.
Doru Gavril, Esq.
Eunice Leong, Esq.
Rebecca Lockert, Esq.
Olivia Rosen, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
855 Main Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 618-9250
E-mail: boris.feldman@freshfields.com
doru.gavril@freshfields.com
eunice.leong@freshfields.com
rebecca.lockert@freshfields.com
olivia.rosen@freshfields.com
SCHENKER INC: Must Oppose Wickham Class Cert Bid by June 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC M. WICKHAM, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. SCHENKER, INC., a New
York company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:23-cv-00946-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts
entered an order correcting error of deadlines related to motion
for class certification.
Last day to file Opposition to Motion June 21, 2024 (60
days
for Class Certification: after filing of
Motion
for Class
Certification)
Last day to file Reply to Motion for Aug. 5, 2024 (45
days
Class Certification after filing of
Opposition to
Motion
for Class
Certification)
All other dates will remain unchanged.
The Court will not consider any further requests to continue the
class certification briefing deadlines.
On Feb. 23, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Order
Re:
Discovery and Pre-Trial Deadlines.
Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkybPf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
Jamie Y. Lee, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
jylee@littler.com
SEA LIMITED: Faces Mirvaydulloev Suit in New York Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Sea Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2024, that on September 8, 2023, a putative
securities fraud class action "Mirvaydulloev v. Sea Limited, et
al." was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona against the company and two of its officers, asserting
claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On October 6, 2023, the court consolidated this with another action
and appointed Laborers District Council Construction Industry
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff under the caption "Laborers District
Council Construction Industry Pension Fund v. Sea Limited, et al.,"
Case No. CV-23-01455-PHX-DLR.
On October 23, 2023, the company filed a motion to transfer the
class action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The motion to transfer is fully briefed and
remains pending.
On December 22, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and five of its officers alleging
claims under the Exchange Act. The company has filed a motion to
dismiss the action, which remains at its preliminary stages.
Sea Ltd. is a Singapore-based technology conglomerate that operates
various e-commerce platforms.
SEA LIMITED: Faces Muraweh Suit in New York Court
-------------------------------------------------
Sea Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2024, that on July 21, 2023 a putative
securities fraud class action captioned "Muraweh v. Sea Limited, et
al." was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona against the company and two of its officers, asserting
claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On October 6, 2023, the court consolidated this with another action
and appointed Laborers District Council Construction Industry
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff under the caption "Laborers District
Council Construction Industry Pension Fund v. Sea Limited, et al.,"
Case No. CV-23-01455-PHX-DLR.
On October 23, 2023, the company filed a motion to transfer the
class action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The motion to transfer is fully briefed and
remains pending.
On December 22, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and five of its officers alleging
claims under the Exchange Act. The company has filed a motion to
dismiss the action, which remains at its preliminary stages.
Sea Ltd. is a Singapore-based technology conglomerate that operates
various e-commerce platforms.
SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Price-Fixing Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the pork price-fixing antitrust class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota (the "Minnesota District Court") against
several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC ("Seaboard
Foods") and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint
as a data sharing service.
The complaint also named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant.
Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed
in the Minnesota District Court, and additional actions by
standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)
were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court.
The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.
The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production,
allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information
about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats,
Inc.
The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including
state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection
statutes, and common law unjust enrichment.
The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.
On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints, but the
Minnesota District Court later dismissed all claims against
Seaboard Corporation without prejudice.
On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the
Plaintiffs’ Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all
three classes.
On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement
agreement for approximately $10 million with the putative direct
purchaser plaintiff class (the "DPP Class").
Seaboard believes that this settlement was in the best interests of
Seaboard and its stakeholders in order to avoid the uncertainty,
risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.
Members of the class were given the opportunity to opt-out of the
settlement and commence or continue their own actions.
The settlement with the DPP Class does not cover the claims of (a)
the "direct action" plaintiffs ("DPP's") that opted-out of
Seaboard's settlement with the DPP Class; (b) other direct
purchasers, if any, that opted-out of the settlement and may in the
future file actions against Seaboard; (c) the End User Consumer
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the "EUCP Class"); or (d) the
Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser Class (the "CIIP
Class").
Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled
some of the actions brought by the DPP's.
Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPP's it has not settled
with, the EUCP Class and the CIIP Class, and will consider
additional reasonable settlements where they are available.
Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged in these matters and intends to vigorously defend any
matters not resolved by settlement.
However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and
subject to significant uncertainties, and if unfavorable, could
result in a material liability.
Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division is
involved in the hog production and pork processing activities. The
company was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Merriam,
Kansas.
SELENE FINANCE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARISSA CRUZ, ROBERT
ALLAN MARTIN, and KATRINA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules
6(b) & 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 7.1, to extend the current class
certification deadlines.
The Parties submit that good cause exists for this Court to grant a
few weeks extension of the class certification deadlines in order
to allow time for discovery and class certification briefing.
The Parties request a deadline to complete class discovery until
June 21, 2024, and to file the Motion for Class Certification up to
and including June 28, 2024.
As discussed herein, an extension of the class certification
deadlines is warranted in order to allow for: (i) continuing
extensive class-action discovery, including depositions with
adequate time for transcript preparation, (ii) interpreting any
forthcoming ruling on the Motion to Dismiss presently sub judice;
and (iii) interpreting discovery responses and deposition results
needed to finalize motion and response for class certification.
On Aug. 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs Sally Argona, Clarissa Cruz, and
Katrina Martin commenced this class action lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie
County, Florida, styled Argona et al. v. Selene Finance, LP, Case
No. 562023CA002227AXXXHC.
Selene removed the action to this Court on Sept. 27, 2023.
On March 15, 2024, the parties filed the Joint Motion and
Memorandum for Extension of Pre-Trial Deadlines Related to Class
Certification, which requested the Court extend the following
relevant class certification deadlines:
May 10, 2024 – Deadline to complete class certification
discovery.
May 20, 2024 – Deadline to file Motion for Class
Certification.
On March 22, 2024, the Court entered the Order Granting Joint
Motion
to Extend Class-Related Deadlines, Resetting Trial, Resetting
Pre-Trial Deadlines, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate
Judge, which granted the prior Joint Extension Motion.
On May 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs counsel indicated the Plaintiffs
would not be available for depositions until, at earliest, June 6,
2024.
At this time Plaintiffs are conferring with Selene to set their
depositions as requested without need for any court intervention,
although illness and pre-determined travel arrangements have made
the Plaintiffs not immediately ready to schedule any depositions.
Moreover, the Parties are attempting to coordinate discovery and
mediation in this lawsuit. At this time a mediation is scheduled on
June 5, 2024. An extension of the Class Certification briefing
schedule will facilitate the Parties' coordination, and allow
avoidance of replicating time, and expenses on similar
issues where possible.
Selene Finance operates as a residential mortgage company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q0Be7R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Sara Accardi, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP
Thousand & One
1001 Water Street, Suite 1000
Tampa, FL 33602-5809
Telephone: (813) 559-5500
Facsimile: (813) 229-5946
E-mail: saccardi@bradley.com
- and -
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com
SHOWS CALI: Calogero Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRIS CALOGERO, et al., v.
SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06709-BWA-EJD
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
ex parte motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in
support of the renewed motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs seek leave of Court to address the qualifications of
new pro hac vice counsel to serve as class counsel.
Shows, Cali provides legal counsel throughout Louisiana.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLj4NC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Crystal S. McElrath, Esq.
Jamie Rush, Esq.
Kirsten Anderson, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 340
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (470) 501-0913
Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
E-mail: crystal.mcelrath@splcenter.org
Jamie.rush@splcenter.org
Kirsten.anderson@splcener.org
- and -
Margaret E. Woodward, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1229 N. Tonti Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 301-4333
Facsimile: (504) 301-4365
E-mail: mewno@aol.com
- and -
Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
GESUND AND PAILET, LLC
3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 836-2888
Facsimile: (504) 265-9492
E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com
- and -
Jennifer C. Deasy, Esq.
JENNIFER C. DEASY, LLC
Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1500
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 582-2300
Facsimile: (504) 582-2310
E-mail: jd@jenniferdeasy.com
- and -
O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
25 East Washington St., Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-8822
Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com
SIRIUS XM: Bid to Compel Arbitration Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Company's
Compel Arbitration motion remains pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On May 17, 2023, Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip
Munning, individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf
of all other New Jersey persons similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint against Sirius XM in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
Sirius XM filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 18, 2023,
which remains pending.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM: Court Stays Appeals in Stevenson Suit
------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holding Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Stevenson class
suit appeal and cross-appeal are both stayed in the Ninth Circuit
pending resolution of a related issue by the United States Supreme
Court.
On April 14, 2023, Ayana Stevenson and David Ambrose, individually,
as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all other California
persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Sirius XM in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Contra Costa.
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, which issued an Order on November
9, 2023 granting Sirius XM’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and
dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed the Court's granting of the Motion, and Sirius
XM cross-appealed the Court's dismissal in lieu of the issuance of
a stay pending arbitration.
The appeal and cross-appeal are currently stayed in the Ninth
Circuit pending resolution of a related issue by the United States
Supreme Court.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SKIMS BODY: Faces Class Action for Wiretapping Facebook Visitors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Hall of Sourcing Journal reports that plaintiffs in a
California class-action lawsuit think that Skims Body Inc. is
skimming excess consumer data.
The lawsuit, filed Monday, April 29, in the Northern District of
California, alleges that Skims uses Meta Pixel technology -- a tool
that helps brands assess the efficacy of their advertisements -- to
enable "Meta to eavesdrop on [Skims] website visitors'
communications as they conduct searches for intimate wear products
on the website without visitors' consent."
Kim Kardashian's brand faces the complaint from lead plaintiffs
Catherine Porchia and Mathilda Silverstein, both California
residents who allege they purchased items from Skims this year or
last year. Porchia and Silverstein allege that information about
them was "intercepted in transit" by Meta without their consent
while making these purchases and browsing Skims' site.
The complaint alleges that Skims has been "aiding, agreeing with,
employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the
electronic communications of visitors to its website" by using
Meta's technology to capture, analyze and use consumer data without
consent.
While most websites request consumers to authorize necessary and
optional cookies, the complaint says Skims doesn't go far enough to
ensure consumers have control over their data or the cookies the
company uses. [GN]
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to May 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andujar v. Skyc Management
LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08764-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order granting the request for an
extension of time.
The parties are on notice that future failure to comply with the
Court's Individual Rules of Practice may result in sanctions.
The current deadline for the Defendants' opposition is Friday, May
10, 2024. The Defendants request that this be extended to Tuesday,
May 28, 2024, with the Plaintiff's reply due June 28, 2024. The
parties also stipulate that the more lenient, pre-discovery
standard for conditional certification will continue to apply,
notwithstanding any discovery exchanged over the upcoming months.
The Plaintiffs' counsel consents to this request. The requested
extension will solely affect the briefing scheduling relating to
conditional certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9zmI5H at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Valeria Fernandez, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
E-mail: VF@belllg.com
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to Oppose Collective Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andujar v. Skyc Management
LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08764-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendant's deadline
to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective.
The current deadline for the Defendants' opposition is Friday, May
10, 2024. The Defendants request that this be extended to Tuesday,
May 28, 2024, with Plaintiff's reply due June 28, 2024. The parties
also stipulate that the more lenient, pre-discovery standard for
conditional certification will continue to apply, notwithstanding
any discovery exchanged over the upcoming months.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pXNWXp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Valeria Fernandez, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: VF@belllg.com
TALKSPACE INC: Class Cert Filing in Weizman Due March 28, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAOMI WEIZMAN, v.
TALKSPACE, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00912-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge P. Casey Pitts entered a case management order as follows:
-- Deadline to Exchange Initial Disclosures: April 30, 2024
-- Joinder and Other Amendments: July 12, 2024
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 13, 2024
-- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Dec. 6, 2024
Class-Certification Expert Reports:
-- Deadline to Depose Plaintiff's Jan. 17, 2025
Class-Certification Expert
-- Disclosure of Defendant's Jan. 31, 3025
Class-Certification Expert Reports:
-- Deadline to Depose Defendant's Feb. 28, 2025
Class-Certification Expert
-- Motion for Class Certification: March 28, 2025
-- Response to Motion for Class Certification: May 9, 2025
-- Reply in Support of Class Certification: May 30, 2025
By June 6, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer in order to
reach an agreement on an ADR process.
Talkspace provides behavioral healthcare platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KUrQEX at no extra
charge.[CC]
TARGET CORP: Fabric Bandages Contain Toxic Substances, Maketa Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DASSAH MAKETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION and TARGET BRANDS, INC., Case No.
4:24-cv-02576-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant made false, misleading, and deceptive representations of
its Target brand Up & Up Flexible Fabric Bandages.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and
similarly situated consumers who purchased Target brand Up & Up
Flexible Fabric Bandages.
The Defendants' Products are adhesive bandages that serve millions
of people daily for the treatment of cuts, scrapes, and burns.
The Products' packaging claims the bandages are "stretchable,
breathable protection" and contain "sterile adhesive bandages." The
packaging further states that the Products are "not made with
natural rubber latex," the Plaintiff says.
However, the Products are unfit for their intended purpose because
they contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), "forever
chemicals," which are dangerous to human health, the Plaintiff
contends, the Plaintiff contends.
PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals. Because PFAS persist and
accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels.
Indeed, PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological
effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid
disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various cancers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff bring claims against the Defendants
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated for claims of breach of warranties, fraud, state consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased, purchased more of, or
paid more for, the Defendants' Bandages than they would have had
they known the truth about the Products' harmful ingredients. They
have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result
of Defendants' wrongful conduct.
In or around May 7, 2022, Ms. Maketa purchased the Defendants' Up &
Up Flexible Fabric Bandages from a Target store located in Fremont,
California.
Target markets and sells flexible fabric bandages of various sizes
under the brand name Up & Up in Target stores and online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
TARGET CORP: Parties in Gudgel Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gudgel v. Target
Corporation et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00870 (M.D. Fla., Filed May 8,
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 nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.[CC]
TEKSYSTEMS INC: July 31 Filing for Class Certification Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL THOMAS, MARIA
CONYERS-JORDAN, AUSTIN SHERMAN, LYNDA ALEXANDRA MAHER, AVA DORE,
RACHEL RICHENBERG, and EMILY BURKE, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00460-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting the joint motion to set briefing schedule for the
Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and motion for final
certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
to submit oversized briefs.
-- Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification July 31,
2024
and Motion for Final Certification Pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are to
be filed no later than:
-- The Defendant's Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Aug. 30,
2024
Motions for Class Certification and Motion
for Final Certification Pursuant to the
FLSA are to be filed no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs' Replies in Support of their Sept. 27,
2024
Motions for Class Certification and Motion
for Final Certification Pursuant to the
FLSA are to be filed no later than:
-- The Defendant's Sur-Reply in Support of its Oct. 25,
2024
Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Certification Pursuant to the FLSA
is to be filed no later than:
The Parties ask that the Court enter deadlines to file dispositive
motions after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class
Certification and Motion for Final Certification Pursuant to
the FLSA.
TEKsystems provides information technology services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prKyXM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Anne Kramer, Esq.
Joseph E. Salvi, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
335 18th Pl NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
akramer@flsalaw.com
jsalvi@flsalaw.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000,
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
Andrew L. Scroggins, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
ascroggins@seyfarth.com
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Webb Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TETRA Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Webb class suit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.
On April 25, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery
naming as defendants all current members of the Board, the Company
and the Rights Agent.
The litigation is captioned Webb, et al. v. Murphy, et al., C.A.
No. 2024-0445 (Del. Ch.).
The plaintiff alleges that the Board breached their fiduciary
duties by adopting and maintaining the Company's Tax Benefits
Preservation Plan (the "Tax Plan").
The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Tax Plan.
The Company believes that the plaintiff’s claims lack merit.
TETRA Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.tetratec.com/-- is an oil
and gas services company with an integrated calcium chloride and
brominated products manufacturing operation that supplies
feedstocks to energy markets, as well as other markets. The
Company has three divisions: Fluids, Well Abandonment and
Decommissioning (WA&D), and Production Enhancement. Its Fluids
Division manufactures and markets brine fluids, additives, and
other associated products and services to the oil and gas industry
for use in well drilling, completion, and workover operations both
domestically and in certain regions of Europe, Asia, Latin America
and Africa. The WA&D Division consists of two operating segments:
WA&D Services and Maritech. The
Production Enhancement Division provides production testing
services to the Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, offshore Gulf of
Mexico, and certain international markets.
TRANS UNION: Loses Bid to Compel Portillo's Discovery Responses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, denies the Motion to
Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses in the lawsuit titled JESUS
DAVID PORTILLO, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC, EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, and WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00270-DCG (W.D. Tex.).
Plaintiff Jesus David Portillo brings this putative class action
against Defendant Trans Union, LLC, and others, alleging that they
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Before the Court is Trans
Union's "Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses," in
which it seeks an order overruling the Plaintiff's written
objections to its discovery requests and compelling him to produce
the discovery requested.
The Honorable Senior District Judge David C. Guaderrama referred
the motion to Magistrate Judge Berton under 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C to the Local Rule for
resolution.
Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows
parties to move to compel others to produce discovery. The rule
requires motions to compel to "include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the
person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an
effort to obtain it without court action." Similarly, Local Rule
CV-7(g) requires the parties to meet and "confer" in "good faith"
to resolve the dispute without court intervention before they file
a non-dispositive motion, such as one on discovery matters.
The Court concludes that Trans Union flouted Rule 37(a)(1) and
Local Rule CV-7(g) because it filed the Motion without the required
certificate of conference and before the parties met and conferred
on their discovery disputes. Indeed, a review of the Motion and its
exhibits only reveals that the Plaintiff shared his objections to
Trans Union's discovery requests and that Trans Union argued why
those objections were deficient.
On Nov. 22, 2023, Trans Union's counsel served the disputed
discovery requests on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's counsel served
his objections and responses on Trans Union on Jan. 26, 2024. On
Feb. 15, 2024, Trans Union's counsel sent the Plaintiff's counsel a
letter that generally argued why several of his responses and
objections, as well as his discovery productions, were deficient.
At the end of the letter, Trans Union's counsel demanded the
Plaintiff to produce the disputed discovery without objection no
later than Feb. 23, 2024. A month later, on March 15, 2024, Trans
Union's counsel sent the Plaintiff's counsel a follow-up letter on
their discovery demands from the Feb. 15, 2024 letter.
On April 17, 2024, Trans Union filed the Motion. Yet in its Motion,
Judge Berton says Trans Union failed to include the certificate of
conference that both Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule CV-7(g) require.
True, Trans Union argues in its Motion that the Plaintiff failed to
respond to its counsel's letters "or otherwise engage in the meet
and confer process." But nothing in those letters suggests that
Trans Union's counsel reached out to the Plaintiff's counsel to
meet and confer, much less that the parties genuinely attempted to
resolve their discovery disputes without court intervention.
In fact, the two letters reveal that, rather than requesting to
meet and confer on the Plaintiff's objections, Trans Union's
counsel instead only demanded that the Plaintiff comply with its
disputed discovery requests without objection, Judge Berton points
out.
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant Trans Union's LLC's "Motion
to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses."
The Court warns Trans Union's counsel that repeated failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's
Local Rules may result in sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated April 22,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6dbmfs from
PacerMonitor.com.
UNION PACIFIC: Class Cert Discovery in Tolson Due April 25
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE
TOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No.
6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell
entered a scheduling order to govern the class certification stage
of the case, as follows:
Event Deadline/Setting
Jointly proposed protective order and ESI May 15, 2024
Protocol:
Deadline to amend pleadings: June 7, 2024
Substantial completion of document Sept. 1, 2024
Production:
Comparative fault identification: Nov. 1, 2024
Physical and mental examinations completed: Dec. 13, 2024
Jointly filed mediation notice: Jan. 10, 2025
Plaintiffs' disclosure of class experts and Jan. 17, 2025
production of reliance materials:
Mediation completed: March 31, 2025
Class certification discovery completed: April 25, 2025
On April 25 and May 7, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel D.
Mitchell conducted a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16.
The Defendant is a Class I freight-hauling railroad that operates
8,300 locomotives.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6PBhl3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED SUGAR: Controls Granulated Sugar Prices, Cowbell Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
COWBELL GRILL & TAP, LLC and DIMITRI, INC. d/b/a JIMMY THE GREEK'S,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A
UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD WISTISEN,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01539 (D. Minn., April 29, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the antitrust
laws of the United States and the consumer protection laws of
various states.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to
artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of
granulated sugar throughout the Class Period. The Defendants have
implemented their agreement by sharing accurate, competitively
sensitive, non-public information with one another, including
through Commodity. Commodity provided this reciprocal information
to the Defendants rapidly, often within hours of having received
it. The Defendants then used the information they received from
Commodity when deciding how much to charge for their products. As a
result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy, granulated
Sugar prices in the U.S. have been artificially inflated throughout
the Class Period, causing the Plaintiffs and other commercial,
industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to suffer
overcharges, says the suit.
Cowbell Grill & Tap, LLC is a restaurant operator in Maine.
Dimitri, Inc., doing business as Jimmy The Greek's, is a restaurant
operator in Maine.
United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, formerly known as
United Sugars Corporation, is a marketing cooperative based in
Edina, Minnesota.
American Sugar Refining, Inc. is a sugar producer based in West
Palm Beach, Florida.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a global producer and seller of
granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Domino Foods, Inc. is a marketing and sales subsidiary of ASR Group
in Florida.
Cargill, Inc. is an American global food corporation based in
Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Michigan Sugar Company is a cooperative of sugar beet owners,
headquartered in Bay City, Michigan.
Commodity Information, Inc. is corporation based in Orem, Utah.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Robert Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC
23 Forest Street
Medford, MA 02155
Telephone: (781) 350-0000
Facsimile: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
UPP GLOBAL: Faces Vandeboe Suit Over Illegal Parking Citations
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA VANDEBOE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UPP GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a FLORIDA PARKING CO., Case No.
24-001908-CI (Fla. Cir., Apr. 30, 2024) seeks redress for a class
of Florida consumers who were issued illegal parking under the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collections Practices Act.
The citations are designed to look like official citations and
include a picture of the vehicle and include threats, the suit
claims.
On July 29, 2023, VanDeBoe parked at a private parking lot located
at 106th Ave & Park Place, Treasure Island, Florida 33706. VanDeBoe
paid the maximum available time for several hours of parking but
had consumed alcohol at one of the neighboring establishments and
therefore left her vehicle in the private parking lot overnight.
She returned in the morning to find Defendant's illegal parking
citation on her vehicle.
Accordingly, the Defendant willfully used false, deceptive,
abusive, threatening, harassing, unfair and/or misleading
representations or means in connection with the collection of an
alleged debt to the Plaintiff and the Class when it threatened that
unpaid parking citations may affect Plaintiff and the Class
Members' credit rating, vehicle registration, license renewal, and
ability to rent a vehicle, even though the Defendant had no legal
right to do so.
The Defendant allegedly generates considerable profit from the
collection of consumer debts for its illegal parking citations as a
result of its unlawful threats.
The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, declaratory relief, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and any other relief provided by law.
Ms. VanDeBoe is a resident of Citrus County, Florida, and is
citizen of the State of Florida.
UPP primarily offers full-service parking management in all
verticals of parking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
mjett@vandwlaw.com
VALLEY MOUNTAIN: Fredrick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Mountain
Regional Center. The case is styled as Daniel Fredrick, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Valley Mountain
Regional Center, Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2024-0005541 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 9, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Non-PI/PD/WD (Other)
Tort."
Valley Mountain Regional Center -- https://www.vmrc.net/ --
provides diagnostic, evaluation, case management and prevention
services to children and adults with developmental disabilities to
include: autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy and
other special needs disabilities requiring treatment similar to
mental retardation.[BN]
VROOM INC: Parties to Address Reg S-K Claims in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned IN RE: VROOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02477-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
directs the parties to file letters addressing the adequacy of the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding Regulation S-K.
The lawsuit is a consolidated class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of Defendant Vroom, Inc.'s common stock between June 9,
2020, and March 3, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint") alleges that Vroom and
certain of its senior officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period regarding Vroom's
true financial prospects and operating condition, which was plagued
by a lack of adequate sales and support staff resulting in degraded
customer experiences, lost sales opportunities, and liquidation of
inventory at fire sale prices.
The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; SEC Rule 10b-5; and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. As
part of its claims under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Act of 1933, the Amended Complaint alleges that
the Defendants violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, which
requires issuers to describe any known trends or uncertainties that
have had or that are reasonably likely to have a material favorable
or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from
continuing operations, and Item 105 of SEC Regulation S-K, which
requires issuers to provide under the caption "Risk Factors" a
discussion of the material factors that make an investment in the
registrant or offering speculative or risky.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Dec. 20,
2021. The Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on Feb. 22,
2022, and the Defendants filed a reply brief on March 23, 2022.
Judge Gardephe finds that the parties' briefing on the motion to
dismiss does not address the Amended Complaint's allegations with
respect to Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K. Accordingly, the
parties must file letters addressing the adequacy of the Amended
Complaint's allegations regarding Regulation S-K pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).
The parties' letters will address each of the Amended Complaint's
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and
the Securities Act of 1933. The parties will also address the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp.
v. Moab Partners, L. P., No. 22-1165, 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr.
12, 2024).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/jwb8xvup from PacerMonitor.com.
WABASH COLLEGE: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. WABASH COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-03593
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA")
prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.wabash.edu,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but
not limited to, https://sports.wabash.edu,
https://wabashcollege247.itemorder.com/shop/home/ and
http://bookstore.wabash.edu/home(collectively, the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
WABASH COLLEGE, operates the Wabash online retail store, as well as
the Wabash interactive website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Danalgottlieb@aol.com
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
WHITEHORSE FREIGHT: Faces Dougherty Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Ky.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DOUGHERTY, PARKER ROTH, MARCUS MORENO, COREY CLARK, JAMIE
DEPENA, and MICHAEL GREENE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHITEHORSE FREIGHT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00071-DCR (E.D. Ky., April 29, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kansas Revised
Statutes (KRS) 337.285 and for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as account executives
and/or logistics coordinators at any time between 2018 and 2024.
Whitehorse Freight, LLC is a logistics company in Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samantha B. Isaacs, Esq.
Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Telephone: (513) 797-2859
Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
Email: sbl@finneylawfirm.com
matt@finneylawfirm.com
YATSEN HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Maeshiro Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Yatsen Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2024, that a motion to dismiss a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed on September 23,
2022 remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The case captioned "Maeshiro v. Yatsen Holding Limited et al.,"
(No. 1:22-cv-08165) was filed against the company, certain of its
directors and officers, its authorized U.S. representative, a
shareholder, and the underwriters for its November 2020 initial
public offering.
The plaintiff in this case alleges, in sum and substance, that the
company's registration statement filed in connection with its
November 2020 initial public offering and other public disclosures
contained false or misleading statements in violation of the U.S.
federal securities laws. In December 2023, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and briefing on the motion
to dismiss was completed in March 2024.
Yatsen is a Chinese beauty group with its flagship brand, "Perfect
Diary," purchased by consumers through multiple retail sales
points. Yatsen primarily reaches and engages with customers
directly both online and offline, with expansive presence across
all major e-commerce, social and content platforms in China.
ZIPONGO INC: Hulce Appeals Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit to 7th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JAMES C. HULCE filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment dated March 18, 2024 entered in the lawsuit
entitled JAMES HULCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZIPONGO, INC. d/b/a FOODSMART, Defendant,
Case No. 23-C-0159, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiff James Hulce brought this suit on February 7, 2023,
alleging that the Defendant which does business under the name
Foodsmart, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
calling and text-messaging him at a number listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. The calls and messages urged Plaintiff to
sign up for Foodsmart's nutrition counseling services, which were
available to him for free under his health plan.
On November 7, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on March 18, 2024 through an Order
signed by Judge Lynn Adelman. The Plaintiff's motion to restrict
access was denied. The Deputy Clerk of Court also entered final
judgment thereafter.
The appellate case is captioned as James Hulce v. Zipongo Inc.,
Case No. 24-1623, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant James C. Hulce on
April 24, 2024;
-- Transcript information sheet was due on May 1, 2024; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 28, 2024 for James
C. Hulce.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES C. HULCE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Defendant-Appellee ZIPONGO INC. is represented by:
Maria Del Pizzo Sanders, Esq.
VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C.
411 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3262
Telephone: (414) 221-6652
*********
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 ***