/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240524.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 24, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 105
Headlines
'47 BRAND LLC: Ruiz Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
800 POUND GORILLA: Faces Class Action Over Sharing User Data
A&L RV SALES: Scopata Sues Over Failure to Pay OT to Salesmen
ABSOPURE WATER: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Guy Suit
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Class Settlement in RP Suit Gets Initial Nod
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Glasscock Sues Over Video Game Addiction
AIDA FORT: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA, Rojas Alleges
ALASKA: Kamkoff Bid for Language Access Class Status Tossed
ALLSTATE CORP: Parties Seek Oct. 25 Class Certification Bid Filing
AMERICAN WATER: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Bruce Class Suit
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Echo Class Suit
ANTON'S CAR: Underpays Auto Mechanics/Store Clerks, Paulino Claims
APOLLO MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
APOTEX CORP: Class Settlement in West Val Suit Gets Initial Nod
APPLE INC: Arends Sues Over Smartphone Apps Monopoly
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Scott Sues Over Compromised Personal Information
ASR GROUP: Faces Western Suit Over Sugar Market Monopoly
AT&T INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Personal Info, Ragland Says
BAIN CAPITAL: Settles Cheerleading Monopoly Class Action Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Bruin Suit Gets Final Nod
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2025
BARONHR WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonilla Alleges
BLACK HAWK COUNTY, IA: Roberts Alleges Illegal Jail Fees Collection
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baumann Says
BRADFORD-SCOTT DATA: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
CALIFORNIA: Violates Attorneys' Constitutional Rights, Roshan Says
CENCORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit
CENTR LLC: Discloses Users' Video Habits to Facebook, Stricker Says
CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces Class Action Over Breaches of Labor Code
CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carbajal Alleges
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: June 6 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set
CRAFT AXE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Thompson Class Suit
DELL INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Lattimore Claims
EQUITY ONE: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Apthorp Says
FLORISSANT, MO: Court Grants Final Approval to $2.89MM Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Faces Katz Suit Over Defective 360-Degree Camera System
GENESIS FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ford Suit
GEORGIA: Oliver Sues Over Illegal Inmate Trust Account Deductions
GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL: Cinnamon Contains Lead, Bell Says
HARD ROCK: Underpays Table Games Dealers, Schottelkotte Alleges
HF MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay CSRs' OT Wages Under FLSA, Small Claims
HOMEMAKERS PLAZA: Wurm Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
HORIZON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Pressley Suit Says
HOSPITALITY UNIVERSAL: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
INOAC EXTERIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blue Suit Alleges
IXL LEARNING: Surveils and Extracts Users' Info, A.S. Suit Says
J & J SNACK: Fails to Pay Wages, Woolridge Suit Alleges
JAKO ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says
JARS I INC: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA
KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY: Files Sup. Ct. Appeal in Moore Suit
KROGER CO: Has Until May 28 to File Class Cert Opposition
LI AUTO INC: Banurs Sues Over Drop in Share Price
LIFEKIND INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Competello Says
LIFELABS INC: Distributes Data Breach Settlement Payments
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Faces Saul Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
MEDICAL CENTER: Lucero Seeks Conditional Class Certification
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Riddick Says
META PLATFORMS: Yoon Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
MIDLAND FUNDING: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due June 24
MISSION POINT: Fails to Pay Assistants' Proper Wages Under FLSA
MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: Files Appeal in New Suit to Sup. Ct.
MR. COOPER GROUP: Randles Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
MULTI-COLOR CORP: Izquierdo Suit Removed to C.D. California
NATIONAL MENTOR: Hagans Suit Seeks Class Certification
NEW YORK: Baez Files Suit in S.D. New York
NIKE RETAIL: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 19
NIKE RETAIL: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 19
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: Appeals Approval of Carroll FLSA Suit Deal
NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Class Action Over St Marthas Data Breach
NUMERADE LABS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Modified to August 2
NUNAVUT: Agrees to Settle School Abuse Class Action for $8-Mil.
OLAMETER CORPORATION: McMurry Suit Removed to D. Colorado
OSPREY SPONSOR: Drulias Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
OSPREY SPONSOR: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Cheriyala Says
OTTAWA, ON: Court Dismisses Taxi Class Suit on Lack of Enforcement
PACIFIC STEEL: Stipulation to Vacate Case Deadlines Terminated
PANDA RESTAURANT: Faces Ruggeri Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access
PANDA RESTAURANT: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Jackson Alleges
PARACHUTE HOME: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
PEAKFOOTWEAR LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Suit Claims
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Class Settlement in FLPFRS Suit Gets Initial Nod
PERPAY INC: Soud Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PETROLEX II: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by March 18, 2025
POLYGLASS USA: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California
PRIDE MOBILITY: Fails to Properly Invest OIA Funds, Tufano Claims
PRIME HYDRATION: Preudhomme Sues Over Energy Drinks' Caffeine Label
PROSTAFFING SERVICE: Mireles Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
R&S ERECTION: Boyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: June 17 Class Cert Hearing Canceled
REVERB.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hashew
ROTHMAN'S WESTSIDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Suit Says
SARRIA HOLDINGS: Faces Pardo Suit Over Commercial Property Barriers
SGI MATRIX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wallace Alleges
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Appeals Remand Ruling in Cousin Suit
SP PLUS CORP: Barba Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SPECIAL SERVICE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STAGECOACH GROUP: Court Approves GBP25MM Class Action Settlement
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Iraheta Suit Removed to C.D. California
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
STRETTO INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Abellard Alleges
SUN SOLAR LLC: Krugman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
SUPPLYFRAME INC: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUSSEX PUBLISHERS: R.C. Suit Removed to N.D. California
SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Wilson Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Kohrs Suit Removed to C.D. California
SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE: Did Not Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
TARGET CORPORATION: Embeds Spy Pixels in Emails, Smith Suit Alleges
TELCAST NETWORKS: Bond Suit Moved to D. Delaware
TEXAS: Fountain Files 5th Circuit Appeal
TVI INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
UNION CARBIDE: Court Dismisses Medical Monitoring Class Action
UNITED SERVICES: Burton Sues Over Improper Insurance Scheme
UNITED STATES: Cheng Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
UNITED STATES: Neville Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. EEOC
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: Files Appeal in Lyvers Civil Rights Suit
US EXPRESS: Ballinger Suit Moved to C.D. California
USA WASTE: Diridoni Suit Moved to E.D. California
VATICAN: Faces Class Action Over Working Conditions
WALMART INC: Johnson, Non-Party File Motion to Quash in E.D. Pa.
WALMART INC: Shugars Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
WELCH FOODS: Fruit Snacks' No Preservatives Ads "False," Small Says
WELLS FARGO: Realscape Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
WEST COAST DENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zabiba Alleges
WESTWAYS STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wy Suit Alleges
WHITESTONE HOME: Lewis Sues Over Fake Comparison Reference Prices
WINCO FOODS: Deadline to File Claim for Surcharge Suit Set July 9
WORKDAY INC: Urges Judge to Toss Bias Class Action Over AI Hiring
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 50 Toxic-Tort Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 400 New Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $417MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 250 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Eagle Sues U.S. Law Firm Over Hundreds of Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 783 New Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 110 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Defends Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Reports 505 Claims Outstanding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Receives 28,000 Claims as of April 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WAG Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
*********
'47 BRAND LLC: Ruiz Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. '47 BRAND, LLC, Case No. 2482cv00457 (Court, May 13,
2024) sues the Defendant for aiding, agreeing with employing,
procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, ttps://www.47brand.com/.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, agrees with,
employs, or otherwise enables Meta Platforms, Inc., X Corp. and
Snap, Inc. (collectively, the "Third Parties") to collect
information from visitors to its Website. In particular, the
Defendant enables the Third Parties to eavesdrop on Website
visitors' communications as they conduct searches for products on
the Website without visitors' prior consent. The Defendant has
enabled these Third Parties' interception of visitor's
communications by employing the services of these Third Parties to
track users across the Website using several pixel trackers—the
Meta Pixel, the X Pixel, and the Snap Pixel, the Plaintiff claims.
The suit alleges that the electronic communications made in
response to Website visitor's searches conducted on the Website are
contemporaneously captured or otherwise acquired by the Third
Parties to assist the Defendant with its marketing, advertising,
and data analytics efforts.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all California
residents who conducted searches for products and/or browsed the
Website for products while in California, and whose electronic
communications were intercepted or recorded by the Third Parties.
Plaintiff Ruiz created a Facebook account around 2009. He also
created a Snapchat account around 2015.
The Defendant is a company most known for its sale of sports teams
apparel and headwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C.
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor No. 1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
idiaz@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
800 POUND GORILLA: Faces Class Action Over Sharing User Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of Top Class Action reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges 800 Pound Gorilla Media has unlawfully
shared website visitors' personal data with Meta, formerly
Facebook, without consent.
The 16-page privacy lawsuit claims that in violation of federal and
state law, the comedy media company transmits users' personal
information and video-viewing behavior to Facebook each time they
access 800PoundGorillaMedia.com.
According to the suit, the company's website -- which hosts a
variety of comedy video content -- captures and discloses user data
via the Meta pixel, a snippet of programming code embedded into the
site that sends information to Facebook for use in targeted
advertising.
The case says that when a consumer visits
800PoundGorillaMedia.com, the tracking tool transmits the title and
URL of any videos a user views alongside their Facebook ID -- a
unique string of numbers associated with the individual's social
media profile. Per the complaint, this combination of data can be
used to link a user's identity with their video-viewing
preferences.
"Just as Meta can easily identify any individual on its Facebook
platform with only their unique [Facebook ID], so too can any
ordinary person who comes into possession of a [Facebook ID]," the
filing relays. "Thus, equipped with a [Facebook ID] and the video
content name and URL, any ordinary person could determine the
identity of the 800 Pound member and the specific video or media
content they viewed on [the defendant's] website."
As the case tells it, the company did not disclose its use of the
web-tracking tool to consumers, nor did it acquire user consent
before sharing their sensitive information with Facebook.
The lawsuit looks to represent any Facebook users in the United
States who viewed prerecorded videos on 800PoundGorillaMedia.com
within the past two years. [GN]
A&L RV SALES: Scopata Sues Over Failure to Pay OT to Salesmen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Scopata on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
A&L RV Sales LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00334-HEH (E.D. Va., May 13,
2024) alleges that the Defendant for failure to pay an overtime
premium in violation of the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
According to the complaint, Mr. Scopata, and other salespeople at
the Virginia Store often worked over 40 hours a week but was not
paid overtime. For example, during the week ending July 30, 2021,
and Aug. 6, 2021, Mr. Scopata worked at least 50.10 and 48.50
hours, respectfully, but was paid only his commissions and bonuses
and received no overtime premium.
Furthermore, Mr. Scopata was terminated in January of 2023 shortly
after began asking questions about the propriety of pay and
timekeeping practices at the Virginia Store, says the suit.
Mr. Scopata is a resident of Virginia who was employed by A&L as a
Recreational Vehicle ("RV") Salesman at its Richmond, Virginia
store from June of 2021 through January of 2023. He sold both
trailers and automobiles.
A&L is an RV dealership.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
ABSOPURE WATER: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Guy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
ABSOPURE WATER COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Justin Guy,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Absopure Water Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-12734, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
filed against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
On Nov. 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's Order on motion for summary judgment.
On Dec. 14, 2023, Non-party, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL),
filed an emergency motion to quash a subpoena for testimony and the
production of documents served on it by the Defendant.
On Mar. 29, 2024, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. The
Court also denied the Plaintiff's emergency motion for
reconsideration and granted DOL's motion to quash subpoena.
The Court concluded that the Defendant's motion fails to identify
any conduct warranting dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims.
The appellate case is captioned Justin Guy v. Absopure Water
Company, Case No. 24-1370, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JUSTIN GUY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
- and -
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
Ertis Tereziu, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 739-1956
- and -
Geoffrey Nels Fieger, Esq.
FIEGER LAW
19390 W. Ten Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 355-5555
Defendant-Appellant ABSOPURE WATER COMPANY is represented by:
Ronald G. Acho, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
17436 College Parkway, Third Floor
Livonia, MI 48152
Telephone: (734) 261-2400
- and -
Michael Owen Cummings, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS, & ACHO
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 547-8817
- and -
Gary J. Mouw, Esq.
Neil E. Youngdahl, Esq.
VARNUM
P.O. Box 352
Grand Rapids, MI 49501
Telephone: (616) 336-6000
(616) 336-6961
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Class Settlement in RP Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RELIABLE PHARMACY et al v.
ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC. et al., Case No. 19-cv-6044 (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Cynthia Rufe entered an order granting the Indirect
Reseller Plaintiffs' ("IRPs") Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in which the parties seek:
(a) certification of a settlement class,
(b) preliminary approval of a class action settlement, and
(c) appointment of class counsel; and after review of supporting
documents filed in support of the Motion, and no opposition
to
the Motion having been filed, and the Court finding that the
proposed Settlement was entered into in good faith.
Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), the "Settlement Class" is defined as
follows:
"All dispensers of drugs (including Clinics, Hospitals and
Independent Pharmacies) in the United States and its
territories
that purchased one or more Drugs at Issue from Jan. 1, 2010
through the present, including (a) those that purchased
directly
from distributor AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal
Health, Inc., Red Oak Sourcing, LLC, The Harvard Drug Group,
LLC, HD Smith LLC, McKesson Corporation, Morris & Dickson Co.,
or
Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., or their subsidiaries; and (b)
those that purchased indirectly from any Defendant in the
MDL."
This class excludes: (a) Defendants, their officers,
directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b)
entities
owned in part by judges or justices involved in this action or
any members of their immediate families (other than interests
held as a passive investor in a publicly traded entity); and
(c) all pharmacies owned or operated by publicly traded
Companies.
Appointment of Class Counsel
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(B) and 23(g), having
considered the factors provided in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), the Court
appoints as Lead Counsel and Settlement Class Counsel the attorney
Christian Hudson of the firm Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Suite
200, 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016.
Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement
The Settlement contributes $5,537,000 to a fund to be distributed
to class members and for cooperation by Apotex with the IRPs’
continued efforts against the remaining Defendants in this MDL. The
Court therefore preliminarily approves the Settlement on the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement, subject to further
consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Kz3QI at no extra
charge.[CC]
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iHjWi9 at no extra
charge.[CC
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Glasscock Sues Over Video Game Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for St Louis Record, reports that a
24-year-old woman is suing several gaming companies alleging video
game addiction.
Activision Blizzard, Infinity Ward Inc., Sledgehammer Games,
Blizzard Entertainment, Microsoft Corporation, MSI Computer
Corporation, Bluestacts By NOW.GG, and unknown and unnamed
individuals were all named as defendants in the suit.
Harper Glasscock alleges the intentional design and marketing of
video games to induce addiction, particularly among minors and
young adults, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri Central Division.
The complaint outlines how these companies have exploited
psychological vulnerabilities and employed predatory monetization
schemes to maximize profits at the expense of consumers'
well-being, according to the suit.
Glasscock claims the nature of the action revolves around the
concept of video game addiction, or internet gaming disorder,
characterized by a loss of control over gaming habits and negative
consequences in various aspects of life.
Glasscock claims she began playing video games at the age of 4 and
has continued to play them in the 20 years since.
She claims that video game addiction is a growing epidemic,
exacerbated by the proliferation of online gaming and
microtransactions, which provide unfettered access to addictive
content and incentivize spending within games.
The complaint accuses the defendants of deliberately designing
games to be addictive through the use of feedback loops, reward
systems, and patented technology developed with input from
behavioral psychologists and neuroscientists, according to the
suit.
"Defendants manufactured, published, marketed, and sold video games
and gaming products, including those played by Harper Glasscock,
which Defendants had specifically developed and designed to cause
the addiction experienced by Harper Glasscock and other users," the
complaint states. "Defendants use traditional game tactics such as
feedback loops and reward systems, along with patented designs
containing addictive features and technology to ensure its users
keep playing longer and spending more on 'microtransactions' within
the game."
Glasscock alleges that these companies prioritize maximizing
profits over user safety, employing tactics such as drip pricing
and dark patterns to deceive consumers and manipulate their
behavior.
Glasscock also points out that specific predatory monetization
schemes are employed by the defendants, including loot boxes,
pay-to-win models, and rubber-banding, which exploit players'
propensity to spend money within games.
Glasscock argues that these practices constitute deceptive and
unfair trade practices, leading to financial harm and mental health
issues for consumers.
Glasscock claims the defendants' actions have caused brain damage,
cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety and other damages for her
and others through video game addiction.
The plaintiff calls for accountability for the defendants'
intentional misconduct and unlawful conduct in targeting vulnerable
populations for financial gain, according to the suit.
Glasscock is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. She is
represented by Tyler W. Hudson, Eric D. Barton and Melody R.
Dickson of Wagstaff & Cartmell; Tina Bullock, Danielle Ward Mason
and Breean Walas of Bullock Ward Mason; and Steven B. Rotman of
Hausfeld.
Attorneys for the plaintiff declined to comment outside of the
complaint.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Central
Division case number: 2:24-cv-4036 [GN]
AIDA FORT: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA, Rojas Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Rojas Sr., Julio Antonio Rojas Jr., and other similarly
situated individuals v. Aida Fort Lauderdale, LLC, d/b/a Chala,
a/k/a Chala Taqueria, Eduardo P. Gavilan, Marco Bardone, and
Alberto Fenoll, individually, Case No. 0:24-cv-60759-AHS (S.D.
Fla., May 7, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked two shifts in a single workweek, doing two
different types of work and being paid two different rates. The
Plaintiffs worked in the mornings from Tuesday to Saturday, from
8:00 AM to 11:00 AM, deep cleaning the kitchen, and they were paid
a daily rate of $100.00, or $33.33 an hour. From Tuesday to Friday,
the Plaintiffs returned to work from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. On
Sunday, they worked from 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The Plaintiffs had
duties as dishwashers, cleaning employees, and kitchen helpers.
They were paid $12.00 an hour for this work. The Plaintiffs did not
take bonafide lunchtime periods. They ate while working.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs worked a total of 64 hours weekly. But
the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime
wages, at the rate of time and a half their regular rate, for every
hour worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit says.
On Jan. 24, 2024, the Defendants fired both the Plaintiffs. At the
time of their firing, the Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiffs
their last two weeks of employment, adds the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Julio Rojas Sr. and Julio A. Rojas Jr. bring this cause
of action as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
all other current and former employees similarly situated to
Plaintiffs and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after August 2023, without being adequately
compensated.
Aida Fort is a Mexican restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ALASKA: Kamkoff Bid for Language Access Class Status Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELLA KAMKOFF, et al., v.
HEIDI HEDBERG, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alaska Department of Health, Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-SLG (D.
Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with respect to the
Language Access Class only at Docket 7-21.
Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing, by presenting
"admissible evidence," on either the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality
prerequisite or the Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy of representation
prerequisite for the proposed Language Access Class.52 Accordingly,
the Court need not and does not reach a determination on the other
Rule 23(a) prerequisites or the requirements of Rule 23(b).
The case is about the State of Alaska's administration of the
federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
("SNAP"), which was established by the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
The Plaintiffs filed their complaint in Alaska state court in
January 2023, and the Defendant removed the case to federal court
in March 2023.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and "three
proposed classes of similarly situated low-income Alaskans," which
consist of (1) an "Untimely Eligibility Class," "comprised of:
"All Alaska residents who since Jan. 20, 2021, have applied, are
applying, or will apply for SNAP benefits through an initial
application or an application for recertification and did or
will
not receive an eligibility determination within the legally
required timeframes"; (2) a "Right to File Class," "comprised of
all Alaska residents who since Jan. 20, 2021, were or will be
denied the right to file a SNAP application the first time they
contact the agency"; and (3) a "Language Access Class,"
"comprised
of all Alaska residents with limited English proficiency
[("LEP")]
who since Jan. 20, 2021, did or will not receive application
materials or vital eligibility documents in their primary
language
and/or access to oral interpretation services, as required by
the
SNAP Act."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tjfMY1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE CORP: Parties Seek Oct. 25 Class Certification Bid Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN v. The Allstate
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05096-KAM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the joint motion
for a class certification briefing schedule:
Event Agreed Date
Class Certification Motion Due: Oct. 25, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification Due: Dec. 6, 2024
Reply in Support of Class Certification Due: Dec. 20, 2024
Allstate is an American insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NbjU85 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anupama Joglekar, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
3 WTC 175 Greenwich Street 55th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 453-3859
Facsimile: (646) 461-2080
E-mail: ajoglekar@cozen.com
AMERICAN WATER: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Bruce Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the
Company's Tennessee subsidiary TAWC continues to defend itself from
the Bruce class suit in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee.
Chattanooga, Tennessee Water Main Break Class Action Litigation
On September 12, 2019, the Company's Tennessee subsidiary ("TAWC"),
experienced a leak in a 36-inch water transmission main, which
caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and
the issuance of a boil water notice.
TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and
restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019,
with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September
16, 2019.
On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and
American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("Service Company" and,
together with TAWC and the Company, collectively, the
"Tennessee-American Water Defendants"), on behalf of a proposed
class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered
monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident (the
"Tennessee Plaintiffs").
The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil.
In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were
seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses,
business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use
and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well
as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest.
In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee
Plaintiffs’ claims in their complaint, except for the breach of
contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending.
In October 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have
been engaging in discovery.
On January 12, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the court issued
an oral ruling denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
On February 9, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs sought
reconsideration of the ruling by the court, and any final ruling is
appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, as allowed under
Tennessee law.
On September 21, 2023, the court upheld its prior ruling but gave
the Tennessee Plaintiffs the option to file an amended class
definition.
On October 12, 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an amended
class definition seeking certification of a business customer-only
class.
On December 1, 2023, TAWC filed a memorandum in opposition to the
amended class definition.
On January 18, 2024, and April 19, 2024, the court heard oral
argument on the motions.
On April 19, 2024, the court provided an oral ruling denying the
amended class and incorporating its denial of the original class.
A written order will be drafted, and when entered, the Tennessee
Plaintiffs will have a right under state law to appeal the denial
of class certification.
The Company and TAWC believe that TAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint.
TAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations.
American Water Works Company, Inc. is a water utility company
based
in Camden NJ.
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Echo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHO & RIG SACRAMENTO,
LLC, v. AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00197-DJC-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling
order as follows:
All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 17,
2025.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed
on
or before Feb. 21, 2025.
Amguard offers property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zp4tuX at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANTON'S CAR: Underpays Auto Mechanics/Store Clerks, Paulino Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS PAULINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTON'S CAR CARE CENTER, LTD. and ANTON
PARISI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03446 (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto mechanic,
laborer, and store clerk from in or about January 2012 to on or
about January 29, 2024.
Anton's Car Care Center, Ltd. is an owner and operator of an
automobile repair shop and gas station/convenience store located on
Sunrise Highway in Nassau County, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
APOLLO MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DHIRAJ SHADIJA, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective,
Plaintiffs v. APOLLO MANUFACTURING INC., ALASKA GOLD TRADING
COMPANY, JAI SADHWANI, and ALICIA SADHWANI, Case No. 1:24-cv-03502
(S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants unlawfully discriminated
the Plaintiff on the basis of his status as a non-US citizen. The
Defendants' bias against the Plaintiff and others without U.S.
citizenship was demonstrated by the fact that Jai and Alicia
Sadhwani and others routinely subjected other non-citizen Apollo
employees to humiliation and abuse but spared U.S. citizens such
treatment.
The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the federal
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Defendant subjected the
Plaintiff to forced labor and trafficking. Using fraud, duress,
physical restraint, and the abuse and threatened abuse of legal
process, including immigration consequences up to forcing the
Plaintiff to return to his country of origin (where he faces
persecution and danger to his life), the Defendants trafficked the
Plaintiff to the remote city of Ketchikan, Alaska to perform 80-90
weekly hours of backbreaking, menial, and humiliating forced labor
for the Defendants' benefit at a sub-minimum pay rate without
overtime, says the Plaintiff.
In connection with his TVPA claim, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief, and monetary damages, including
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Furthermore, the Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff in a
clear act of retaliation for his numerous protected complaints
about the wage violations and discrimination he suffered.
The Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants began in July 2023,
when he was hired to work at Apollo by Jai Sadhwani.
Apollo owns and operates a multi-state jewelry wholesaling business
headquartered in the heart of Manhattan's storied Diamond
District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taimur Alamgir, Esq.
TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC
315 Main Street, Second Floor
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (914) 552-2669
E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com
APOTEX CORP: Class Settlement in West Val Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEST VAL PHARMACY et al v.
APOTEX CORP. et al., Case No. 17-cv-3821 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Cynthia Rufe entered an order granting the Indirect Reseller
Plaintiffs' ("IRPs") Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement in which the parties seek:
(a) certification of a settlement class,
(b) preliminary approval of a class action settlement, and
(c) appointment of class counsel; and after review of supporting
documents filed in support of the Motion, and no opposition
to
the Motion having been filed, and the Court finding that the
proposed Settlement was entered into in good faith.
Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), the "Settlement Class" is defined as
follows:
"All dispensers of drugs (including Clinics, Hospitals and
Independent Pharmacies) in the United States and its
territories
that purchased one or more Drugs at Issue from Jan. 1, 2010
through the present, including (a) those that purchased
directly
from distributor AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal
Health, Inc., Red Oak Sourcing, LLC, The Harvard Drug Group,
LLC, HD Smith LLC, McKesson Corporation, Morris & Dickson Co.,
or
Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., or their subsidiaries; and (b)
those that purchased indirectly from any Defendant in the
MDL."
This class excludes: (a) Defendants, their officers,
directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b)
entities
owned in part by judges or justices involved in this action or
any members of their immediate families (other than interests
held as a passive investor in a publicly traded entity); and
(c) all pharmacies owned or operated by publicly traded
Companies.
Appointment of Class Counsel
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(B) and 23(g), having
considered the factors provided in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), the Court
appoints as Lead Counsel and Settlement Class Counsel the attorney
Christian Hudson of the firm Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Suite
200, 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016.
Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement
The Settlement contributes $5,537,000 to a fund to be distributed
to class members and for cooperation by Apotex with the IRPs’
continued efforts against the remaining Defendants in this MDL. The
Court therefore preliminarily approves the Settlement on the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement, subject to further
consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KHpOKA at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Arends Sues Over Smartphone Apps Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ARENDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05961 (D. N.J., May 9, 2024) seeks to address the
Defendant's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and alleviate
harm to competition and consumers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
suppresses innovation through a web of contractual restrictions
that it selectively enforces through its control of app
distribution and its "app review" process, as well as by denying
access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone's
operating system (called Application Programming Interfaces or
"APIs"). Apple can enforce these restrictions due to its position
as an intermediary between product creators such as developers on
the one hand and users on the other, says the suit.
Apple exerts monopoly power over developers by imposing contractual
restrictions and rules that limit the behavior of non-Apple apps
and services. Specifically, Apple sets the conditions for apps it
allows on the Apple App Store through its App Store Review
Guidelines. Under these guidelines, Apple has sole discretion to
review and approve all apps and app updates. Apple selectively
exercises that discretion to its own benefit, deviating from or
changing its guidelines when it suits Apple's interests and
allowing Apple executives to control app reviews and decide whether
to approve individual apps or updates, the suit alleges.
APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William G. Caldes, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Scott Sues Over Compromised Personal Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN D. SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02018-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 8, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
and invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the sensitive personal information of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems
following a data breach discovered on December 25, 2023. 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.
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. is an automotive retailer
headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
CAPLAN COBB LLC
75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 596-5600
Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
bwaddell@caplancobb.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
ASR GROUP: Faces Western Suit Over Sugar Market Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
WESTERN AXE LLC d/b/a/ MO'S HOUSE OF AXE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS,
INC.; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY;
COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case
No. 0:24-cv-01653 (D. Minn., May 6, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, since January 1, 2019,
the Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired and combined to
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for Granulated Sugar
sold throughout the United States. The Defendants are engaged in
unlawful agreement to fix prices for Granulated Sugar in the United
States. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, among the largest
producers and sellers of Granulated Sugar in the United States and
direct competitors, violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to
artificially inflate the price of Granulated Sugar from at least
January 1, 2019 to the present (the "Class Period").
As a result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy,
Granulated Sugar prices in the United States have been artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period, causing Plaintiff and other
commercial, industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to
suffer overcharges, says the suit.
ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, refines purchased raw cane sugar
and sugar syrup. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
Brian W. Nelson, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
bwnelson@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemans, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL ZEMANS, LLC
2023 W. Berteau Ave.
Chicago, IL 60618
Telephone: (773) 706-7767
Email: dzemans@zemans-law.com
AT&T INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Personal Info, Ragland Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT RAGLAND, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01137-N (N.D.
Tex., May 13, 2024) alleges that the Defendant breached its duty to
protect the sensitive Personally Identifying Information entrusted
to it, failed to abide by its own privacy policy, and failed to
provide sufficiently prompt notice after learning of the Data
Breach.
The Plaintiff contends that roughly 73 million consumers' personal
data in the Defendant's custody was compromised in the Data breach.
On March 30, 2024, the Defendant announced the Data Breach, stating
that the information included in the compromised data set could
include sensitive information including social security numbers,
full names, email and mailing addresses, phone numbers, and dates
of birth -- as well as AT&T account numbers and passcodes.
The Plaintiff is now at a significantly increased and certainly
impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of
criminal mischief -- risk which may last for the rest of his life.
Consequently, Plaintiff must devote substantially more time, money,
and energy to protect himself, to the extent possible, from these
crimes, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of confidences, breach of an implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and punitive
damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate
injunctive and declaratory relief, the lawsuit asserts.
To recover from Defendant for his sustained, ongoing, and future
harms, the Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring
Defendant to: 1) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the
Data Breach and the types of PII accessed, obtained, or exposed by
the hackers; 2) implement improved data security practices to
reasonably guard against future breaches of PII possessed by
Defendant; and 3) provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims
with lifetime identity theft protection services, says the suit.
The Plaintiff had several accounts with the Defendant, including
for mobile, home internet and phone, and business service.
The Defendant offers wireless communications, internet services,
telephone services, and television.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
Hannah M. Crowe, Esq.
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
hcrowe@burnscharest.com
knelson@burnscharest.com
- and -
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (212) 496-0300
E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
BAIN CAPITAL: Settles Cheerleading Monopoly Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that Bain Capital, Varsity Brands and its former owners
have agreed to a substantial settlement in the cheerleading
monopoly case. The agreement, amounting to $82.5 million, aims to
resolve a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of cheerleading
consumers who accused the defendants of having a monopoly or
conspiring to monopolize various markets within the industry,
including competitions, camps and apparel.
According to court filings this week, plaintiffs' attorneys are set
to receive a third of the settlement, totaling $27.5 million, along
with $9.2 million in litigation costs. This settlement marks a
significant milestone in a legal saga that dates back to 2020 when
the initial lawsuit, Jessica Jones, et al., v. Varsity Brands, LLC,
et al., was filed.
The proposed settlement was presented to the federal judge
overseeing the case on Monday, nearly a year after Varsity Brands
agreed to a $43.5 million settlement in another antitrust suit
brought by a proposed class of rival all-star cheerleading gyms.
This previous settlement, ratified by the court in October,
underscores the broader legal challenges facing the cheerleading
industry regarding competition practices.
The agreement reached in Jessica Jones, et al., v. Varsity Brands,
LLC, et al., was finalized following a third round of mediation
last month. Notably, Bain Capital, which acquired Varsity Brands in
2018 for $2.5 billion, is reportedly exploring options to divest
its ownership stake in Varsity Brands, potentially through a public
offering. The settlement includes not only Bain Capital but also
Varsity's former owners, Charlesbank Capital Partners and company
founder Jeff Webb, as well as the U.S. All-Star Federation (USASF),
a key entity in the cheerleading community.
Responding to the settlement, a spokesperson for Varsity expressed
satisfaction, stating, "This agreement is not an admission of any
wrongdoing or liability, and we are confident that Varsity Spirit
acted appropriately and in the best interest of our sport." The
spokesperson's statement underscores the company's stance on the
matter and its commitment to the cheerleading community. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Bruin Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMI BRUIN and ELINE
BAROKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:22-cv-00140-MOC-WCM
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Max Cogburn Jr. entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of
class action settlement.
-- The appointment of the Plaintiffs Tami Bruin and Eline Barokas
as
Class Representatives is affirmed.
-- The appointment of Sophia Gold of KalielGold; Christopher Gold
of
Edelsberg Law; and Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile as
co-lead
counsel, and David M. Wilkerson of The Van Winkle Law Firm as
liaison counsel is affirmed.
-- The Court affirms the finding that the Settlement Class meets
the
relevant requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(3)
-- Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,666,667 and costs in the amount of $47,747.85, such amounts
to
be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms
of
the Settlement Agreement.
-- The Class Representatives are awarded Service Awards totaling
$10,000, such amount to be paid from the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Bank of America is a financial institution, serving individuals,
small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sZzjp4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN LU, GIOVANNA BOLANOS,
and CLAUDE GRANT individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-04027-JCS
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Spero entered an order amending
case management order as follows:
-- Designation of Experts: Sept. 13, 2024
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: March 14, 2025
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: March 14, 2025
-- Briefing Schedule for Class
Certification:
Motion: March 21, 2025
Opposition: April 21, 2025
Reply: May 12, 2025
Hearing on: May 23, 2025
Bank of America is a financial institution, serving individuals,
small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dqpjWK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
cespiritu@omm.com
BARONHR WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonilla Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MONSERRAT BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARONHR WEST, INC.; PERFORMANCE
TEAM LOGISTICS, LLC; MAERSK WAREHOUSING & DISTRIBUTION SERVICES USA
LLC; PERFORMANCE TEAM HOLDINGS INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV11608 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 8, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Bonilla was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
worker.
BARONHR WEST, INC. provides recruitment services. The Company
offers consulting, direct hire, temporary staffing, training,
direct placement, contract employees, and payroll services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert W. Skripko, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., PC
38 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
Telephone: (949) 476-2000
Facsimile: (949) 476-2007
Email: rwskripko@skripkolaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Denis, Esq.
Ethan E. Rasi, Esq.
DENIS & RASI, PC
38 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
Telephone: (714) 242-4557
Facsimile: (213) 443-9601
BLACK HAWK COUNTY, IA: Roberts Alleges Illegal Jail Fees Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA ROBERTS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. TONY THOMPSON, in his official capacity as Black Hawk County
Sheriff; and BLACK HAWK COUNTY, Case No. 6:24-cv-2024 (N.D. Iowa,
May 13, 2024) contends that the Sheriff demands payment under the
terms of the confession of judgment, without going through the
statutorily required judicial processes.
According to the compalaint, the Department uses the seized money
to fund a gun range for use by its employees, at times outfitted
with cotton candy and ice cream. When releasing people from the
Black Hawk County Jail, the Black Hawk County Sheriff's Office
straps individuals with debt that, for many, makes a disruptive
period of incarceration even more damaging. While those individuals
attempt to get their lives back in order, Sheriff Tony Thompson has
implemented a policy that demands payment to the jail for "room and
board" at a rate of $70 per day plus $25 in administrative fees per
booking (collectively referred to as "jail fees"). To compel
payment of these fees, the Department presents individuals serving
a sentence at the jail with a confession of judgment prior to being
released from the jail. If that same individual has money on their
person upon booking, the Sheriff seizes that money and applies it
against their "debt."
The scheme developed by the Sheriff -- on behalf of Black Hawk
County and ratified by the County -- relies on the confessions of
judgment to pocket money without any process whatsoever and without
a judge reviewing the claims by the Sheriff, as is required by Iowa
law and the U.S. Constitution. The scheme results in collections
for Defendants of approximately $300,000 annually from individuals
released from the Black Hawk County Jail. Because Ms. Roberts lives
on a fixed income, she cannot afford the $730 the Sheriff claims
that she owes. Nevertheless, since a Sheriff's deputy visited her
home in Oct. 2022, Ms. Roberts has ensured she makes regular
payments to -- as the deputy put it to her -- "keep them off her
Back" and to minimize her number of interactions with law
enforcement, says the suit.
The Defendants' policies, practices, and customs deny individuals
due process required by Iowa law and the U.S. Constitution; violate
the impartiality requirement of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment; and offend long-standing constitutional
requirements for confessions of judgment. Accordingly,
Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are
unconstitutional, and their use of confessions of judgment to
impose and collect jail fees is unlawful, the suit alleges.
Ms. Roberts brings this action on behalf of herself and all
individuals who have been released, or will be released, from the
Black Hawk County Jail and have signed, or will sign, a confession
of judgment for jail fees since May 14, 2022; and whose jail fees
have been paid, are being paid, or will be paid under a confession
of judgment absent a court order.
Plaintiff Roberts served two different sentences for operating a
motor vehicle while intoxicated in January 2022, May 2022, July
2022, and August/September 2022. She was invoiced a total of $730
in jail fees for the time she was detained at the Black Hawk County
Jail. The Department used two confessions of judgment to impose and
collect these fees without a court order.
Plaintiff Leticia Roberts is a single mother of three young
children.
Tony Thompson is the elected Sheriff of Black Hawk County and is
responsible for formulating, executing, and administering the laws,
customs, and practices that comprise the Department's
administration of jail fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Moore, Esq.
Leslie A. Bailey, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE
1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-5226
E-mail: cmoore@publicjustice.net
lbailey@publicjustice.net
- and -
Rita Bettis Austen, Esq.
Thomas Story, Esq.
Shefali Aurora, Esq.
ACLU OF IOWA FOUNDATION, INC.
505 Fifth Ave., Suite 808
Des Moines, IA 50309-2317
Telephone: (515) 207-0567
Facsimile: (515) 243-8506
E-mail: rita.bettis@aclu-ia.org
thomas.story@aclu-ia.org
shefali.aurora@aclu-ia.org
- and -
Thomas P. Frerichs, Esq.
FRERICHS LAW OFFICE, P.C.
106 E. 4th Street, P.O. Box 328
Waterloo, IA 50704-0328
Telephone: (319) 236-7204
Facsimile: (319) 236-7206
E-mail: tfrerichs@frerichslaw.com
- and -
Brandon R. Underwood, Esq.
Kelcy Whitaker, Esq.
Michael D. Currie, Esq.
Sarah Golwitzer, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A.
111 East Grand Ave., Suite 301
Des Moines, IA 50309-1884
Telephone: (515) 242-8900
Facsimile: (515) 242-8950
E-mail: bunderwood@fredlaw.com
kwhitaker@fredlaw.com
mcurrie@fredlaw.com
sgolwitzer@fredlaw.com
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baumann Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BETHANY BAUMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC; and
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00064-SEB-KMB (S.D. Ind., May 10, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Baumann was employed by the Defendants as a bartender.
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC offers management services. The
Company specializes in commercial dining services. Bluegrass
manages restaurants including Malone's, Sal's, Harry's, Drake's,
Aqua and Malone's Banquets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Cleveland, Esq.
CLEVELAND LEHNER CASSIDY
1901 Broad Ripple Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Telephone: (317) 388-5424
Facsimile: (317) 947-1863
Email: jason@clcattorneys.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
BRADFORD-SCOTT DATA: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BRADFORD-SCOTT DATA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00187-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind., May 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach discovered on March 10, 2024. 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.
Bradford-Scott Data, LLC is a software provider, with its principal
place of business located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
CALIFORNIA: Violates Attorneys' Constitutional Rights, Roshan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEYMAN ROSHAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHIKA SUNQUIST, in her official capacity as
California Real Estate Commissioner, and in her personal capacity;
DOUGLAS MCCAULEY, in his personal capacity; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF REAL ESTATE; and DOES 1-10 individuals whose capacity is
unknown, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02789-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 9,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
constitutional rights, declaratory judgment, and administrative
mandamus.
The case challenges the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar Court
and the written policies of the Defendants and the State Bar Court.
According to the complaint, the order suspending the Plaintiff
should be declared a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment federal
due process rights based on the facial and facial overbreadth of
the due process violations, and their application to him after
being authoritatively interpreted in this case and related case.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the State Bar Rules
of Procedure are facially unconstitutional and that all attorney
discipline orders and judgments entered from and after 2010 other
than exonerations are unconstitutional, and that all attorney
discipline proceedings that are ongoing are unconstitutional, says
the suit.
California Department of Real Estate is a government agency in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CENCORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cencora Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the consolidated antitrust class suit in the the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against ABDC and H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants.
The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.
The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges that ABDC, H.D. Smith, and others in the
industry participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate
markets and rig bids regarding generic drugs.
In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint.
On July 15, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On May 25, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
On July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, again
including claims against ABDC, H.D. Smith, and other drug
distributors and industry participants.
On August 21, 2022, the Company and other industry participants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
All briefs on the motion were filed with the court on November 22,
2022.
On March 3, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office for the
Western District of Virginia notified the Company of the existence
of a criminal investigation into MWI Veterinary Supply Co., the
Company's animal health subsidiary, in connection with grand jury
subpoenas relating to compliance with state and federal regulatory
requirements governing wholesale shipments of animal health
products to customers.
The Company is cooperating with the investigation.
Cencora, Inc. (NYSE: COR) sources and distributes pharmaceutical
products. The company was formerly known as AmerisourceBergen
Corporation and changed its name to Cencora, Inc. in August 2023.
Cencora, Inc. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
CENTR LLC: Discloses Users' Video Habits to Facebook, Stricker Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN STRICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03877
(C.D. Cal., May 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
habits of the visitors to its website, Centr.com, without consent.
The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was
provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and
the Class members' video viewing history while on the Defendant's
website and reported their viewing history to Facebook along with
their unique Facebook Identification numbers. As a result, the
Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members'
statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit.
Centr LLC is a video tape service provider, with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Ste. 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 849-8060
- and -
Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C
20 Enterprise, Suite 310
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 468-7150
CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces Class Action Over Breaches of Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lennane, writing for The Load Star, reports that Ceva
companies in the US, including its freight and contract logistics
units, are facing a class action lawsuit over pay and conditions.
Staff are claiming numerous breaches of Californian labour laws
between March 2020 and March 2024.
The lawsuit claims staff did not receive overtime wages, minimum
wage, rest periods, meal breaks and interest on deposits; but did
receive waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, and
delayed payments.
They also claim the Ceva companies violated the US Labor Code and
"enjoyed unfair competition".
The case, filed last week, indicates that more than 100 employees
-- and potentially up to 900 -- are likely to join the class
action, with the claim expected to be more than $5m, before costs
and interest.
Staff claim that those working more than eight hours a day, more
than 40 hours a week and seven consecutive days were not properly
compensated.
The minimum amounts claimed so far are for:
-- unpaid overtime wages, $1,150,530.18;
-- missed meal periods, $1,534,040.24;
-- missed rest periods, $1,534,040.24;
-- waiting time penalties, $1,817,042.40; and
-- wage statement penalties, $196,000.00.
The lawsuit names Keith Hitchcock, SVP and head of strategic
account management, North America, as a specific defendant.
However Ceva, in its rebuttal of the claims, noted: "Keith
Hitchcock . . . was not the employer of any putative class
member, cannot be held liable for Labor Code violations and
therefore did not cause any alleged Labor Code violations, as he
has no duties under the Labor Code as to putative class members."
It also said that, while it was continuing to conduct an
investigation and discovery, at this stage it did not agree with
the claims and has asked the court to dismiss the complaints and
award the company costs. [GN]
CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carbajal Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLD CARBAJAL; and CESAR CARBAJAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES,
LLC; CUTTING EDGE LAWN SERVICES & LANDSCAPING, LLC; and PERCY
CARABALLO, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-03519 (S.D.N.Y., May 8,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tree trimmers.
CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES, LLC provides railroad vegetation management,
roadside and railroad utility line clearance, right-of-way tree
trimming, tree removal, and pathway clearance solutions for
railroads, municipalities and departments of transportation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: June 6 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Mellucci class
suit proposed settlement final approval hearing is set for June 6,
2024.
On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK) (the
"Melucci litigation").
The complaint named the Company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about its business,
operations and prospects.
The complaint asserts a putative class period extending from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.
On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.
The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on December
6, 2019.
On February 8, 2023, the Companye reached an agreement in principle
(the "Proposed Settlement") to resolve all claims in the Melucci
litigation.
Under the Proposed Settlement, it has agreed to make a one-time
payment of $14.0 million, which will be covered in full by its
insurers.
In connection with the Proposed Settlement, it recorded a
settlement expense of $14.0 million and corresponding insurance
recovery of $14.0 million in operating expenses on its consolidated
statement of income in the fourth quarter of 2022.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement
on January 4, 2024, following which it paid $14.0 million into
escrow.
The Company’s insurers reimbursed it in full.
Payment of any funds out of the designated escrow is pending the
Court's final approval of the Proposed Settlement, a hearing for
which is scheduled for June 6, 2024.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated is a commercial-stage
pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of
medications to treat severe endocrine, oncology, metabolism and
neurology disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone
cortisol.
CRAFT AXE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Thompson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clay A. Thompson, Jr.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Craft Axe Throwing, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-01380-TMC (D.S.C.), the
Hon. Judge Timothy Cain entered a consent amended scheduling order
as follows:
-- No later than 14 days after the Rule 26(f) conference the
required
initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be
made.
The required initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
shall be made by May 10, 2024.
-- Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by
full
name, address, and telephone number each person whom
Plaintiff(s)
expects to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a
written report prepared and signed by the expert including all
information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been
disclosed to other parties by November 29, 2024.
-- This case is subject to being called for jury selection and/or
trial the later of 60 days after the Court rules on Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and dispositive motions have
been
resolved or on or after May 15, 2025.
Craft Axe is a venue for entertainment, gaming, and event
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZCbLvA at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELL INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Lattimore Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LATTIMORE individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DELL INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00499 (W.D. Tex., May 10,
2024) sues the Defendant for its inadequate data security, which
caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by
cybercriminals on May 9, 2024.
The suit alleges that the data Breach affected 49 million
customers. The exfiltrated data included personal identifying
information ("PII") such as: name, physical address, and Dell
hardware and order information, including service tag, item
description, date of order and related warranty information.
Then, after the Data Breach, the Defendant failed to provide timely
notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members—thereby
exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately, the Defendant deprived the
Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy measures
to protect themselves and mitigate harm, the suit adds.
Today, the identities of the Plaintiff and Class Members are in
jeopardy—all because of the Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff
and Class Members now suffer from a present and continuing risk of
fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their
financial accounts, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief—including improvements to the Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendant.
Mr. Lattimore purchased a personal computer from Dell on Dec. 25,
2021. On May 9, 2024, Mr. Lattimore received a letter informing him
of the Data Breach.
Dell offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers,
monitors, printers, gateways, software, storage, and networking
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
EQUITY ONE: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC
and CASA 305 GASTRO LLC D/B/A CASA 305 RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-21780 (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
mobility-disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers at
the Defendants' commercial property and businesses, denying or
diminishing their ability to visit the commercial property and
endangering their safety. The Defendants have discriminated against
the Plaintiff and the Class by denying them access to, and full and
equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and
business located therein.
Equity One (Florida Portfolio) LLC is a commercial property owner
and operator in Miami, Florida.
Casa 305 Gastro LLC, doing business as Casa 305 Restaurant, is a
restaurant owner and operator located in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Apthorp Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE R. APTHORP, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02024 (E.D. Pa., May
10, 2024) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for not ensuring
the Plaintiff and the Class protected health information and
personally identifiable information in accordance with the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' protected PHI/PII within the Defendant's information
network.
As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off
this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members in the future.
FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC. is a private family
owned business and leading provider of accounts receivable
management and collection services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52 nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
Email: Phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
FLORISSANT, MO: Court Grants Final Approval to $2.89MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
www.tzlegal.com reports that on May 13, 2024, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted final
approval to a $2.89 million class action settlement in a case
alleging that the City of Florissant implemented an
unconstitutional "pay-to-play" arrest and detention scheme,
essentially establishing a debtors' prison in the City.
Plaintiffs alleged that Florissant arrested impoverished
individuals for failing to pay minor municipal fines or failing to
appear in its municipal court, giving them the choice to either sit
in jail without due process or pay an insurmountable amount for
their release, without considering their ability to pay. They also
alleged that Florissant failed to bring arrestees before a judge
and coerced class members to pay fines, costs, and/or fees under
threat of incarceration.
The Court certified three classes in its heavily contested class
certification order and, later, one additional settlement class.
The Court appointed Andrea R. Gold of Tycko & Zavareei LLP,
Nathaniel Carroll, Maureen Hanlon, and Blake Strode of ArchCity
Defenders, Inc., and Ryan Keane of Keane Law LLC as Class Counsel.
The Court noted this was a complex case involving constitutional
law, sovereign immunity, and municipal liability issues. The
Court's final approval of the settlement marks a significant
victory for the Plaintiffs and over 75,000 Class members, providing
meaningful benefits and relief from Florissant's alleged
unconstitutional practices.
Not only does the Settlement provide for significant cash payments
to Class members, but it requires Florissant to take several steps
to end its alleged operation of a debtors' prison in the City.
Specifically, the Settlement requires that the City end any use of
"bond schedules" by its Police Department and jail; forgive all
unpaid minor traffic violation debts of Class Members over an
approximately 8 year period; implement a policy to provide all
arrested persons with unconditional access to indigency forms and,
unless released, a timely indigency hearing after booking; and
provide legal counsel for unrepresented individuals who have been
declared indigent and are being held and brought before the
municipal judge for potential jail time or posting of a bond.
The case is Baker, et al. v. The City of Florissant, Case No.
4:16-cv-1693-RHH in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Faces Katz Suit Over Defective 360-Degree Camera System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NANETTE KATZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-11240-TGB-KGA
(E.D. Pa., May 10, 2024) is a class action, brought under
Pennsylvania law, on behalf of a proposed class of Pennsylvania
consumers who purchased or leased one or more of the following
vehicles designed and manufactured by Defendant Ford and equipped
with a 360-Degree Camera system: a 2020-2023 Ford Explorer, a
2020-2023 Lincoln Aviator, and/or a 2020-2022 Lincoln Corsair.
According to the complaint, Ford allegedly designed, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, and sold or leased the Affected Vehicles with
a defective 360-Degree Camera system which routinely and
systematically "glitches" or malfunctions while the Affected
Vehicles are operating in reverse, resulting in a total loss of the
rear camera image and displaying instead a blank screen or blue or
black image. This defect leaves the vehicle operator with no
operational rear-view camera, and renders the 360-Degree Camera
feature -- an upgraded option for which Plaintiff and the class
paid extra -- effectively useless while reversing.
Moreover, a non-functioning rear-view camera system, such as those
installed in the Affected Vehicles, increases the risk that a
vehicle will be involved in a crash while operating in reverse,
potentially causing injury or even death to the vehicle's
occupants, the occupants of other vehicles, and/or pedestrians.
Ford knew, or should have known, about the Defective Cameras long
before it marketed, advertised, and sold or leased the Affected
Vehicles to Plaintiff and the class, yet it never informed the
Plaintiff and the class about the Defective Cameras in the Affected
Vehicles, the suit asserts.
Furthermore, the Defective Cameras in the Affected Vehicles are
covered by Ford's manufacturer's warranty. Despite this, Ford and
its authorized dealerships have refused to adequately repair or
replace the Defective Cameras in the Affected Vehicles, the
Plaintiff claims.
In the meantime, the Plaintiff and the class are forced to continue
to drive their new or newer Affected Vehicles with non-functioning
rear-view cameras, placing themselves, their families, and others
at an increased risk of a crash and bodily harm. This action seeks
redress for the Plaintiff and the class in the form of
compensatory, statutory, and/or treble damages under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) and common law, as well as injunctive relief under the
UTPCPL, which would include an order directing Ford to cease the
unlawful practices, specifically the manufacture, installation,
marketing, advertising, and sale or lease of the Defective Cameras
in the Affected Vehicles, and to initiate a program to provide
refunds, repairs, and/or restitution to Plaintiff and the class.
Plaintiff Katz is a citizen of Pennsylvania and a member of the
proposed class of Pennsylvania consumers who purchased or leased
from Defendant Ford one or more Affected Vehicles with Defective
Cameras within the class period.
Ford is the designer, manufacturer, marketer, advertiser, and
seller or lessor of Ford and Lincoln vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-1721
Facsimile: (215) 564-1759
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
sprince@denittislaw.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
GENESIS FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ford Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GENESIS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. filed an appeal from the District
Court's March 28, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled STEVE
FORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GENESIS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 8:23-cv-02156-DLB, in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.
The case was removed from the Maryland Circuit Court for Montgomery
County to the District of Maryland on August 9, 2023.
In this purported class action, Plaintiff Steve Ford claims that
Genesis Financial Solutions, Inc., and Spring Oaks Capital SPV,
LLC, marketed and collected on credit card loans and acted as
lenders without the required licenses in violation of the Maryland
Credit Service Business Act and the Maryland Consumer Loan Law.
On behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers, Ford seeks
damages and a declaration that the loans are void and
unenforceable. The Defendants have moved to dismiss and compel
arbitration.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, after the Defendants
removed the action to this Court, they moved to dismiss and compel
arbitration based on the arbitration clause. Plaintiff Ford opposed
the motion.
Judge Boardman held that Maryland law governs whether the parties
formed an agreement to arbitrate. Under Maryland law, an agreement
to arbitrate is enforceable only if, among other things, the
agreement is supported by consideration. Judge Boardman noted the
only consideration for the agreement to arbitrate is the mutual
promise of the parties to resolve their disputes this way. However,
the Defendants' promise to arbitrate is illusory because the change
clause reserved for them the right to modify or revoke that promise
with no limitations. So there was no consideration for the
agreement to arbitrate and the agreement is not enforceable, Judge
Boardman added.
Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration
through an Order signed by Judge Boardman on March 28, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned as Steve Ford v. Genesis Financial
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 24-1341, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 19, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on May 29, 2024; and
-- Response Brief is due on June 28, 2024.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants GENESIS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. and SPRING
OAKS CAPITAL SPV, LLC are represented by:
Cynthia Maskol, Esq.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
250 West Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 962-5285
- and -
John K. Rossman, Esq.
ROSSMAN ATTORNEY GROUP, PLLC
P. O. Box 24140
Edina, MN 55424
Telephone: (952) 201-1507
Plaintiff-Appellee STEVE FORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza I
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: (410) 825-2300
GEORGIA: Oliver Sues Over Illegal Inmate Trust Account Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY J. OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TYRONE OLIVER, individually and in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of
Corrections (GDC), Case No. 1:24-cv-00070-WLS (M.D. Ga., May 13,
2024) is an action to stop prison officials from continuing to
illegally deduct money from offender's inmate trust accounts
without their consent in violation of the 5th Amendment Unlawful
Taking Clause.
On Nov. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff received an inmate email informing
him that a friend placed a deposit onto his inmate trust for the
amount of $ 50.00 to spend for commissary items. When the funds did
not appear in Plaintiff's inmate trust account, he complained to
GDC prison staff concerning the missing funds.
On Nov. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered for the very first time
that Commissioner Oliver and GDC deducted the funds for money owed
to GDC for postage, and the $ 1.00 dollar a month fee that
Commissioner Oliver illegally deducted to manage his trust
account.
The Plaintiff never provided his express written, or oral consent
to Commissioner Oliver to unlawfully take the $ 1.00 or the $ 10.00
from his inmate trust account, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff immediately filed an inmate grievance demanding that
Commissioner Oliver stop his illegal and unlawful takings of the
Plaintiff's inmate funds. The Plaintiff also requested that
Commissioner Oliver return his money, and to permanently stop the
unlawful takings of inmate funds, but to date, Commissioner Oliver
has not returned any of the Plaintiffs Funds, the lawsuit adds.
Mr. Oliver is a forty-two-year-old male who is currently serving a
criminal sentence and incarcerated in GDC custody.
GDC is one of the largest prison systems in America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
McNeill Stokes, Esq.
MCNEILL STOKES
5372 Whitehall Place, S.E.
Mableton, GA 30126
Telephone: (404) 352-2144
E-mail: mcstokes@bellsouth.net
GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL: Cinnamon Contains Lead, Bell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a DOLLAR
TREE; and COLONNA BROTHERS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03559 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2024) alleges that the Defendants'
Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon (the "Product") for normal,
household use is contaminated with lead.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants
represent that the Product is safe to ingest. In reality, the
Product contains lead and is therefore toxic and harmful. Nowhere
on the packaging did the Defendants disclose that the Product is
contaminated with lead. If the Plaintiff had been aware of the
existence of lead in the Product, she would not have purchased the
Product or would have paid significantly less for the Product. As a
result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff has incurred
damages, including economic damages, says the suit.
GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., doing business as Dollar Tree,
Inc., operates a chain of supermarkets. The Company distributes
softeners, hand and machine dishwasher, household cleaners,
bleaches and disinfectants, clothing detergents, and air
fresheners, as well as food products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell M. Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
Email: rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Luis Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
1311 Ponce de Leon Ave.
San Juan, PR 00985
Telephone: (516) 741-5600, Ext. 5861
Email: lcardona@milberg.com
- and -
Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jglatt@bursor.com
idiaz@bursor.com
HARD ROCK: Underpays Table Games Dealers, Schottelkotte Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN A. SCHOTTELKOTTE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK CASINO CINCINNATI, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00268-MWM (S.D. Ohio, May 8, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and unlawful tip credit
in violation of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a table games dealer
at its casino property located at 1000 Broadway Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio from approximately February 2013 through March 2024.
Hard Rock Casino Cincinnati, LLC is a casino operator in
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 318-4496
Facsimile: (513) 318-4496
Email: casay@hkm.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
HF MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay CSRs' OT Wages Under FLSA, Small Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KELA SMALL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, a
limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-03500 (S.D.N.Y., May 7,
2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified its customer
service representatives (CSRs) as non-exempt and tasked them with
the primary job duty of providing over-the-phone customer service.
The suit contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA, state wage
and hour law, and common law by systematically failing to
compensate its CSRs for compensable work tasks completed before and
after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods,
when they were not logged into the Defendant's timekeeping system.
The aforementioned policy and procedure resulted in these employees
not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time
when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks
for straight-time worked.
More specifically, the Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the
substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their
computer and computer systems, completing e-learnings, and
reviewing company policy changes prior to clocking into the
Defendant's timekeeping system and when returning from their meal
periods; and reviewing notes, talking points, job aides; closing
all work applications and systems they used during their shift;
disconnecting from the Defendant's server; and shutting down their
computer after their last fielded call for the shift concluded and
after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a collective and class action,
arising from Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA, the New
York Minimum Wage Act, the New York Payment of Wages Act, New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations, and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights
of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a
judgment awarding her unpaid back wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs to make her and the putative Collective
and Class whole for damages they suffered, and any other remedies
to which she may be entitled, and to help ensure the Defendant will
not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the
future.
Ms. Small worked remotely for the Defendant as a non-exempt CSR,
with the specific job title of Service Agent, in New York from
Sept. 6, 2022 to Feb. 9, 2023 and end of March 2023 to present, and
South Carolina from Feb. 10, 2023 to end of March 2023.
HF offers affordable plans to fit every life stage, including
Medicaid plans, Medicare Advantage plans, long-term care plans,
qualified health plans, and individual and small group plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Alana Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
HOMEMAKERS PLAZA: Wurm Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEMAKERS PLAZA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-006394 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., May 7,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated FTSA's Caller ID
Rules by transmitting a telephone number that was not capable of
receiving phone calls when it made telephonic sales calls by text
message. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers seek
injunctive relief to ensure that the Defendant complies with the
Caller ID Rules.
Homemakers Plaza, Inc. is a retailer of home furnishing products
doing business in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
Social Justice Law Collective, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
HORIZON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Pressley Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JO ANN PRESSLEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. HORIZON HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC., BKNS
HOSPITALITY, LLC, and NIMISH PATEL, Case No. 1:24-cv-02093-MLB
(N.D. Ga., May 13, 2024) contends that the Defendants failed to pay
her overtime premiums, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.
As a matter of policy and routine practice, the Defendants jointly
and severally misclassified Ms. Pressley as an exempt employee and
have failed to compensate Ms. Pressley at one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. Throughout Ms. Pressley's employment, the Defendants have
each exerted control over the terms and conditions of her
employment and compensation. Despite Ms. Pressley's "General
Manager" job title, her primary job duties, are non-exempt labor
and do not directly relate to the management or general business
operations of the Defendants. She has little discretion in the
management of the hotel where she works, and her superiors in the
Defendants' corporate hierarchy control many aspects of her
day-to-day work, says the suit.
Amid the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Defendants
laid off many of their non-management employees. During that time,
the Defendants told exempt "managers" throughout the organization
that their locations would be forced to shut down, and they would
be laid off too, unless they took on the non-management work of
their recently laid-off coworkers.
Ms. Pressley and others among Defendants' exempt "managers" took on
these other responsibilities, for no additional compensation beyond
their regular salaries, rather than lose their jobs completely.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic has abated, the Defendants' business
has returned, more or less, to its pre-pandemic volume. However,
Ms. Pressley and others similarly situated, despite their formal
job titles, have continued performing non-exempt job duties for
Defendants benefit and at Defendants' instruction. The Defendants
are therefore liable to Ms. Pressley for unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages in an equal amount, interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, the suit added.
Ms. Pressley began her employment with the Defendants in 2016, as a
"General Manager."
Horizon owns and operates hotels throughout the state of Georgia,
such as the "Holiday Inn Express" located at 2920 Clairmont Road NE
in Atlanta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth A. Moeller, Esq.
MOELLER BARBAREE LLP
1175 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1850
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404) 748-9122
E-mail: bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com
HOSPITALITY UNIVERSAL: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Sanchez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Hospitality Universal Services Corp, Gerardo Vieyra Lara, and Anahi
A. Vieyra, individually, Case No. 8:24-cv-01089 (M.D. Fla., May 7,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages and
retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was classified as a supervisor, but the Plaintiff was
a maintenance employee with additional responsibilities as a lead
houseman. The Plaintiff's primary work was non-exempted, manual,
and repetitive maintenance and cleaning work. The Plaintiff had a
wage rate of $15.00 an hour. The Plaintiff's overtime should be
$22.50 an hour. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff
worked seven days weekly. From Monday to Friday, the Plaintiff
worked 16 hours daily. On Saturdays and Sundays, the Plaintiff
worked 14 hours each day. The Plaintiff completed 108 hours weekly,
says the suit.
In addition, the Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunchtime hours,
but the Defendants deducted from his check 3.5 hours weekly. These
lunchtime hours constitute 3.5 unpaid hours.
Mr. Sanchez was employed as a maintenance employee by the
Defendants from Dec. 14, 2023, to March 24, 2024.
Hospitality is a property management company that provides staffing
to the hospitality industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
INOAC EXTERIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blue Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TYSON BLUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INOAC EXTERIOR SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00836-JZ (N.D. OH., May 9, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Blue was employed by the Defendant as a manufacturing
employee.
INOAC EXTERIOR SYSTEMS, LLC is a producer/manufacturer of exterior
systems for vehicles and provides auto exterior paint to Japanese
and United States OEM manufacturers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216)696-7005
Email: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
IXL LEARNING: Surveils and Extracts Users' Info, A.S. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRETCHEN SHANAHAN, on behalf of herself and her minor children A.S.
and B.S., AMY WARREN, on behalf of herself and her minor child
B.W., and KIMBERLY WHITMAN, on behalf of herself and her minor
child H.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. IXL LEARNING, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02724 (N.D. Cal.,
May 7, 2024) alleges that IXL surveils its users by extracting
information through an ever-growing suite of digital-technology
products and myriad deceptive design techniques engineered to keep
children using its products and providing their information to
IXL.
According to the complaint, IXL provides that information to its
customers, among which are schools and school districts, but also a
host of private companies. IXL has built a multibillion-dollar
empire by monetizing vast troves of personal information that it
has taken from students and their parents without their knowledge
or consent. IXL and its customers convert that information into
intimately detailed profiles on children, which they use to
advertise products and services to them, to manipulate how they
think and act, to shape their information environment, and to make
significant decisions affecting their lives and their futures—all
without students or their parents ever knowing.
IXL's massive data-harvesting apparatus exposes parents and
school-aged children to serious and irreversible risks to their
privacy, property, and autonomy, and harms them in ways that are
often
invisible but always profound. Parents and students have not
consented to this arrangement. To be effective, consent must be
both informed and voluntary. Here, it is neither: IXL does not
fully disclose to students, parents, or schools what information it
collects and what it does with that information. And because
parents are required to send their children to school, parents and
students are coerced into submitting to IXL's practices, says the
suit.
IXL's interception of internet communications that the Plaintiffs
and Class members were sending and receiving was done
contemporaneously with the Plaintiffs' and Class members' sending
and receipt of those communications. The communications intercepted
by IXL included "contents" of electronic communications made from
the Plaintiffs and Class members to websites and other web
properties other than Defendant's in the form of detailed URL
requests, webpage browsing histories, search queries, and other
information that Plaintiffs and the Class members sent to those
websites and for which the Plaintiffs received communications in
return from those websites, says the suit.
IXL was not an authorized party to the communications because the
Plaintiffs and Class members were unaware of IXL's interceptions
and did not knowingly send any communications to IXL when IXL
intercepted the communications between the Plaintiffs and web
properties other than IXL's. IXL could not manufacture its own
status as a party to the Plaintiffs' and Class members'
communications with others by surreptitiously redirecting or
intercepting those communications.
The Plaintiffs and Class members did not consent to IXL's continued
gathering of the user's communications
Plaintiff A.S. and Plaintiff B.S. are both minors. They attend
school in the Shawnee Mission Public School District. As part of
their public schooling, they are required to access and use IXL
products and services, which they has accessed and used from their
school-issued devices.
IXL is an education technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julie Liddell, Esq.
EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC
Austin, TX 78705
Telephone: (737) 351-5855
E-mail: julie.liddell@edtech.law
- and -
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: rmcgee@forthepeople.com
jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
mram@forthepeople.com
J & J SNACK: Fails to Pay Wages, Woolridge Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
MARTY WOOLRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J & J SNACK FOODS CORP., Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-00300-EKD (W.D. Va., May 6, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Woolridge was employed by the Defendant as service
technician.
J & J SNACK FOODS CORP. is an American manufacturer, marketer, and
distributor of name brand snack foods and frozen beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
Adam M. Hawks, Esq.
Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, L.C.
12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Telephone: (757) 223-4580
Facsimile: (757) 249-1627
Email: jshoemaker@pwhd.com
ahawks@pwhd.com
JAKO ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jako Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03467
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2024) is a civil rights action against Jako
Enterprises for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website "Snipesusa.com" to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to services Jako Enterprises provides to their non-disabled
customers through their website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended
to analyze and use services provided by the Defendant on
Snipesusa.com. Although he found suitable trainers, he encountered
numerous accessibility issues that prevented him from finalizing
the purchase. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous
access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members
will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse and
use Snipesusa.com, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Jako Enterprises's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible so blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Jako specializes in hoodies, jackets, T-shirts, dresses, jeans,
shorts, sneakers, sandals, boots, hats, bags, and socks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
JARS I INC: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIERA SALMONS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JARS I, INC. and SCHMIDT FAMILY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02227-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 7, 2024), alleges
that the Defendants pay their tipped employees, including servers,
below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, in Ohio, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice whereby they failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class
Members, with the statutorily required notice regarding (1) the
amount of the cash wage that is to be paid to the tipped employee,
(2) the amount by which the wages of the tipped employee are
increased on account of the tip credit, (3) that all tips received
by the employee must be retained by the employee except for tips
contributed to a valid tip pool, and (4) that the tip credit shall
not apply to any employee who does not receive the notice.
Furthermore, the Defendants also maintained a policy and practice
whereby tipped employees were required to perform non-tip producing
side work unrelated to the employees' tipped occupation. The
Plaintiff and the Class Members were thus engaged in a dual
occupation while being compensated at the tip credit rate. While
performing these non-tip generating duties, the Plaintiff and
the Class Members did not interact with customers and could not
earn tips.
As a result of these violations, the Defendants have lost the
ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate the
Plaintiff at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip
credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, the Defendants
must account for the difference between the wages paid to the
Plaintiff and the minimum wage rate, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked as a server for the Defendants in their
Gallipolis Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurant from Oct. 1, 2022 through
Jan. 31, 2024.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW, LLC
8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY: Files Sup. Ct. Appeal in Moore Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY has filed an appeal on March 20, 2024, in
the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The appellate case is captioned KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY V.
TERRANCE MOORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED ET AL., Case No. 2024-CA-0342.
The case type is stated as transfer request-party.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by:
Joshua Michael Salsburey, Esq.
Kevin Gudgel Henry, Esq.
STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC
Lexington, KY 40507
Plaintiffs-Appellees TERRANCE MOORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Andre Fereole Regard, Esq.
Ivey Lorraine Workman, Esq.
REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC
Lexington, KY 40511
KROGER CO: Has Until May 28 to File Class Cert Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting Kroger leave to
file its Opposition and Rule 702 Motions, as well as accompanying
exhibits, including any expert reports, under temporary seal, and
set a briefing schedule for parties and non-parties to file any
motions for a permanent seal of certain documents and information.
The parties propose the following deadline for the filing of any
motions for permanent seal, which is 14 days after Kroger's
opposition and expert reports are due, which will provide the
parties with adequate time to consider Kroger's filings and
coordinate with third parties:
Opposition to Motion for Class Certification May 28, 2024
to be Filed:
Motion(s) for a Permanent Seal: June 11, 2024
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kIhqyo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
CLIMACO WILCOX PECA &
GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public Square, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 621-8484
Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert Webner, Esq.
Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 464-6400
Facsimile: (614) 464-6350
E-mail: rnwebner@vorys.com
NLampley@vorys.com
- and -
Selina Coleman, Esq.
Andrew Y. Lu, Esq.
Michael S. Leib, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 – East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 414-9200
Facsimile: (202) 414-9299
E-mail: scoleman@reedsmith.com
andrew.lu@reedsmith.com
mleib@reedsmith.com
LI AUTO INC: Banurs Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------
DINESH BANURS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LI AUTO INC.; XIANG LI; TIE LI; and DONGHUI
MA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03470 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2024) is
a federal securities class action 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, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and 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.
Li Auto's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $2.55 per
ADS, or 7.48 percent, to close at $31.53 per ADS on March 21, 2024.
As a result of the 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, says the suit.
LI AUTO INC. manufactures automobiles. The Company designs,
develops, and sells smart new energy electric sport utility
vehicles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
LIFEKIND INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Competello Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEKIND, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03527 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.lifekind.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
LIFETIME, INC. was founded in 1954. The Company's line of business
includes operating nonresidential buildings and providing other
real estate services. Lifetime operates in the State of Michigan.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
LIFELABS INC: Distributes Data Breach Settlement Payments
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Canadians who applied to be part of a
class-action lawsuit against LifeLabs Inc. are now receiving
cheques and e-transfers.
KPMG, which is administering the claims, says on the class-action
website that more than 900,000 valid claims were received.
Given the large number of valid claims, KPMG says claimants will
receive an e-transfer of $7.86. Those receiving a cheque will get
$5.86, after deducting a $2 processing fee.
The class action was launched against LifeLabs after a 2019 data
breach allowed hackers to access the personal information of up to
15 million customers.
Craig Jones, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University in
Kamloops, B.C., says the judge who approved the settlement found
that the data was not inappropriately used and no members of the
class suffered harm. He also found that the chances of success at
trial were minimal and felt a settlement between $4.9 million and
$9.8 million would be appropriate.
When the class-action settlement was approved last fall, potential
claimants were told they would be eligible to receive about $50, up
to a maximum of $150, though legal fees and taxes would be
deducted. The precise amount, however, would be determined based on
how many claims were filed.
Jones said the number of people who filed a claim turned out to be
much higher than expected.
"This is not a defeat for class actions or the class-action
regime," Jones said.
"Because really what you're trying to do is a couple of things
here," the professor added. "One is compensation to the extent
people have suffered harm, and here nobody, it turned out, had
suffered harm.
"But the other thing you're trying to do is deterrence, and to
impose a penalty upon companies so that . . . they might be
encouraged to take extra precautions."
LifeLabs has said most of the affected customers were in Ontario
and British Columbia.
In 2020, the B.C. and Ontario privacy commissioners ordered
LifeLabs to improve how it safeguards personal health information,
and to collect less of it from customers. [GN]
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Faces Saul Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA SAUL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC; LINEAGE
LOGISTICS, LLC; LINEAGE LOGISTICS PFS, LLC; LINEAGE LOGISTICS
SERVICES PFS, LLC; LINEAGE LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, LLC; PERISHABLE
SHIPPING SOLUTIONS LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-at-00582 (E.D. Cal., May 9, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California's
Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay all regular wages, failure to provide meal breaks or
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to authorize and permit rest
breaks or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse
expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
pay all wages due upon termination, failure to comply with
California Quota Laws, and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff worked at one of the Defendants' distribution
facilities in Sacramento, California from in or around May 2023
through September 13, 2023.
Lineage Logistics Services LLC is an operator of a distribution
center warehouse located in Novi, Michigan.
Lineage Logistics, LLC is an operator of a distribution center
warehouse located in Novi, Michigan.
Lineage Logistics PFS, LLC is an operator of a distribution center
warehouse located in Novi, Michigan.
Lineage Logistics Services PFS, LLC is an operator of a
distribution center warehouse located in Irvine, California.
Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC is an operator of a distribution
center warehouse located in Novi, Michigan.
Perishable Shipping Solutions LLC is an operator of a distribution
center warehouse located in Novi, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
Email: ben@bentravislaw.com
- and -
Justin Hewgill, Esq.
HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC
1620 5th Avenue, Suite 325
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 432-2520
Facsimile: (619) 377-6026
Email: contact@hcl-lawfirm.com
MEDICAL CENTER: Lucero Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOSHIO LUCERO, JOSE
RODRIGUEZ, and LEANDRO SAHAD, v. MEDICAL CENTER PHARMACY, INC.,
SPECIALTY CARE PHARMACY, INC., TOTAL CARE PHARMACY, INC., TOTAL
CARE PHARMACY BX, INC., TOTAL CARE PHARMACY IV, INC., THE ESTATE OF
TONINO SEMENTILLI, EGIDIO SEMENTILLI, individually and in his
capacity as Executor of the Estate of Tonino Sementilli, LIDE
SEMENTILLI, individually and in his capacity as Executor of the
Estate of Tonino Sementilli, and FELICIA SEMENTILLI, in her
capacity as Executor of the Estate of Tonino Sementilli, Case No.
1:22-cv-08917-RA-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
1. Conditionally certifying a class of persons who at any point
since Sept. 13, 2022 (a) worked for the Defendants in any
position besides pharmacist (b) were paid hourly wages; and
(c)
were not paid overtime or "spread of hours" wages.
2. Directing the Defendants to produce a computer-readable list
identifying by name, last known mail address, last known
email
address, and telephone number all persons described above
within
10 days of entry of the Order;
3. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to issue the Notice attached as
Exhibit F to the O'Brien Declaration to putative class
members
via U.S. Mail and/or email and the Consent to Join form
attached
thereto; and
4. Authorizing the Defendants to post the Notice in conspicuous
common areas in its Pharmacies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGtHHp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David O'Brien, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
E-mail: dobrien@gslawny.com
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 366-5140
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Riddick Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN RIDDICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01335
(D. Md., May 7, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
current and former patients' sensitive information, including
protected health information ("PHI") and other personally
identifiable information ("PII"), like names, mailing addresses,
and dates of birth.
On May 3, 2024, the Defendant announced that emails and files
associated with three of Defendant's employees' email accounts had
been accessed by an outside party between Jan. 25, 2023, and Oct.
13, 2023. The Private Information of over 180,000 individuals is
allegedly believed to have been exposed by the Data Breach.
Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breach and
data security compromises, the Defendant failed to take appropriate
steps to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class
Members from being compromised. As a result of the Defendant's
conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury
including invasion of privacy; lost or diminished value of Private
Information; lost time and opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach;
loss of benefit of the bargain; an increase in spam calls, texts,
and/or emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to
their Private Information, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to the Defendant in
connection with health care services she received from the
Defendant.
Medstar is a not-for-profit healthcare organization, operating more
than 120 entities, including ten hospitals in the
Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (212) 946-9305
E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
META PLATFORMS: Yoon Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mary Yoon, William Martin, and Kat Walke,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 24CV434012 was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on May 1,
2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02612-NC.
The Plaintiffs' initial Complaint brings six claims against
Defendant Meta: two claims for violations of the Federal Wiretap
Act; three claims for violations of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act; and a claim alleging negligence/negligence per
se.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 393-4622
Facsimile: (415) 801-7389
Email: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Phone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOAMNA RODRIGUEZ, v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florid
Case No. 1:24-cv-20269-JB (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of
time for the Defendant to file a response to the motion to certify
class, through and including June 11, 2024.
The Plaintiff just filed a motion to certify class. The response is
due May 28, 2024. The Defendant's counsel will be out of the office
during virtually the entire time period allowed for preparing and
filing a response. Therefore, the Defendant needs a two-week
extension of time to prepare and file the Defendant's response to
the motion.
Miami-Dade is a county located in the southeastern part of the U.S.
state of Florida.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oA4Yhp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric A. Rodriguez, Esq.
Stephen P. Clark Center, Esq.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
111 NW 1st Street, Suite 2810
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 375-5151
Facsimile: (305) 375-5634
E-mail: ear2@miamidade.gov
MIDLAND FUNDING: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due June 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFA FILGUEIRAS, v.
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03037-ES-JSA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order granting
request the following schedule for the Plaintiff's renewed class
certification motion:
Motion returnable on: Aug. 19, 2024
Motion filed by: June 24, 2024
Opposition file by: July 29, 202
Reply filed by: Aug. 12, 2024
Midland is a debt collection agency that collects different types
of debt but focuses on consumer debts.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U47vqj at no extra
charge.[CC]
MISSION POINT: Fails to Pay Assistants' Proper Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA KNOX-WATKINS and TERESA QUICK, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. MISSION POINT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11241-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., May 10, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs' wages due
on the scheduled pay day, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.
Pursuant to the Defendant's regular payroll schedule, the
Plaintiffs and other employees should have been paid in late June
and mid-July 2022, but their pay was delayed by at least a day.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policies and
practice of failing to pay sufficient wages under the FLSA and
WOWA.
Plaintiff Watkins was employed by the Defendant as a Certified
Nursing Assistant from August 2020 through June 2023, and worked at
its facilities in Clarkston, Michigan.
Plaintiff Quick was employed by the Defendant as a
Competency-Evaluated Nursing Assistant since February 2004, and
works at one of its facilities in Detroit, Michigan.
Mission owns and operates nursing homes throughout Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: Files Appeal in New Suit to Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., had filed an appeal on March 20,
2024, in the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The appellate case is captioned MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY V. JOHN
NEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
et al., Case No. 2024-CA-0343.
The case type is stated as transfer request-party.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by:
Joshua Michael Salsburey, Esq.
Kevin Gudgel Henry, Esq.
STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC
Lexington, KY 40507
Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN NEW, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Andre Fereole Regard, Esq.
Ivey Lorraine Workman, Esq.
REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC
Lexington, KY 40511
MR. COOPER GROUP: Randles Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adrian Scott Randles, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a MR.
COOPER, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
1:24-cv-00177 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on April 30, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01043-N to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Other Statutory
Actions for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Mr. Cooper -- https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebecca Davis, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 836-4200
Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
Email: rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Phone: (720) 213-0676
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison Schoenthal, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 813-8800
Fax: (212) 355-3333
Email: ASchoenthal@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Laura A. Stoll, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 426-2500
Fax: (213) 623-1673
Email: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
William Kyle Tayman, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 346-4000
Fax: (202) 346-4444
Email: KTayman@goodwinlaw.com
MULTI-COLOR CORP: Izquierdo Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cynthia Izquierdo, individually, on a
representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION, an Ohio Corporation; and WS
PACKAGING GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01388573-CU-OE-CXC was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2024, and assigned Case No.
8:24-cv-00937.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Failure
to Pay All Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Timely Pay
Final Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-904
Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
NATIONAL MENTOR: Hagans Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HAGANS AND VIVIAN
HAGANS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, INC., and NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00128-KMW-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 17,
2024, granting motion for class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3vryjV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrews R. Frish, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail:afrisch@forthepeople.com
NEW YORK: Baez Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State Office
of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al. The case is styled
as Wanda Baez, Siide Gil-Frederick, Danielle Johnson, Residents to
Preserve Public Housing, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance, New York City Housing Authority, Case No.
1:24-cv-03282 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights for the
Fair Housing Act.
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance is a
state government office in Albany, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norrinda Brown Hayat, Esq.
LINCOLN SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
150 West 62nd Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10023
Phone: (212) 636-6934
Email: nbrownhayat@lsls.fordham.edu
NIKE RETAIL: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 19
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANA CRUZ, et al, v.
NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a Corporation, et al, Case No.
3:23-cv-00874-L-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz
entered an order that:
-- 1. The deadline for Plaintiff Adriana Cruz to file their Motion
for Class Certification is set for May 24, 2024.
-- 2. The deadline for Defendant Nike Retail Services, Inc. to
file
its Opposition to the Motion is set for July 19, 2024.
-- 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file any Reply to the Motion
is
set for Aug. 16, 2024.
-- 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
is set for Sept. 13, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. The matter will be
decided on the papers pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)
and no oral argument will take place unless requested by the
Court.
Nike is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and children's
footwear.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=elbw4x at no extra
charge.[CC]
NIKE RETAIL: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 19
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANA CRUZ, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00874-L-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
joint stipulation to set class certification briefing schedule and
trial date as follows:
-- the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion is set for
May 24, 2024,
-- the deadline for the Defendant to file its opposition to the
motion is set for July 19, 2024,
-- the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file any reply to the motion
is
set for August 16, 2024; and
-- the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
take
place on Sept. 13, 2024, or a date convenient for the Court.
Nike is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and children's
footwear.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LwDP6r at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq.
Christine T. LeVu, Esq.
Andrew G. Ronan, Esq.
Jesus Adolfo Sanchez Contreras, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
kyle@bamlawca.com
AJ@bamlawca.com
victoria@bamlawca.com
christine@bamlawca.com
andrew@bamlawca.com
adolfo@bamlawca.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew A. Tobias, Esq.
Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq.
Elyssa M. Sternberg, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: mtobias@sheppardmullin.com
blewis@sheppardmullin.com
esternberg@sheppardmullin.com
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: Appeals Approval of Carroll FLSA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiffs' joint motion to approve Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) settlement in the lawsuit entitled Nathan
Carroll, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northampton Restaurants, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00115-JKW-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.
The suit was brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
On Nov. 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a joint motion to approve
the FLSA settlement, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Jamar K. Walker on Mar. 21, 2024.
Plaintiff Nathan Carroll's incentive award of $9,000 and the
settlement fund in the gross amount of $160,000 were approved. The
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees was granted with
modifications. Counsel was to be awarded $294,974.61 in attorneys'
fees and $10,993.72 in costs, to be paid by Defendant Northampton
Restaurants, Inc. The case was closed but the Court retains
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
The appellate case is captioned Nathan Carroll v. Northampton
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 24-1354, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 24, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees NATHAN E. CARROLL, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Christian Lee Connell, Esq.
555 East Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-0000
Telephone: (757) 533-6500
- and -
Kenneth Reed Mayo, Esq.
484 Viking Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Telephone: (757) 648-1376
Defendant-Appellant NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS, INC. is represented
by:
Anessa Abrams, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
2000 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 719-2000
- and -
Kenneth Maxwell Bernas, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
271 17th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 888-3884
- and -
Richard Doummar, Esq.
Joel Gordon Kinney, Esq.
DOUMMAR LAW
1397 Laskin Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23451
Telephone: (757) 422-0061
- and -
Brendan Conor Horgan, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
6802 Paragon Place
Richmond, VA 23230
Telephone: (804) 373-1607
- and -
Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq.
MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
28400 Northwestern Highway
Southfield, MI 48034
Telephone: (248) 354-4030
NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Class Action Over St Marthas Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Northup, writing for 101.5 The Hawk, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Nova Scotia Health.
Nearly 2,700 patients of St. Martha's hospital in Antigonish had
personal health information inappropriately accessed by an employee
last year.
Wagners Law Firm in Halifax filed the class-action on May 7 in Nova
Scotia Supreme Court.
Lawyer Maddy Carter says they've heard from 159 patients so far.
"People feel like their trust in our healthcare system has been
eroded. They're lacking confidence that their sensitive, personal
health information has been protected in the way that they
expected," said Carter.
She says many have real concerns about how the information may be
used.
Nova Scotia Health declined to comment.
They fired the employee in November after an investigation.
Carter says the first step in court will be the hearing of a
certification motion to determine whether the litigation should be
certified, and may proceed as a class proceeding.
If certified, the case would proceed to a trial.
She's hopeful they'll be in court within the next six months to a
year. [GN]
NUMERADE LABS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Modified to August 2
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STAR GHANAAT and VEDANT
THAKKAR, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
NUMERADE LABS, INC. d/b/a NUMERADE, Case No. 4:23-cv-00833-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
granting joint stipulation to modify case schedule as follows:
Event Current Modified
Deadline Deadline
Opening Expert Reports: May 31, 2024 Sept. 13, 2024
Rebuttal Reports: June 14, 2024 Oct. 4, 2024
Filing of Plaintiffs' motion Aug. 2, 2024 Dec. 6, 2024
for Class Certification:
Filing of Motion(s) for 90 days from Unchanged
Summary Judgment: the Court's
order on
Plaintiffs'
motion for
class
certification
Numerade is an operator of an e-learning platform intended for
real-time tutoring and broadcasting.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kjFQ9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Jared W. Connors, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
jconnors@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Brian Levin, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2b
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 402-9050
Facsimile: (305) 676-4443
E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John J. Shaeffer, Esq.
Meeghan H. Tirtasaputra, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Constellation Place
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 598-4150
Facsimile: (310) 556-9828
E-mail: JShaeffer@FoxRothschild.com
Mtirtasaputra@FoxRothschild.com
NUNAVUT: Agrees to Settle School Abuse Class Action for $8-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that a class
action lawsuit has culminated in a proposed $8 million settlement
with the Territory of Nunavut for former students subjected to
sexual abuse at schools in Resolute Bay and Clyde River.
The lawsuit involved incidents attributed to teacher Maurice
Cloughley, spanning from April 1, 1969, to July 30, 1981. The court
has certified the lawsuit as a class action, appointed
representative plaintiffs, and designated the law firms Cooper
Regel of Sherwood Park, Alberta, and Morris Moore of Mount Pearl,
Newfoundland and Labrador as class counsel.
According to the settlement terms, the Territory of Nunavut will
pay $8,000,000 to establish a settlement fund. This fund will
compensate the victims, cover the legal fees and expenses totalling
$2,000,000 plus taxes, and manage disbursements incurred up to
approximately $95,014.17, including applicable taxes. Moreover, the
agreement awarded $15,000 to each representative plaintiff and
allocated funds to administer the settlement.
The plan will distribute the settlement funds based on the severity
of the injuries, capping individual claims at $250,000. This
structured approach aims to fairly compensate those affected by
Cloughley's conduct during his tenure at the schools.
The agreement reached by the representative plaintiffs and the
Territory of Nunavut aims to avoid further litigation, thereby
reducing the costs and risks associated with extended court
proceedings. Pending court approval, this settlement is a
beneficial resolution for all parties, especially the class members
who will benefit directly from the fund.
The Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit has scheduled a hearing on
June 4 to decide whether to approve the proposed settlement. Class
members have the option to attend this hearing in person, though it
is not mandatory. Detailed information about the settlement,
including the complete notice and settlement agreement, is
available at the Cloughley Sex Abuse Class Action website. This
site also outlines class members' legal rights and options,
including how to object to the settlement and submit a claim if the
court approves the agreement. [GN]
OLAMETER CORPORATION: McMurry Suit Removed to D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Trey McMurry, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated v. OLAMETER CORPORATION, Case No. 2024-CV-31006
was removed from the 2nd Judicial District Court, Denver County,
State of Colorado, to the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on May 10, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-01308.
The Plaintiff alleges that Olameter violated the Colorado Minimum
Wage Act ("CMWA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and their
implementing regulations, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Orders ("COMPS Orders"), and the Revised Municipal Code
of the City and County of Denver, Colorado ("DRMC") in at least
three ways: Failing to properly calculate the overtime rate of pay
for any hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek and/or 12 hours in
a day; Failing to provide uninterrupted meal and rest breaks; and
Failing to pay for any work performed prior to when the employee
clocks in or after the employee clocks out.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Louis M. Grossman, Esq.
David M. Whitaker, Esq.
Zoe Vermeulen, Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
909 Poydras Street, Ste. 3600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 585-3050
Fax: (504) 585-3051
Email: louis.grossman@keanmiller.com
david.whitaker@keanmiller.com
zoe.vermeulen@keanmiller.com
OSPREY SPONSOR: Drulias Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSPREY SPONSOR II,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dean William Drulias, on behalf
of himself and similarly situated v. OSPREY SPONSOR II, LLC, EDWARD
E. COHEN, JONATHAN Z. COHEN, DAVID DiDOMENICO, SAVNEET SINGH,
ROBERT B. HENSKE, RICHARD REISS, JR., ROBERT B. TINKER, JEFFREY C.
BROTMAN, HEPCO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, JANA PARTNERS LLC, and
BRIAN O'TOOLE, Case No. 2024-0478-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., May 7,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Sponsor is a Delaware limited liability company and was Osprey's
sponsor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.
Edward M. Lilly, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7000
Fax: (302) 622-7100
- and -
Michael Klausner, Esq.
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Stanford, CA 94305
Phone: (650) 740-1194
OSPREY SPONSOR: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Cheriyala Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SRAVAN CHERIYALA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSPREY SPONSOR II, LLC, DAVID
DIDOMENICO, EDWARD E. COHEN, JONATHAN Z. COHEN, JEFFREY F. BROTMAN,
SAVNEET SINGH, ROBERT B. HENSKE, RICHARD REISS, JR., ROBERT B.
TINKER, BLACKSKY HOLDINGS, INC., BRIAN O'TOOLE, and BRIAN DAUM,
Defendants, Case No. 2024-0484 (Del. Ch., May 7, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed misleading Proxy
statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to lure
stockholders to approve the merger of Osprey Technology Acquisition
Corp., now known as BlackSky Technology, Inc., and BlackSky
Holdings, Inc. ("Legacy BlackSky"). Specifically, the Defendants
materially failed to disclose (i) the net cash per share that would
be delivered to post-close BlackSky as a result of the transaction,
which was a mere $4.30 per share; (ii) the nature of the work
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC performed for Osprey and the
fees it received from Osprey and Legacy BlackSky, even though
Credit Suisse simultaneously advised both Osprey and BlackSky in
the merger; (iii) fair summaries of the valuation and market
analyses Moelis presented to Osprey's Board in January 2021; and
(iv) the nature and amount of Moelis's fees. These breaches led
shareholders to forego their redemption rights and exchange their
special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) shares for stock in a
weak and underperforming company, thereby causing Osprey's public
stockholders tens of millions of dollars in damages, says the
suit.
Osprey Sponsor II, LLC is a limited liability company based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
BlackSky Holdings, Inc. is a space-based intelligence company based
in Herndon, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 N. West St., Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 984-3889
Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
jlerner@monteverdelaw.com
OTTAWA, ON: Court Dismisses Taxi Class Suit on Lack of Enforcement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Fung of The Globe and Mail reports that an Ontario Superior
Court judge sided with taxi drivers in their class-action lawsuit
against the City of Ottawa, finding that the municipality failed to
prepare for the arrival of Uber or to stand up to the company as it
operated illegally a decade ago.
Justice Marc Smith was scathing in his assessment of Uber
Technologies Inc.'s UBER-N tactics, which he described as scofflaw
and predatory. But he blamed the city for not preventing the
company's intrusion.
"Uber bullied its way into the Ottawa market, and for two years,
ignored regulations and operated freely and illegally, without any
serious restrictions," he wrote in a decision released Monday.
"The City's arguments can be summarized as follows: defeat was
inevitable. Uber's operations in Ottawa could not have been
prevented. I disagree. Defeat is almost assured when one believes
that defeat is inevitable. There are examples where Uber was
defeated."
The lawsuit is seeking $215-million. The judge accepted that the
arrival of Uber did serious financial harm to Ottawa cabbies, but
did not rule on damages. The plaintiffs -- who represent 768 people
with nearly 1,200 taxi plates -- will have to return to court to
establish what losses they suffered.
One of the plaintiffs suggested the group was open to settling with
the city.
"We have a new mayor, we have new councilors," said Marc Andre Way,
president of the Canadian Taxi Association. He is also chief
executive officer of Coventry Connections, which in 2022 had 63
taxi plates, according to the decision, and he had 99 himself.
"We want to work with them and see if there's some way that we can
get this resolved. I think it's time for the industry and the city
to find a way to collaborate and then correct some of the mistakes
that have been done, and we're very open to that."
The City of Ottawa forwarded a written statement, attributed to
city solicitor Stuart Huxley, saying that staff "will be carefully
reviewing the court's decision before determining next steps."
Uber's spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment in time
for publication.
The suit was filed in 2016 and certified two years later. The trial
itself happened early in 2023, after both sides agreed to dismiss
the part of the suit dealing with whether the bylaw Ottawa passed
in 2016 allowing Uber to operate legally in the city was itself
unlawful.
Although Uber is now a widely established and well-used
transportation provider, the lawsuit deals with the period from
2014 to 2016. A decade ago, Uber was still an upstart pushing into
cities worldwide, ignoring bylaws and sparking huge protests from
the taxi industry.
Ottawa was among the cities that had for years capped the number of
taxi plates, which had the effect of inflating their value. When
Uber arrived, cabbies who had banked on selling their plate and
retiring on the proceeds were suddenly holding a much less valuable
commodity. This would have a particularly devastating effect on
those people owning multiple plates.
Asked to protect this asset, many city governments took the
position that Uber could not be stopped.
This was Ottawa's approach. However, Justice Smith noted that the
city had previously cracked down on illegal taxi drivers and
brokers, and could have done so again under the bylaw in place at
the time.
"Uber was a bandit taxicab company, and the city knew, by
experience, that failure to enforce against a bandit company would
have a devastating impact on the licensed taxi industry," he
wrote.
"Therefore, I have no difficulty in finding that the city knew or
ought to have known that failure to enforce the 2012 by-law against
Uber resulted in reasonably foreseeable harm to the plaintiffs."
Abdalla Barqawi, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the ruling was a
message to municipalities to act prudently when creating regulatory
structures that attract investment.
"Both in our specific case for the individuals being affected and
more broadly, the case is very significant," he said.
The judge did not find that the city's negligence in enforcing the
taxi bylaw contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Human
Rights Code, even though the consequences were borne by a
racialized group of plate-owners.
Lawsuits related to Uber have had limited success. Justice Smith
noted that, in Toronto, a judge refused to certify a class-action
lawsuit against Uber for alleged negligence because the city's duty
of care was to the public as a whole.
However, suits continue to be filed. Earlier this month, the BBC
reported that London cab drivers had filed a GBP250-million
($429-million) lawsuit against Uber, alleging the company acted
deceptively to secure a licence to operate in the British capital.
[GN]
PACIFIC STEEL: Stipulation to Vacate Case Deadlines Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Gay v. Pacific
Steel Group, Case No. 4:20-cv-08442 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov 30,
2020), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
terminating the parties' stipulation to vacate case deadlines.
-- The Court's ruling at the May 7, 2024, Case Management
Conference
to stay the class certification briefing schedule until further
notice.
The Nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations.[CC]
Pacific Steel is a construction company.
PANDA RESTAURANT: Faces Ruggeri Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA RUGGERI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03854 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
confidence, breach of implied contract, Breach of the Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach discovered on March 10, 2024. 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.
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. is a restaurant operator with a
principal place of business located at 1683 Walnut Grove Avenue,
Rosemead, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
PANDA RESTAURANT: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Jackson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03928
(C.D. Cal., May 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information of its current and former employees including their
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial
account information.
According to the complaint, Panda has confirmed that between March
7-11, 2024, criminals were able to access certain devices in the
Defendant's network. These criminals maintained unfettered access
to the Defendant's network and Plaintiff and Class Members PII for
several days.
As a direct result of the Defendant's data security failures and
the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered
actual, concrete, and imminent injuries, including invasion of
privacy; compromise, disclosure, theft, and unauthorized use of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; economic costs associated with
the time spent to detect and prevent identity theft, including loss
of productivity; and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, nuisance
and annoyance of dealing related to the theft and compromise of
their PII.
Because the information the Defendant allowed to be compromised and
taken is of such a durable and permanent quality, the harms to the
Plaintiff and the Class will continue and increase, and the
Plaintiff and Class Members will continue to be at substantial risk
for further imminent and future harm, the Plaintiff asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class
Members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary
damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law.
Plaintiff Jackson is citizen of the State of Utah. He received a
Notice of Data Breach from the Defendant, dated April 30, 2024.
Panda is a large corporate restaurant owner, operating as the
"parent company of Panda Inn, Panda Express and Hibachi-San"
nationwide restaurant chains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. De Marco, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com
PARACHUTE HOME: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parachute Home, Inc.
The case is styled as Amanda Villaverde, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Parachute Home, Inc., Case No.
CACE24006567 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 10, 2024).
Parachute Home, Inc. -- https://www.parachutehome.com/ -- make
modern Bedding and Bath essentials for a more comfortable
home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
PEAKFOOTWEAR LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PeakFootwear, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03673 (Court, May
13, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website "Peak-footwear.com" to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services PeakFootwear provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an
online purchase of footwear on Peak-footwear.com. The Plaintiff
tried to buy Lorax Pro - Healthy & Non-Slip Barefoot Shoes because
of their flexibility and comfort. However, when trying to select
the product, she encountered many difficulties in navigating the
website due to its inaccessibility, making it challenging to
complete the purchase for the same reason. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in PeakFootwear's policies,
practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
says the suit.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
PeakFootwear specializes in walking and fell running shoes.[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
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Class Settlement in FLPFRS Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Fort Lauderdale
Police And Firefighters' Retirement System, et al., v. Pegasystems
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11220 (D. Mass., Filed July 29,
2022), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting
Lead Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement, class certification for settlement purposes, and
approval of notice to the settlement class by Central Pennsylvania
Teamsters Pension Fund - Defined Benefit Plan, Central Pennsylvania
Teamsters Pension Fund - Retirement Income Plan 1987, Construction
Industry Laborers Pension Fund.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Pegasystems is an American software company.[CC]
PERPAY INC: Soud Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PerPay, Inc. The case
is styled as Ryan Soud, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PerPay, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00467 (M.D.
Fla., April 19, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PerPay, Inc. -- https://perpay.com/ -- is a fintech firm offering
an alternative to traditional payment methods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
PETROLEX II: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by March 18, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v. Petrolex II, LLC
et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 12, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Amended Pleadings due by: June 14, 2024
-- Fact Discovery to be completed by: March 18, 2025
-- Motions for class certification Sept. 19, 2025
due by:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.
Petrolex is a fuel delivery and service company.[CC]
POLYGLASS USA: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Janilka Castro, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. POLYGLASS USA INC., Case No. 240201368 was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on May 7, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01944-GAM.
The Complaint alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act ("PMWA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kieran M. Casey, Esq.
ROSENN, JENKINS & GREENWALD, LLP
Cross Creek Pointe
1065 Highway 315, Suite 200
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702
Phone: 570-826-5678
Email: kcasey@rjglaw.com
PRIDE MOBILITY: Fails to Properly Invest OIA Funds, Tufano Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES TUFANO and RICHARD WARREN, as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Pride Mobility
Employee Stock Ownership Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs v. PRIDE
MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION and THE PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS
CORPORATION ESOP COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00765-RDM
(M.D. Pa., May 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to prudently
manage other investment account (OIA) by investing it exclusively
in cash equivalents and ultra short-term bonds. Such investments
are not a suitable replacement Pride Mobility Products Corporation
(PMPC) stock because it is appropriate only on short-term
investment objective. The Defendants could have invested OIA funds
in other major asset classes or implemented a prudent long-term
investment strategy for the OIA. As a result of the Defendants'
fiduciary neglect, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Employee
Stock Ownership Retirement Plan (ESOP) participants suffered losses
of around $1.45 million between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022,
says the suit.
Pride Mobility Products Corporation is a manufacturer of mobility
products in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel J. Rosenthal, Esq.
THE ROSENTHAL FIRM
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 2350
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 923-8900
Facsimile: (215) 351-0593
Email: srosenthal@rosenthalfirm.net
- and -
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Email: mthomson@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
PRIME HYDRATION: Preudhomme Sues Over Energy Drinks' Caffeine Label
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYANT PREUDHOMME, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME HYDRATION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03568 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the New York General
Business Law, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Prime Energy
Drinks. The Defendant markets the products in a systematically
misleading manner, by misrepresenting that they have specific
amounts of caffeine that they do not in fact contain. Nowhere on
the products' packaging is there any disclosure that the products
contain or may contain more caffeine than advertised. As a result
of the Defendant's deceptive conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class
were injured when they paid the purchase price and/or a price
premium for the products that did not deliver what the Defendant
promised, says the suit.
Prime Hydration, LLC is a manufacturer of energy drinks based in
Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
PROSTAFFING SERVICE: Mireles Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Gomez Mireles, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. ProStaffing
Service, Inc. and Ryder System, Inc., Case No. 2024LA000542 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., May 7, 2024), is brought seeking to redress
for Defendant's willful violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to obtain redress for persons
injured by its conduct.
As part of her work at Defendants' facilities, Plaintiff was
required to scan her fingerprints and/or other biometrics into
Defendants' biometric timekeeping device each time she needed to
"clock-in" and "clock-out". Defendants were aware that Plaintiff
and other class members would be required to utilize the biometric
timekeeping technology. As a result of Plaintiff's use of
Defendants' timekeeping system, Defendants took possession and
control of Plaintiff's biometric information.
The Plaintiff relied on Defendants to not only provide a lawful and
legally compliant system, but to also disclose all material
information regarding the technology and system, including
retention, destruction, and dissemination policies. The Defendants
were aware, or reckless in failing to be aware, that its employees
and staffers would be subject to its biometric technology.
Defendants were aware that its biometric technology would be
capturing, collecting, utilizing, and/or disseminating the
biometrics of Plaintiff and the Class members. Defendants'
biometric technology allows for and resulted in the dissemination
of Plaintiff and other Class member's biometrics to third parties,
including vendors for timekeeping, data storage, and payroll
purposes.
The Defendants have not informed Plaintiff whether they still
retains her biometrics, and if they do, for how long it intends to
retain such information without her consent. To the extent
Defendants are still retaining Plaintiff's biometrics, such
retention is unlawful. Plaintiff would not have provided her
biometric data to Defendants or utilized their biometric
timekeeping technology had she known the same would remain with the
Defendants for an indefinite period or subject to unauthorized
disclosure, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed or staffed by Defendant.
ProStaffing Service, Inc. is a private entity under BIPA and an
Illinois corporation doing business in North Aurora, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Rd., #300
Chicago, IL 60646
Phone: 773-415-4898
Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com
dschlade@justicialaboral.com
R&S ERECTION: Boyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & S Erection, et
al. The case is styled as Robin Boyd, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. R & S Erection, Tri-County, Inc., Case No.
BCV-24-101565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 7, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
R&S Erection of Santa Rosa -- https://www.rsdoorandgate.com/ -- is
the leader in residential garage doors, commercial doors and
automatic gates in Sonoma, Marin, Lake and Mendocino Counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
khaque@aegislawfirm.com
swong@aegislawfirm.com
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: June 17 Class Cert Hearing Canceled
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Borozny, et al. v.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division, et
al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. 14, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order canceling the June 17,
2024, hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
other associated motions in light of Defendant Pratt & Whitney's
newly-filed motion to preclude portions of Dr. Singer's report or,
in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply and surrebuttal
expert report.
-- Briefing will proceed on Pratt & Whitney's new motion under the
ordinary deadlines set forth in the Local Rules.
-- The Court will reset the hearing for a later date, following
the
completion of briefing on the new motion.
The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.
Raytheon is an American multinational aerospace and defense
conglomerate.[CC]
REVERB.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Reverb.com, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03615 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2024)
sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate their website "Reverb.com" to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services the website provides to their
non-disabled customers. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make
an online purchase of a synthesizer on Reverb.com. Yet, when trying
to make a purchase, he faced difficulties making a purchase due to
the website's accessibility issues, such as not focusable
interactive elements, repetitive alt text on images, and missing
landmarks, which made the purchasing process challenging. However,
unless the Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its
website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable
to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction
on Reverb.com.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Reverb.com offers musical instruments and gear including guitars,
mandolins, accordions, synthesizers, stereo systems, effects
pedals, home audio equipment, acoustic drum sets, pro audio gear,
guitar parts, and acoustic pianos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hashew
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ogden v. Rivian
Automotive, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01415-JES-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.
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology and outdoor recreation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v5igoW at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROTHMAN'S WESTSIDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Riley Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rothman's Westside, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03676
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Rothmansny.com" to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Rothman's Westside provides to
their non-disabled customers through their website.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase on
Rothmansny.com. She wanted to find a shirt for her friend. After
attempting to evaluate the company's offerings, she selected the
Sky Ridge Buffalo shirt. Despite her interest, she encountered
accessibility difficulties on the website, such as missing alt text
and ambiguous links, which made it impossible to efficiently
navigate the website and purchase the selected item.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Rothman's Westside’s policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Rothman's offers shirts, T-shirts, hoodies, sweaters, pants, bags,
wallets, belts, hats and loafers.[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
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SARRIA HOLDINGS: Faces Pardo Suit Over Commercial Property Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, v. SARRIA HOLDINGS, INC.; THE DIRTY
SWEET INC d/b/a THE DIRTY SWEET; and G. H. FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC.,
d/b/a FRITANGA ANGONICA RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:24-cv-21781 (S.D.
Fla., May 7, 2024) is a class action alleing that the Defendants
has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against the
Plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of the Commercial Property and business located in it.
The Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property on Feb. 1, 2024 and Feb. 8, 2024,
and encountered architectural barriers. The barriers have each
denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of
the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of
injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others
similarly situated, the lawsuit asserts.
Specifically, the Plaintiff had difficulty traversing the path of
travel, as it is not continuous and accessible. There are objects
on the path of travel that protrude more than the maximum
allowable. There are cross slopes in excess of 2%, the Plaintiff
claims.
The Plaintiff has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate
any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the
wrist. He has lower paraplegia, inhibits him from walking or
otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair.
Sarria owned and operated a commercial property at 2750 West 68th
Street, Hialeah, Florida, 33016.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
SGI MATRIX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wallace Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ISSIAH WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SGI MATRIX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-60756-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Wallace was employed by the Defendant as an access
control technician.
SGI MATRIX LLC is a construction company based in Miamisburg, OH
and specializes in Electronic Security. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Appeals Remand Ruling in Cousin Suit
------------------------------------------------------
SHARP HEALTHCARE has filed an appeal from the District Court's
March 19, 2024 Order entered in the lawsuit styled Hannah Cousin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sharp Healthcare, Case No. 3:22-cv-02040-MMA-DDL, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was removed from
the San Diego County Superior Court, to the Southern District of
California on Dec. 23, 2022.
Plaintiffs Hannah Cousin, Linda Camus, and Edward Barbat bring this
consolidated putative class action against Sharp Healthcare. This
consolidated case is comprised of three individual actions: Cousin
v. Sharp Healthcare, 22-cv-2040-MMA-DDL, originally filed in state
court, Cal. Sup. Ct. Case No. 37-2022-00047290-CU-MC-CTL; Camus v.
Sharp Healthcare, 23-cv-0033-MMA-DDL, originally filed in state
court, Cal. Sup. Ct. Case No. 37-202200048546-CU-NP-CTL; and Barbat
v. Sharp Healthcare, 23-cv-330MMA-DDL. These cases challenge
Sharp's use of an Internet tracking tool, Meta Pixel, on its
publicly facing website.
In Sharp's Notices of Removal of the Cousin and Camus Actions,
Sharp asserted that its removal of both cases was proper under the
federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).
On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against Sharp. For the first time, Plaintiffs referenced
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2)(A), asserting that federal subject matter jurisdiction
lies because there are more than 100 members of the proposed class,
at least one member of which is diverse, and they seek in excess of
$5,000,000.00. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
On February 2, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to show cause
why these cases should not be dismissed or remanded for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
On March 6, 2024, the parties appeared before the Court for a
hearing on the Court's Order to Show Cause, at which time the Court
took the matter under submission. Upon due consideration of the
parties' written responses to the Order to Show Cause and arguments
at the hearing, the Court REMANDED the Cousin and Camus Actions and
DISMISSED the Barbat Action.
The appellate case is captioned as Cousin, et al. v. Sharp
Healthcare, Case No. 24-2511, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 19, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due for Appellant on April 24,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript Order was due for Appellant on May 1,
2024;
-- Appeal Transcript is due for Appellant on May 31, 2024;
-- Appeal Opening Brief is due for Appellant on July 10, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief is due for Appellee on August 9, 2024;
and
-- 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]
SP PLUS CORP: Barba Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SP Plus Corp. The
case is styled as Ambar Barba, on behalf of herself and current and
former aggrieved employees v. SP Plus Corporation, Does 1 to 100,
Case No. 24STCV11896 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 10,
2024).
SP Plus Corporation -- https://www.spplus.com/ -- is an American
provider of parking facility management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashly Valenzuela, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Fax: (310) 432-0001
Email: avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com
SPECIAL SERVICE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Special Service for
Groups, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Hernandez, on behalf of
herself and similarly situated aggrieved employees v. Special
Service for Groups, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 24STCV11370
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2024).
Special Service for Groups, Inc. (better known as SSG) --
https://www.ssg.org/ -- is a non-profit health and human service
organization dedicated to building and sustaining community-based
programs that address the needs of vulnerable communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
KARASIK LAW FIRM
16021 Aiglon St.
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
Phone: (310) 463-9761
Fax: (310) 943-2582
Email: greg@karasiklawfirm.com
STAGECOACH GROUP: Court Approves GBP25MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Corfield, writing for Yahoo!Finance reports that train
passengers have won the UK's largest class action lawsuit payout in
history of GBP25 million after being overcharged for their
tickets.
More than a million people who travelled on mainline trains towards
London Waterloo are in line for up to GBP100 each after the company
which used to operate those trains settled a legal case.
Stagecoach South Western Trains (SSWT), which operated the South
Western rail franchise until 2017, is making a total of GBP25
million available to an estimated 1.4 million travellers whom it
overcharged.
"This is the largest settlement in the history of the collective
proceedings regime in the UK," said a spokesman for Woodsford
Group, the business which funded the class action-style lawsuit
against SSWT.
"Now that the settlement has been approved by the Competition
Appeal Tribunal, a scheme will be set up to allow class members to
submit a claim for redress."
The case came about because passengers who held London Travelcards
between 2015 and 2017 were not offered the option of buying less
expensive "boundary zone" tickets when travelling to stations
inside Transport for London's fare zones.
Effectively, passengers were paying twice for the London portion of
their journeys.
Normally, travellers would buy a train ticket from their local
station to a London terminus such as Waterloo.
Because of the way that Transport for London's zone-based fares
work, however, there are hidden National Rail tickets called
"boundary zone" fares.
London Travelcards are valid together with National Rail tickets
made out to one of those boundary zones, meaning Travelcard holders
were entitled to cheaper fares instead of paying for a ticket all
the way to the end of the line.
A traveller on South West Trains who held a London Travelcard valid
for zones 1, 2 and 3, for example, was entitled to buy a ticket to
boundary zone 3 instead of buying one for London Waterloo -- making
a significant saving.
But those tickets could be bought only if a passenger knew exactly
what type of fare to ask for. They were not advertised on automated
ticket machines at stations.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal, a specialist class action court,
was told that, on average, passengers were left out of pocket by an
average of about GBP28 each by this practice.
A spokesman for Stagecoach Group said: "We are pleased that the
Competition Appeal Tribunal has approved the collective settlement
that we have agreed with the claimant in this long-running case
related to historic matters."
SSWT did not admit any legal liability for wrongdoing.
The case continues against the current South Western Railway
franchise company, First MTR South Western Trains Ltd. [GN]
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Iraheta Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luz Iraheta, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 24STCV08759 was
removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 10, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03947.
The Plaintiff is a current employee of Starbucks. She asserts
claims against Starbucks under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA") for failure to reasonably accommodate lactation and
failure to engage in the good-faith interactive process to
reasonably accommodate lactation. She also asserts claims under the
California Labor Code for failure to accommodate lactation, failure
to provide compliant lactation breaks, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and failure to timely pay final wages. She also
asserts a claim for unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
Jennifer J. Mcdermott, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-557-2900
Facsimile: 310-557-2193
Email: gknopp@proskauer.com
jslowik@proskauer.com
jmcdermott@proskauer.com
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, INC., Case No.
2024-01556-TT was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester
County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 1, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-01840.
The Plaintiff's first cause of action in the Complaint is for
violation of Title III of the ADA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jacob Oslick, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 218-5500
Fax: (212) 218-5526
Email: joslick@seyfarth.com
STRETTO INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Abellard Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ABELLARD, JR.; and JESSICA KERR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STRETTO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01030 (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2024) alleges
violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act.
According to the complaint, on April 17, 2024, Stretto noticed that
certain creditor data it was holding on behalf of Celsius Network
LLC ("Celsius") had been accessed following a phishing attack.
Specifically, Defendant asserts that an unauthorized third party
copied files within Defendant's care containing Private Information
on that day (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding individuals' sensitive
personal data -- specifically their names, email addresses, mailing
addresses, and claim amounts, along with the tax identification
numbers of less than 40 creditors (collectively known as "Private
Information").
The Data Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant's violation of
its obligations to abide by best practices, industry standards, and
federal and state laws concerning the security of individuals'
Private Information. Defendant knew or should have known that its
failure to take reasonable security measures -- which could have
prevented or mitigated the Data Breach that occurred -- left its
parties' Private Information vulnerable to identity theft,
financial loss, and other associated harms, says the suit.
STRETTO, INC. provides professional services. The Company delivers
spectrum of bankruptcy-administrative solutions and technology
tools to corporate-restructuring and consumer-bankruptcy
fiduciaries. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
660 Baker Street
Building A, Ste. 201
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (412) 370-9110
Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
SUN SOLAR LLC: Krugman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Solar LLC. The
case is styled as David Krugman, individually an on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sun Solar LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00329-RK (W.D. Mo., May 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Sun Solar -- https://sunsolarllc.com/ -- provides comprehensive
knowledge and experience when it comes to the installation of large
scale solar projects.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxwell Cory Nelson, Esq.
MCN LAW LLC
12433 Antioch # 25442
Overland Park, KS 66225
Phone: (913) 358-5800
Email: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com
SUPPLYFRAME INC: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Supplyframe, Inc. The
case is styled as Raymond Delgado, Bryant Ramirez Cruz as
individuals, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees v. Supplyframe,
Inc., John Brunker, an individual, Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV11831 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 10,
2024).
Supplyframe, Inc. -- https://supplyframe.com/ -- provides
advertising, sales, and marketing solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan P. Lacour, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: (310) 853-3461
Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
SUSSEX PUBLISHERS: R.C. Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as R.C., D.G., individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Sussex Publishers, LLC,
Case No. 23CV057114 was removed from the Alameda County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02609-JSC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Sussex Publishers is a privately held corporation based in New
York, that owns Psychology Today magazine and
www.psychologytoday.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Rachael Ga-Yue Jung, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 543-7861
Fax: (415) 543-7861
Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
rjung@kellergrover.com
- and -
Scot Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Phone: (916) 447-0100
Fax: (916) 933-5533
Email: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
600 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 754-6600
Fax: (714) 754-6611
Email: mpearson@bakerlaw.com
SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Wilson Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER HEALTH, HSS, INC., HSS, LLC, HSS
SECURITY, LLC, TARIAN GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV-24-003489 (Cal. Super.,
Stanislaus Cty., May 7, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and
California's Business and Professions Code including (1) failing to
provide all meal periods and rest breaks, (2) failing to pay all
minimum and overtime wages, (3) failing to reimburse for all
necessary business-related costs and expenses, (4) failing to
provide accurate wage statements, and (5) failing to pay all wages
due and owing upon termination of employment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.
Sutter Health is a health care company headquartered in Sacramento,
California.
HSS, Inc. is a healthcare security services company doing business
in California.
HSS, LLC is a healthcare security services company doing business
in California.
HSS Security, LLC is a healthcare security services company doing
business in California.
Tarian Group, Inc. is a healthcare security services company doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 102
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (213) 612-0988
Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Kohrs Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Kohrs, an individual; on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
CO. of Arizona, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
23STCV28913 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 30,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03570.
The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that
Defendant failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws in
compensating drivers as follows: failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to provide meal breaks; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay all wages upon separation failure to furnish timely
and accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business
expenses; violation of California's Unfair Competition Act
("UCL").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
John D. Ellis, Esq.
Nina Montazeri, Esq.
Maggie Sheerin, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4158
Phone: 415.434.9100
Facsimile: 415.434.3947
Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com
msheerin@sheppardmullin.com
SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE: Did Not Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE BRINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC
d/b/a EQUALIZERCM AND 1ST CREDENTIALING, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00501 (W.D. Tex., May 10, 2024) is class action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach on April 26, 2024, was
a direct result of the Defendant’s failure to implement adequate
and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect its clients’ patients’ Private Information from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the suit.
YSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a EQUALIZERCM AND 1ST
CREDENTIALING is a revenue cycle management and credentialing
company based out of Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Embeds Spy Pixels in Emails, Smith Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiloh Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01048-ROS (D.
Ariz., May 7, 2024) alleges that the Defendant embeds spy pixels in
its marketing emails sent to the Plaintiff and Class members to
extract "communication service Records."
According to the complaint, the Defendant embeds hidden spy pixel
trackers within its emails. These trackers capture and log
sensitive information including the time and place subscribers open
and read their messages, how long the subscriber's read the email,
subscribers' location, subscribers' email client type, subscribers'
IP address, subscribers' device information and whether and to whom
the email was forwarded to. The Plaintiff and Class members were
never informed by the Defendant, and thus never knew, that the
Defendant would be procuring the sensitive information. They also
never gave lawful consent to the Defendant to procure the
communication service records, the suit says.
The Defendant's alleged invasive surveillance of the Plaintiff's
sensitive reading habits and clandestine collection of his
confidential email records invaded his privacy and intruded upon
his seclusion. By failing to receive consent from the Plaintiff and
Class members, Defendant is violating Arizona's Telephone, Utility
and Communication Service Records Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the
proposed Class, prays for the relief set forth by the statute,
including actual damages, profits made by Defendant as a result of
the violation, $1,000 for each violation, reasonable attorneys'
fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other
equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons in the
State of Arizona that opened emails sent to them by the Defendant
due to Defendant's violations of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and
Communication Service Records Act.
The Plaintiff and Class members are subscribers to Defendant's
email list. From August 2020 to April 2024, the Plaintiff
frequently opened emails from the Defendant to review promotional
materials. The Plaintiff most recently opened one of Defendant's
emails in April 2024.
Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Barrett, Esq.
WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 279-1717
Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
TELCAST NETWORKS: Bond Suit Moved to D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Bond, Tonia Jewell-Vines, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Telcast
Networks, LLC, Respondent, Case No. 1:23-cv-04385 was moved from
the USDC/NDIL, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware on May 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-mc-00226-UNA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Telcast Networks, LLC -- https://telcastnetworks.com/ -- provides
comprehensive cost saving voip focused solutions to wholesale
carrier & enterprises.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1523 Concord Pike, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19803
Phone: (302) 722-6885
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
TEXAS: Fountain Files 5th Circuit Appeal
----------------------------------------
FREDDIE FOUNTAIN has filed an appeal in his lawsuit entitled
Freddie Fountain, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Rupert, Warden, Coffield
Unit, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-00100, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged violation of
prisoner civil rights.
The appellate case is captioned Fountain v. Rupert, Case No.
24-40267, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on April 23, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant FREDDIE FOUNTAIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees JOHN RUPERT, WARDEN, COFFIELD UNIT, et al. are
represented by:
Briana Marie Webb, Esq.
Brian Collier, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
Telephone: (512) 463-2080
TVI INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEA HUGHES, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TVI,
INC., a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-00250-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb
entered an order vacating the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)
Conference scheduled for May 20, 2024, and makes the following
findings and orders without needing to consult with the parties any
further:
-- The parties agree to serve the initial June 14, 2024
disclosures required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before:
-- The parties shall disclose experts and Sept. 12, 2025
produce reports in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no
later than:
-- With regard to expert testimony intended Oct. 10, 2025.
solely for rebuttal, those experts shall
be disclosed and reports produced in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before:
-- All discovery, including depositions for Dec. 5, 2025
preservation of testimony, is left open,
save and except that it shall be so
conducted as to be completed by:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification Jan. 31, 2025
shall be filed on or before:
-- Defendant's opposition to the motion for March 5, 2025
class certification shall be filed on
or before:
-- The Plaintiff's reply brief shall be March 26,
2025.
filed on or before:
-- All other motions, except motions for Jan. 14, 2026
continuances, temporary restraining
orders, or other emergency applications,
shall be filed on or before:
-- The Final Pretrial Conference is set for: March 23,
2026
-- The jury trial is set for: May 19, 2026
TVI operates a chain of thrift stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0cyqk0 at no extra
charge.[CC
UNION CARBIDE: Court Dismisses Medical Monitoring Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson of West Virginia Record reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging Union
Carbide's South Charleston plant released a cancer-causing
emission.
In an opinion and order released May 13, U.S. District Judge Joseph
Goodwin said the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the claim in
federal court and fails to meet ripeness requirements.
Lee Ann Sommerville filed the potential class action in 2019,
alleging Carbide released emissions of ethylene oxide and
significantly increased the risk of developing cancer for potential
class members who lived in neighborhoods near the plant.
In 2020, Goodwin granted in part Carbide's motion to dismiss,
leaving only a medical monitoring claim and adding eight new
defendants. All defendants other than Carbide and Covestro have
since been dismissed from the case.
Ethylene Oxide, also known as EtO, is a colorless, odorless gas
that can cause certain cancers of white blood cells, such as
non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma and lymphocytic leukemia. EtO
primarily enters the environment by release into the air.
The plaintiffs claim Carbide is the world's leading producer of
EtO, and they say the South Charleston plant is one of the only
facilities in the nation that manufactures it. Carbide began
operating the plant in 1978, and Covestro took over in 2015.
In the 27-page opinion and order, Goodwin details the history of
the case, the history of medical monitoring and medical monitoring
in West Virginia before diving into the legal arguments of the
case.
"I have previously expressed my skepticism about the viability of
medical monitoring as a tort in light of (the U.S. Constitution's)
Article III's justiciability doctrines," Goodwin wrote. "However,
this is the first instance in which a party in my court has raised
a justiciability issue in a toxic exposure medical monitoring
claim."
Goodwin says the justiciability doctrines "assure that the
functional requisites of adjudication are met," "conserve judicial
resources by excluding cases unsuitable for judicial
decision-making" and "also allocate power between the branches of
the government to maintain structural integrity outlined in the
Constitution."
He says that means a plaintiff seeking to bring a medical
monitoring claim under West Virginia law in federal court must
prove the elements required by state law as well as satisfy Article
III's requirements.
Goodwin also notes most appeals courts that have discussed the
viability of medical monitoring have done so without an in-depth
analysis or discussion of Article III standing.
To establish Article III standing, Goodwin says a plaintiff must
show that he suffered an injury in fact that is both concrete and
particularized as well as either actual or imminent and that the
injury was likely caused by the defendant and is easily redressable
by judicial relief. He says that is to ensure the judiciary doesn't
usurp the role of the legislative and executive branches.
"Regrettably, growing challenges to the executive and legislative
branches of our government are resulting in the forced resolution
of policy issues through litigation in the judicial arena," Goodwin
wrote.
Goodwin also says he disagrees with some courts treating
injury-in-fact as "an elastic concept" that courts "may construe
broadly." He also notes that most states that acknowledge medical
monitoring as an independent tort require the plaintiff demonstrate
a present injury or illness, adding that a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez "makes clear to me that claims for
medical monitoring seeking damages without a manifest injury do not
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing."
West Virginia law says a plaintiff with a medical monitoring claim
can seek damages if there is a significantly increased risk of
injury with the lack of exposure.
"Here, plaintiff seeks monetary damages based on the premise that
because defendants emit EtO into the air and she, in turn, breathes
that air, defendants have put her and proposed class members at a
higher risk of eventually getting cancer," Goodwin wrote.
"Plaintiff relies entirely upon expert opinions to prove her
alleged increased risk of cancer development due to the alleged EtO
emissions.
"But expert opinions are just that -- opinions, not facts."
Noting the court's role as a gatekeeper, Goodwin also says he
excluded the plaintiffs' emissions expert because he used "patently
unreliable data and methods in creating the air model used to
determine the alleged estimated EtO emissions."
"Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of present injury
beyond the speculative increase of risk," Goodwin wrote. "She
cannot even accurately demonstrate the level of exposure for each
proposed class member.
"And despite the prolonged period of potential alleged exposure at
issue in this case -- 41 years -- plaintiff never claims that she
or any proposed class member have experienced symptoms of a disease
let alone that any individual has actually developed cancer.
"She cannot prove that she or any class member will get cancer or
that it's even more likely than not. Rather, her claim is based
entirely on the unsubstantiated possibility of future cancer
diagnoses."
Goodwin also disputes the concreteness of the claim, saying it is
undermined by a "vague risk quantification standard" based on the
1999 West Virginia Supreme Court ruling Bower v. Westinghouse.
"Under West Virginia law, the injury in a medical monitoring cause
of action is the significant increased risk of future disease,"
Goodwin wrote. "But what constitutes significance in this context?
The Bower court offers little guidance on that standard, merely
stating that 'no particular level of quantification is necessary to
satisfy this requirement.'
"However, by requiring the increase in risk be significant, the
Bower court is, indeed, requiring that plaintiffs meet a certain
threshold -- which does, in fact, require quantification of risk --
without concretely establishing what that threshold is in
quantifiable terms."
Goodwin says the plaintiff tried to use a federal appeals court
adoption of an Environmental Protection Agency one-in-a-million
standard in a 1995 ruling, even though he says the Third Circuit
itself was skeptical of that basis of standard in that ruling.
"I, too, am dubious of this standard and I am unwilling to assume
it has a rational basis," Goodwin wrote. "In nearly every other
context, a one-in-a-million risk is seen as a statistical anomaly,
not 'significant.'
"For instance, if a doctor tells a patient that he has a
one-in-a-million risk of severe complications from a surgery, that
risk is not cast as significant but rather the opposite. How, then
is a one-in-a-million increase in risk in contracting certain
cancers considered significant?
"Unlike the Third Circuit, I choose not to treat deference
principles as 'synonymous with a rubber stamp.' . . . However, I
also recognize that courts should not 'put themselves in the
business of assessing what constitutes an acceptable amount of
increased risk for actual or concrete injury.'"
He says when forcing parties to quantify such increased risk,
courts are forced to decide the acceptable amount of increased
risk.
"The result is often an arbitrary -- or, in this case, ambiguous --
threshold that undermines the concreteness of a plaintiff's alleged
injury," Goodwin wrote.
Finally, Goodwin addresses the ripeness of the case, saying it
stands at odds with the state's medical monitoring laws.
"The core of the ripeness doctrine is ensuring that the issues
before the court are definite and concrete, not contingent or
hypothetical," Goodwin wrote. "For a case to be ripe, the event
must be likely to occur with its effects felt in a concrete way.
The more speculative or unlikely the event, the less likely the
case is ripe for adjudication. . . .
"Where a plaintiff has alleged that a hypothetical number of people
may become injured at some time in the future to a hypothetical
degree and thus will incur hypothetical damages, I do not find that
case fit for adjudication. That is precisely what plaintiff claims
here. . . .
"Rather, this entire suit rests on the notion that a theoretical
level of exposure could place one at a higher risk to maybe develop
certain cancers at some uncertain point in the future."
In his conclusion, Goodwin says "medical monitoring involves
complex decisions requiring scientific and medical judgments" that
"should not be left to the courts."
He cited former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Spike Maynard's
dissent in the Bower case when he said the majority had "exceeded
its legitimate (judicial) powers and usurped the function of the
Legislature" because lawmakers have "the right to create new causes
of action for the recovery of money."
Goodwin also cited former state Supreme Court Justice Menis Ketchum
in his 2010 partial dissent in Perrine v. E.I du Pont de Nemours &
Co. when he said that before Bower, West Virginia law did not
provide a cause of action "for the mere possibility of future harm,
not yet realized."
"He (Ketchum) then warned that 'medical monitoring class action
lawsuits will continue to mount if plaintiffs who are not sick or
injured are allowed to pursue benefits for the mere possibility of
future harm' and called on the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals to modify its law," Goodwin wrote. "Specifically, he states
that plaintiffs should be required to 'prove a present physical
injury (or present disease) caused by the manufacturer or business'
so as to 'provide a clear standard as to when a plaintiff has a
meritorious cause of action,' thereby 'eliminating damages for a
mere possible future harm.' . . .
"I note that the concerns of Justice Maynard and Justice Ketchum
reflect state separation of powers and deal primarily with issues
of policy in state government. These same concerns, when applied to
federal courts, affect justifiability."
Goodwin also says he is concerned by the "malignant" belief that
courts are the solution to all problems recognized by unaddressed
by the other two branches of government.
"It is not the province of federal courts to usurp the power of the
other branches of government to solve social problems with
legislatively phrased directives disguised in judicial language,"
Goodwin wrote.
In his final footnote, Goodwin says he would have granted summary
judgment for the defendants if he had to proceed on the merits of
the action, adding the plaintiff failed to meet the first element
of the medical monitoring tort as outlined in Bower.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case
number 2:19-cv-00878 [GN]
UNITED SERVICES: Burton Sues Over Improper Insurance Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BURTON; and JACQUELINE BURTON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; and CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00774-CL (D. Or., May 9, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' improper scheme designed to systematically, wrongfully,
and arbitrarily deny first-party personal injury protection
insurance benefits.
The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in improper and unlawful conduct by employing a scheme
against Oregon insureds through the improper processing,
adjustment, and payment of PIP benefits. Instead of fulfilling its
duty to conduct an investigation into each bill for medical
expenses submitted by its Oregon insureds, the Defendants engages
in a multifaceted scheme whereby they improperly delegates its
insurance claims adjustment duties to CCC Intelligent Solutions
Inc., d/b/a Auto Injury Solutions ("AIS"), which uses its computer
program to arbitrarily and improperly reduce or deny PIP claims
using its Medical Bill Audit process, say the Plaintiffs.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION provides financial services.
The Company offers auto, life, flood, vehicle, business, health,
and condo, insurance services, as well as banking, investment, real
estate, retirement, financial planning, and mortgage services.
United Services Automobile Association serves clients worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
Email: calvord@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
cjordan@tousley.com
- and -
Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
Timothy L. Foster, Esq.
Brian Hanlin, Esq.
Margeaux R. Azar, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
UNITED STATES: Cheng Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHENG-WEN CHENG is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Sheng-Wen Cheng, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States of
America, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10536, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff Sheng-Wen Cheng, incarcerated and proceeding pro se,
brings this action against the United States alleging that the
inability of aliens with final orders of removal from applying time
credits earned under the First Step Act of 2018, violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
On June 8, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 22, 2023.
On Aug. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an appointment
of a pro bono counsel.
On Sept. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
On Mar. 26, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Vernon S. Broderick. The
Plaintiff's motions for a (1) preliminary injunction, (2) judgment
on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment, and (3)
appointment of counsel were denied.
The appellate case is captioned Cheng v. United States of America,
Case No. 24-1131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on April 29, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SHENG-WEN CHENG, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, appears pro se.
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:
Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
UNITED STATES: Neville Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. EEOC
--------------------------------------------------------
TINA NEVILLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Tina Neville, et al.,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Charlotte A. Burrows, in her official capacity as
Chair of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03246-RC, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action complaint against
Defendant Charlotte A. Burrows, in her official capacity as Chair
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The
Plaintiffs contend that the EEOC has failed to enforce, or refer
for enforcement, judgments that were entered in their favor against
the United States Air Force and National Guard Bureau. Thus, they
seek to compel the EEOC to refer their matters to either the United
States Attorney General or the United States Office of Special
Counsel for enforcement through a civil action. The Plaintiffs
initially ground their claims in the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), alternatively seeking a writ from the court.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
On Jan. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
supplemental memorandum.
On Feb. 13, 2024, Judge Rudolph Contreras. granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file supplemental memorandum.
The Court said it sees no possible source in this regulation for a
duty to refer the Plaintiffs' cases. Therefore, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss was granted.
The appellate case is captioned Tina Neville, et al v. Charlotte
Burrows, Case No. 24-5103, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on April 23, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TINA NEVILLE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D.J. EISENBERG
700 12th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 558-6371
Defendant-Appellee CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, in her official capacity
as Chair of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, is represented by:
Jane M. Lyons, Esq.
U.S. Attorney's Office
601 D. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2500
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: Files Appeal in Lyvers Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, et al., filed an appeal on March 20,
2024, in the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The appellate case is captioned UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE et. al. V.
KELSEY LYVERS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Case No. 2024-CA-0346.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was
removed from the Franklin Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky,
to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Kentucky on Feb.
3, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00006-GFVT to
the proceeding.
The case alleges education civil rights violations.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, et. al., are
represented by:
Alina Klimkina, Esq.
Donna King Perry, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP - Louisville
101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 540-2337
Fax: (502) 585-2207
Email: Alina.Klimkina@dinsmore.com
donna.perry@dinsmore.com
Plaintiff-Appellee KELSEY LYVERS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq.
THE WINTERS LAW GROUP LLC
432 S. Broadway, Suite 2B
Lexington, KY 40508
Phone: (859) 619-2134
Email: jwinters@gettylawgroup.com
US EXPRESS: Ballinger Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BRUCE BALLINGER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US EXPRESS
CARRIERS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CVRI2302357, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Californa to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00864-JCM-EJY to
the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James C.
Mahan, and referred to Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah.
US EXPRESS CARRIERS, LLC is engaged in the trucking business. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
- and -
James A. Eckhart, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
Email: jeckhart@scopelitis.com
USA WASTE: Diridoni Suit Moved to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JUSTIN DIRIDONI, individually and
on behalf of behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24CV002366, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on May 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00574 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Dale A Drozd and
referred to Magistrate Allison Claire.
USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. was founded in 1994. The Company's
line of business includes the collection and disposal of refuse
systems. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David J. Dow, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
Email: ddow@littler.com
VATICAN: Faces Class Action Over Working Conditions
---------------------------------------------------
Jo Lawson-Tancred, writing for ArtNet, reports that a group of 49
staffers at the Vatican Museums have initiated legal proceedings
over allegedly poor labor conditions that "harm the dignity and
health of each worker." These include lower pay for hours worked
overtime, limited opportunities for career progression, and
insufficient safety provisions for both employees and visitors.
Filed on April 23 but only made public on Sunday, May 12, this is
the first class action lawsuit of its kind in the Holy See, which
does not permit unions.
In compliance with Vatican law, the plaintiffs have first filed a
petition with its administrative body, known as the Governatorate.
This is the first step in a mandatory conciliation process that
gives Cardinal Fernando Vergez Alzaga, president of the
Governatorate, 30 days to respond before the complaint goes to the
Vatican's labor office for further attempts at reconciliation that
could result in a tribunal. Within this uniquely archaic system,
however, if the Vatican's labor office refuses to hear the case
then the employees will have no further recourse, according to the
Independent.
The workers, who are all Italian and have been employed by the
Vatican Museums for many years, have tried other measures to make
their grievances heard, according to their lawyer Laura Sgro. She
described the decision to initiate legal action as "quite extreme,"
to the Guardian.
Among the allegations listed on the petition is the lack of a
furlough scheme, meaning that employees were made to give back the
pay that they received while unable to work during lockdown in
2020, as detailed in Il Corriere della Sera. This meant that, from
October 2021, a portion of their normal salary was withdrawn until
the debt was repaid.
Some employees reported facing disciplinary action after visiting
their own doctor while claiming sick leave and failing to be at
home during a mandatory check by the official Vatican doctor.
Others said that they worried they would be penalized for taking
time off to look after family members in what they believe is a
discriminatory and opaque approach to promoting workers into more
senior positions.
There are also safety concerns over the frequent overcrowding of
the Vatican Museums, one of the world's top tourist destinations,
which drew over 5 million visitors in 2022 and nearly 7 million in
2019. Specifically, the employees claimed that "between 25,000 and
30,000 people pass through the Vatican Museums daily, despite the
maximum entry limit being 24,000 per day."
Finally, the employees noted the risks associated with such large
crowds and a lack of air conditioning in the summer months, both
for staff, visitors, and exhibits. The plaintiffs say these and a
longer list of complaints have left them feeling like commodities.
The Vatican and Vatican Museums did not respond to a request for
comment. [GN]
WALMART INC: Johnson, Non-Party File Motion to Quash in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Edwin Johnson and Non-Party Vanessa Twyman request the
Court to enter an order quashing, or in the alternative modifying,
the deposition subpoena served on Non-Party Vanessa Twyman on April
11, 2024, in the lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE RAMOS and EDWIN
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, VANESSA TWYMAN, Non-Party, v. WALMART INC.,
Case No. 2:24-mc-00026 (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2024).
The nature of the suit is stated as Civil - Miscellaneous.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 866-1551
Email: daaron@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
Christopher McNerney, Esq.
Jarron McAllister, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Email: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
jmcallister@outtengolden.com
- and -
Pooja Shethji, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
1225 New York Ave., Suite 1200B
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 847-4400
Email: pshethji@outtengolden.com
WALMART INC: Shugars Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CRYSTAL SHUGARS, in her capacity as Private
Attorneys General Representative, and NICCOLE LE'ROY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC. d/b/a
SPARK DRIVER f/k/a DELIVERY DRIVERS, INC., Case No. 24CV432278, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 8, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-02765 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings claims for the Defendant's alleged violations
of California's Labor Code including failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages for all hours worked, reimburse business expenses,
and furnish itemized wage statements.
Walmart Inc., doing business as Spark Driver, formerly known as
Delivery Drivers, Inc., is an American multinational retail
corporation headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott Voelz, Esq.
Paul A. Holton, Esq.
Allison Bader, Esq.
Jamie Butts, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
Email: svoelz@omm.com
pholton@omm.com
abader@omm.com
jbutts@omm.com
WELCH FOODS: Fruit Snacks' No Preservatives Ads "False," Small Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GUAN SMALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03547 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the New York General
Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Fruit Snack
products. The Defendant markets the products to have "No
Preservatives," but they contain citric acid and ascorbic, two
chemical preservatives commonly used in food products. Had the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the "No
Preservatives" representation was false and misleading, they would
not have purchased the products, or, at the very least, would have
only been willing to purchase them at a lesser price, says the
suit.
Welch Foods Inc. is a food manufacturer with its principal place of
business located in Concord, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec Leslie, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Israel Rosenberg, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
irosenberg@bursor.com
WELLS FARGO: Realscape Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REALSCAPE GROUP LLC DBA REALOGIC SOLUTIONS, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO EQUIPMENT
FINANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00808 (N.D. Ohio, May 7,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory
judgment/injunctive relief, defamation, and false light invasion of
privacy.
The case arises from the Defendant's insistence on the payment of a
debt for products that were never delivered. In addition, the
Defendant has published and continues to publish statements
regarding the Plaintiff's credit worthiness incorrectly reporting
that it is delinquent in paying its financial commitments. As a
result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff has suffered
damages.
Realscape Group LLC, doing business as Realogic Solutions, is an
information technology consulting company based in Ohio.
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. is a financing provider based
in Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq.
Marita I. Ramirez, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
WEST COAST DENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zabiba Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ALAA ZABIBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEST COAST DENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV11267 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 6, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Zabiba was employed by the Defendants as a dental
assistant.
WEST COAST DENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC is engaged as
operator of dental care centers throughout the greater Los Angeles
area. The company offers cosmetic dentistry, custom dentures,
dental bridges and dental implants, enabling clients with a
people-friendly approach. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Amy Nshanyan, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
amy@hbklawyers.com
WESTWAYS STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wy Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAB PACLEB WY; and JOSIE ANNE LADUA LEYSA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTWAYS
STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; and UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case 8:24-cv-00980 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nurses.
WESTWAYS STAFFING SERVICES, INC. was founded in 1996. The company's
line of business includes providing help supply and personnel
supply services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
Michelle M. West, Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Email: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
mwest@robinsonfirm.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
walsh@stuevesiegel.com
WHITESTONE HOME: Lewis Sues Over Fake Comparison Reference Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REECE LEWIS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a/
Saatva, Case No. 2:24-cv-03788 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2024) sues the
Defendant for its false and deceptive pricing practices in
connection with its sale of mattresses, bedding and furniture on
its website https://www.saatva.com/.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant advertises fake and
inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a
false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain
price. For example, anyone visiting the Website on a given day
during a "15% off" sale who buys a mattress "on sale" for $1,781
based on a crossed-out reference price of $2,095 is being misled.
This is deception because that mattress has rarely, if ever, been
sold in the recent past on the Website for $2,095.
The Defendant exacerbates this deception by continuously
advertising that its purported sale are limited in time with
imminent expiration dates, where in reality the same or
substantially similar "sales" are offered continuously or almost
continuously.
That is, the Defendant engages in this deceptive advertising and
pricing scheme to give customers the false impression that they are
getting a deal or bargain when in reality they are being swindled
by fake sales and promotions. As a result, customers are deceived
into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing
items they otherwise would not have purchased, and/or spending more
money for an item than they otherwise would have absent the
deceptive marketing, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks to put an immediate end to the Defendant's
untruthful marketing practices and recover restitution and damages
on behalf of all persons who have fallen victim to the Defendant's
sham sales by purchasing products on the Defendant's Website from
May 2020 to present.
Plaintiff Reece Lewis is a citizen of the State of California and
resident of the County of Los Angeles.
Saatva is an American privately held e-commerce company that
specializes in luxury mattresses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Wolf, Esq.
Lauren VanDenburg, Esq.
TURNER HENNINGSEN WOLF & VANDENBURG, LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (323) 653-3900
Facsimile: (323) 653-3021
E-mail: mwolf@thwvlaw.com
lvandenburg@thwvlaw.com
WINCO FOODS: Deadline to File Claim for Surcharge Suit Set July 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jashayla Pettigrew, writing for koin.com, reports that If you're a
frequent WinCo Foods customer in Portland, a $200 check could be
headed your way.
As first reported by The Oregonian/OregonLive, July 9 is the
deadline to file a claim against the company if you paid a
surcharge for non-grocery items between June 2019 and May 8, 2022.
Earlier this year, WinCo reached a settlement after plaintiffs
accused the company of charging customers an additional 1% tax
instead of funding Portland's Clean Energy Surcharge itself.
Providence launches capital campaign for $177-million expansion of
Portland facilities
According to the class action administrators at CPT Group, the
grocer denied violating the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act --
but still agreed to the proposed $3.36 million settlement.
Those who file a claim online or by mail could receive up to $200.
However, an Oregon judge must approve the settlement at a hearing
later in August. [GN]
WORKDAY INC: Urges Judge to Toss Bias Class Action Over AI Hiring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that a federal judge in San
Francisco seemed inclined to rule that Workday must face a novel
proposed class action claiming that artificial intelligence
software the company uses to screen out job applicants for other
employers is discriminatory.
U.S. District Judge Rita Lin held an hour-long hearing on Workday's
motion to dismiss the 2023 lawsuit by Derek Mobley, who claimed he
was passed over for more than 100 jobs at companies that contract
with Workday to recommend candidates for job interviews.
The case is the first of its kind and could set important precedent
on the legal implications of using AI to automate hiring and other
employment functions, which most large companies are now doing.
The lawsuit claims Workday uses data on a company's existing
workforce to "train" its AI software to screen for the best
applicants without accounting for the existing discrimination that
it may reflect. Mobley, who is Black, over 40 and has anxiety and
depression, accused Workday of race, age and disability
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and other federal laws.
Workday says it is not covered by those laws because it was not
Mobley's prospective employer and is not an "employment agency"
that can be held liable for discrimination since it does not make
hiring decisions for its customers.
Lin on Tuesday, May 14, did not say how she would rule, but had far
more skeptical questions for Workday's lawyer, Erin Connell, than
for Lee Winston, who represents Mobley.
The judge said she was concerned that shielding software vendors
from Title VII would leave victims of discrimination with no legal
recourse.
"What troubles me about Workday's interpretation is the concept
that the employer would not be liable for intentional
discrimination unless they knew that the software was (biased),"
said Lin, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden.
Lin noted that courts have long favored a broad application of
Title VII in order to carry out the law's purpose of eradicating
discrimination. That includes applying the law to entities that can
affect a worker's access to job opportunities, she said.
Connell argued throughout the hearing that Title VII and other laws
hold employers liable for discrimination when it is caused by a
contractor or other third party. But no court has extended that to
a third-party business with no control over hiring decisions, she
said.
"We're simply saying that as a software vendor, we're not covered
by these laws," Connell said.
Winston, Mobley's lawyer, told Lin that Workday was seeking to
carve out an exemption from Title VII for software providers that
does not exist in the law.
"The only exemption is for religious organizations, and AI is not a
church that entitles [Workday] to an exemption," Winston said.
Lin did not indicate when she would rule on Workday's motion.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces
Title VII, filed a brief last month urging Lin to let the case
proceed. The agency said that Title VII can be applied to Workday
because its software decides whether applicants will be considered
for a job at all.
The case is Mobley v. Workday Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-00770.
For Mobley: Lee Winston and Roderick Cooks of Winston Cooks
For Workday: Julie Totten and Erin Connell of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 50 Toxic-Tort Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
March 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "There remained approximately 50 pending
asbestos claims as of March 31, 2024. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related
claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually
receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance
carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims
are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate
settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of
both March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, BNS Sub has accrued
$1,385 and $1,357 respectively, relating to the open and active
claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid
retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance
carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by
insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims
and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its
estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an
amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated
financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTqqaG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 400 New Personal Injury Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown
Holdings, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number
of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
During the three months ended March 31, 2024, the Company receives
400 new claims.
Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork
in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in
the Company's estimated liability as of March 31, 2024.
As of March 31, 2024, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $201, including
$145 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual
without limitation to a specific time period.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RAmg9n
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $417MM Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$417 million at March 31, 2024, and $423 million at December 31,
2023. These reserves are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based on
Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future
asbestos claims through 2043 and are recorded on an undiscounted
basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term
forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate
the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2043
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.
Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $572 million at March 31, 2024, and December 31,
2023. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent
Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy
limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. Duke
Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the
legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas
believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as
the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength
rating.
The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $9
million as of March 31, 2024, and December 31, 2023, for both Duke
Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas. The insurance receivable is
evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses,
current conditions and expected conditions around collectability.
Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment
history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from
credit agencies.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5VmQMT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 250 New Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for the three months ended
March 31, 2024, has reported 250 new claims alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged
exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date,
we have disposed of approximately 160,100 claims by defending,
obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The
sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to
date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $584 million through March 31, 2024 and $580 million
through December 31, 2023."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YU8kwL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Eagle Sues U.S. Law Firm Over Hundreds of Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas, writing for Reuters.com, reports that plastic pipe
maker JM Eagle has sued a U.S. law firm that filed hundreds of
asbestos personal injury cases against it, marking the latest
counterstrike by a defendant against the asbestos plaintiffs bar.
JM Eagle's lawsuit, filed in a Chicago Federal Court under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleged that
law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy suppressed evidence, used perjured or
falsified testimony and statements, and committed fraud in the
course of recovering billions of dollars from asbestos defendants
in thousands of cases.
"These untrue statements have caused J-M Manufacturing to incur
vast sums of litigation fees and expenses defending against claims
brought by the firm," the lawsuit said. JM Eagle, which calls
itself the world's largest plastic and PVC pipe manufacturer, was
previously known as J-M Manufacturing.
Simmons Hanly is based in Alton, Illinois, and specializes in
asbestos-related mesothelioma claims. The firm's managing partner,
Laurence Nassif, said in a statement that JM Eagle's claims are
"baseless" and that the company is trying to avoid "accountability
for its dangerous practices and the harm it has caused innocent
people."
Ashwin Ram, a partner at Steptoe who is representing JM Eagle, said
in a statement his client has "taken the first step to hold Simmons
Hanly accountable for the misconduct that it has uncovered."
Simmons Hanly has filed more than 430 cases against JM Eagle since
2001, according to the lawsuit. JM Eagle said it has settled more
than 75 of the cases, but would have reduced the settlement amounts
or not paid if it knew some of those lawsuits contained "falsehoods
peddled by Simmons Hanly."
In what JM Eagle described as a "a quintessential RICO enterprise,"
Simmons Hanly allegedly orchestrated sham claims based on "often
fabricated" evidence of asbestos injury from discontinued products,
including cement pipe made by JM Eagle before a switch to plastic
piping.
JM Eagle noted that it is not the first company to level fraud or
racketeering claims against asbestos personal injury law firms,
citing prior cases involving defendants CSX Transportation, Garlock
Sealing Technologies and John Crane Inc.
Gasket maker Garlock, for example, sued four law firms in 2014,
alleging that plaintiffs' lawyers concealed evidence and induced
clients to commit perjury to drive up asbestos-related settlements
and garner bigger fees. Garlock ultimately settled with those law
firms.
JM Eagle is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. In addition
to its federal racketeering claim, its lawsuit alleges unjust
enrichment, fraud and civil conspiracy.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 783 New Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
As reported in the 2023 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company received approximately 2,565 asbestos-related claims in
2023. For the three months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 783 and
587 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. See Note 19 of the
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2023
Annual Report for historical information concerning asbestos claims
and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's update in its recorded
liability at December 31, 2023. The number of asbestos cases that
may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount
paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zfQjve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 110 Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state
courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "All but one of these cases involve legacy
talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the
Company since 1999. One of the pending actions involves a current
prescription product that contains talc as an excipient. As of
March 30, 2024, the Company has been named in approximately 110
individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The
Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend
these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled
throughout 2024 and 2025."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DiXUGi
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer Inc. and certain
of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L3SZg9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Defends Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Rexnord Industries, is a
defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with over 350 claimants)
are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Rexnord PMC business' Stearns brand of brakes and clutches
and/or its predecessor owners."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IenfVJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., including its subsidiaries, has been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all
cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our
products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed
from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The
uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to
predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That
uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or
new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our
experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations.
"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In
connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims, and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances,
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so. We do not believe
these liabilities will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition, or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=biE7jp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Reports 505 Claims Outstanding
------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has 505 claims outstanding as of March 31, 2024,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
In virtually all of the cases against us, the plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages above a jurisdictional minimum against
multiple defendants who may have manufactured, sold or used
asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiffs were allegedly
exposed and from which they purportedly suffered injury. Most of
these cases are being litigated in Maryland, Illinois, Missouri and
New York; however, we are also defending cases in other states. We
continue to vigorously defend these cases, primarily on the basis
of the plaintiffs' inability to establish compensable loss as a
result of exposure to our products. The indemnity and defense costs
of our asbestos-related product liability litigation to date have
been substantially covered by insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2IULfO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Receives 28,000 Claims as of April 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part of the
merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were defendants in
personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the
U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of April 30, 2024, no lawsuits are pending.
Additionally, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed, but
not discharged, in advance of a December 2015 deadline to file a
proof of claim in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of
persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances
and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. The costs
to defend or resolve such claims and the amount of damages that may
be incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s
results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or
prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X9heBi
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WAG Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
A wholly-owned subsidiary of the CarParts.com, Inc., Automotive
Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named
defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused
by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's
that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Etp9Nl
*********
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 ***