/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240528.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 28, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 107
Headlines
ADENA HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 17, 2025
AIKO IMPORTERS: Nimo Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN HOLDING: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit
APPLE INC: Class Action Settlement in Barrett Gets Initial Nod
ARBOR GREEN: Bid for Conditional Cert in Holden Amended to Sept. 27
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Show Cause Required to Continue Jamison Suit
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Court Finds Bid Certify Class Moot
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Settlement in Jevons Suit Gets Final Nod
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Bid Requiring to Produce Corporate Rep Nixed
CIGNA CORP: Court Denies Amara's Bid for Accounting or Discovery
COMMUNITY LIVING: Piddock Bid for Court-Facilitated Notice Tossed
COMPLETE BUSINESS: SEC Seeks Approval of $6.75MM Attorneys' Fund
CONVERSE INC: Gutierrez Seeks to Certify Class
CROCS INC: Redacted Order on Discovery Letter Briefs Entered
CVS HEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Allison Shareholder Class Suit
DI GIORGIO: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suits
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Hwang Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Kerr Sues Over Unprotected Systems
FIRST BOOK EQUITY: Weber Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 29
GENERAL MOTORS: Haiden Sues Over Disgorgement of Profits
HARRIS & HARRIS: Discovery Stayed in Church Lawsuit
HEALTH CAREER: Amended Response to Renewed Class Cert Bid Timely
HEIDI E. WASHINGTON: Williams Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Baque Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
HORIZON HOSPITALITY: Chism Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
IMPERIAL HEALTH: Katz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
INCOMM FINANCIAL: Bid for Summary Judgment Continued to June 17
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Collins Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Marquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHN WOOD: Court Resets Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Janssen Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suit in NJ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NJ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Actelion Class Suit Pending
KADIANT LLC: Johnson Suit Removed to E.D. California
KEVIN IAN KANE: Exum Sues Over Illegally Coerced Rent
KIMPTON HOTEL: Latourette Suit Removed to N.D. California
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Sued for Depriving Insured Their Rights
LOANCARE LLC: Manar Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
MARYLAND: Connor Sues Over Poor Quality Care in Nursing Facilities
MAZDA MOTOR: Clare Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
META PLATFORMS: Nichols Suit Removed to N.D. California
NUTRIEN AG: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Saal Class Suit
ON Q FINANCIAL: Eitemiller Files Suit in D. Arizona
PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Carter Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
PEOPLES BANK: Skees Suit Removed to E.D. California
PETMED EXPRESS: Fitchett Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Golden Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PIO PIO: Court Tosses as Moot Oband Bid to Certify Class
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Ictech-Bendeck Suit Seeks to Certify Class
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits
QUALCOMM INC: Trial on Consolidated Securities Suit Set for Oct. 28
RB ROYAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bohnert Extended to July 26
RDI CORPORATION: Breslin Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
REWORLD DADE: Parties Seek Continuance of All Class Cert Deadlines
RICE DRILLING: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
SAFE AUTO TRUCKING: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Martin Suit Removed to E.D. California
SAINT GOBAIN: Lampton Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Labor Code-Related Suit in Calif.
SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez Class Suit
SCHENKER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wickam Suit Reset to Oct. 10
SCHENKER INC: Parties Seek to Reset Class Cert Hearing Date
SCORPION SERVICES: Enriquez Sues Over Failure to Pay for All Wages
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 25
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Certeza Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
STATE FARM: Parties Must File Finding of Fact by July 5
STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California
STATEWIDE TRAFFIC: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California
TECO ENERGY: Roche Seeks to Certify Grandfathered Participant Class
THOMPSON MICHIE: Cantu Suit Removed to D. Nevada
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Degioanni Sues Over Falsely Advertised Products
TOYOTA MOTOR: Greif Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRADITIONAL EQUITATION: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages
TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Budde Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRINITY BROADCASTING: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Ambridge Area School Suit
TWO JINN: Parties in Medina Seek to Reset Class Cert. Deadlines
UNITED CONCORDIA: Lyngaas TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
UNITED SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Wright Suit
UNITED STATES: Beltran Class Certification Bid Nixed
US 1 LOGISTICS: Albizures Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
US HEALTHWORKS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing
US IMMIGRATION: Mugimu Bid for Class Status Tossed w/o Prejudice
VALVE CORP: Ct. Sets Deadline for Parties to File Bids to Seal Docs
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Ahringer Class Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Cantinieri Class Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Telematics Class Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: ERISA Class Suit Settlement for Fiduciary Review
VIRGINIA UNION UNIVERSITY: Mgaresh Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settlement in Rieger Gets Final OK
WAGS AND WALKS: Roseman Sues Over Unpaid Statutory Minimum Wage
WALGREEN CO: Dorschel Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALGREEN CO: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Compel Limited Deposition Tossed
WHALECO INC: Silva Files Suit in N.D. California
ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
*********
ADENA HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 17, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN JARRELL, v. ADENA
HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 2:24-cv-00282-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Chelsey Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as
follows:
-- Amendments to Pleadings and/or Joinder of Oct. 18, 2024
Parties Motions or stipulations addressing
the parties or pleadings, if any, must be
filed no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class April 17,
2025
Certification shall be filed on or before:
-- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Class Expert(s) Nov. 15, 2024
shall be by:
-- Plaintiff's Class Expert(s) Report(s) shall Dec. 13, 2024
be produced by:
-- Disclosure of Defendant's Class Expert(s) Jan. 15, 2025
shall be by:
-- Defendant's Class Expert(s) Report(s) Feb. 14, 2025
shall be produced by:
-- Class Expert depositions shall be March 14,
2025
completed by:
-- Disclosure of merits experts shall May 16, 2025
be by:
-- Disclosure of rebuttal merits experts June 27, 2025
shall be by:
-- Merits expert reports shall be produced July 17, 2025
by:
-- Rebuttal merits expert reports shall Aug. 28, 2025
be produced by:
-- All discovery shall be completed by: Sept. 19,
2025
-- Case dispositive motions must be filed by: Oct. 17, 2025
The Plaintiff brings a putative a class action that involves
Defendant’s alleged use of the Facebook Meta Pixel and/or other
tracking tools on its website, and alleged disclosures of PHI
thereby.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant installed tracking technologies on
its website that collected and disclosed sensitive health
information to third parties such as Facebook and Google without
Plaintiff's or other patients' authorization or consent.
On that basis, the Plaintiff asserts the following seven counts and
demands a jury: (1) Breach of Confidence, (2) Violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (3) Civil Liability for
Criminal Actions under Ohio Revised Code, (4) Invasion of Privacy,
(5) Unjust Enrichment, (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (7)
Negligence.
Adena is an independent, not-for-profit and locally governed health
organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RoNtiE at no extra
charge.[CC]
AIKO IMPORTERS: Nimo Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Nimo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AIKO IMPORTERS, INC., a corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08261 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 14, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-04000.
The Complaint asserts causes of action against Defendant for
alleged violations of: California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), California Business & Professions Code (the False
Advertising Law ("FAL")); California Business and Professions Code
(the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")); breach of express warranty;
breach of implied warranty; and intentional misrepresentation.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
William P. Cole, Esq.
Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
Richard L. Hyde, Esq.
AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP
515 South Flower St., 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 933-2330
Fax: (312) 884-7352
Email: wcole@awglaw.com
morr@awglaw.com
rhyde@awglaw.com
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN HOLDING: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein Holding LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from ERISA class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On December 14, 2022, four individual participants in the Profit
Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein L.P., (the "Plan")
filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
against AB, current and former members of the Compensation and
Workplace Practices Committee of the Board, and the Investment and
Administrative Committees under the Plan.
Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of all participants in
the Plan from December 14, 2016 to the present, allege that
defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged in
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), by including
proprietary collective investment trusts as investment options
offered under the Plan.
The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and other
equitable relief.
On March 25, 2024, the Court granted AB's motion to dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiffs were given 30 days to file a motion for leave to amend
their Complaint or appeal the Court's decision.
To date, the Company have not received notice of any subsequent
Court filings made by the Plaintiffs.
While the ultimate outcome of this matter is currently not
determinable, the Company doesn't believe this litigation will have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or liquidity.
AllianceBernstein L.P. operates as an investment management
company. The Company offers stock portfolios, bonds, asset
allocation, proprietary trading, retirement planning, investment
banking, and wealth management services. AllianceBernstein serves
customers in the State of New York.
APPLE INC: Class Action Settlement in Barrett Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BARRETT, et al., v.
APPLE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement; certifying
settlement class; and approving form and content of class notice.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Settlement
Class is preliminarily certified for the purpose of settlement
only:
"All persons who purchased an Apple App Store & iTunes gift
card
(an "Eligible Gift Card") in the United States and its
territories from Jan. 1, 2015 to July 31, 2020, provided the
redemption code of such Eligible Gift Card to a third party
unknown to them who sought the code under false pretenses,
and
did not receive a full refund or other form of compensation
for
their complete losses from Apple or any third party."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, and employees;
any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest;
all
employees of any law firm involved in prosecuting or
defending
this litigation, as well as their immediate family members;
and
all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as
well as their staff and immediate family members.
Also excluded from the Class are Settlement Class Members who
timely and validly request exclusion.
If the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved by this Court,
or if such final approval is reversed or materially modified on
appeal by any court, this Order (including but not limited to the
certification of the class) shall be vacated, null and void, and of
no force or effect, and Plaintiffs and Apple shall be entitled to
make any argument for or against certification for litigation
purposes.
The Court appoints KCC Class Action Services, LLC (“KCC”) to
serve as the Settlement Administrator.
All reasonable costs of notice and costs of administering the
Settlement shall be paid by Apple from the Settlement Amount as
contemplated by paragraph 6.5 of the Settlement Agreement. No later
than June 15, 2024, Defendants shall make a payment of $977,500.00
from the Settlement Amount to the Settlement Administrator.
The Final Approval Hearing shall be held by the Court on Dec. 12,
2024, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3PkXc at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARBOR GREEN: Bid for Conditional Cert in Holden Amended to Sept. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holden, Chris et al v.
Arbor Green, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00461 (W.D. Wisc., Filed
July 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order
granting the parties' motion to amend the scheduling order with
slight modifications.
-- Amendments to the pleadings and initial June 21, 2024
disclosures:
-- Motion for conditional certification: Sept. 27, 2024
-- Liability experts:
Proponent: Nov. 8, 2024
Respondent: Jan. 31, 2025
-- Class certification and FLSA May 22, 2025
decertification:
Response: June 18, 2025
Replies: July 2, 2025
Summary Judgment: Oct. 24, 2025
-- Damages Experts:
Proponent: Dec. 19, 2025
Respondent: Jan. 23, 2026
-- Settlement letters: March 13, 2026
-- Discovery cutoff: March 13, 2026
-- Rule 26 disclosures & motions in limine: March 20, 2026
Responses: April 3, 2026
-- First final pretrial conference: April 14, 2026
-- Second final pretrial conference: April 21, 2026
-- Trial: April 27, 2026
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Arbor is a construction company, specializing in landscaping,
fences and gates.[CC]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Show Cause Required to Continue Jamison Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INFINIQUE JAMISON, v.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00920-RF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order directing the
Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the scheduling
order.
Within seven days from the date of this order, Plaintiff's counsel
shall respond in writing explaining the reasons for noncompliance,
providing an update on the status of the litigation, and stating
whether Plaintiff seeks to prosecute her claims on an individual
basis.
Failure to file a timely and satisfactory response will result in
dismissal without further notice.
Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails,
and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JC6L9z at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Court Finds Bid Certify Class Moot
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Taylor General
Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00024 (E.D. Tenn., Filed Feb. 1, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Charles E. Atchley, Jr. entered an order finding as moot motion to
certify class.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Astec is a manufacturer of specialized equipment for asphalt road
building, aggregate processing and concrete production.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR
VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter a
scheduling order as to class certification briefing as follows:
Event Original Date New Date
Motion for class certification VACATED Oct. 15, 2024
and service of supporting expert
reports
Opposition to class certification VACATED Jan. 27, 2025
and service of supporting expert
reports
Reply in support of class VACATED March 20, 2025
certification motion and service
of rebuttal expert reports
Hearing on motion for class VACATED To be set by
the
Certification Court
Bank of America is a financial institution, serving individuals,
small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WfAU3F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
Shana Khader, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Wesley M. Griffith, Esq.
Cort Carlson, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
gchappell@tzlegal.com
skhader@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
wgriffith@tzlegal.com
ccarlson@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Mckeen, Esq.
Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
William K. Pao, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
apavel@omm.com
wpao@omm.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Settlement in Jevons Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. 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 United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the
Jevons class suit proposed settlement during the April 23, 2024
hearing.
On December 4, 2020, Enrique Jevons, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, Michael F. Mahoney and Daniel J. Brennan,
stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System (LOTUS System) in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.
On December 14, 2020, the parties agreed to transfer the case to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On December 16, 2020, Mariano Errichiello, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second, materially
similar class action complaint against the Company, Michael F.
Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J. Brennan in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Subsequently, on March 30, 2021, the Court consolidated the two
actions, and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG as the
lead plaintiff.
The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in June 2021 that seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the alleged class as
well as unspecified equitable relief.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in July 2021, which, in
December 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part.
On October 23, 2023, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the lead plaintiff to settle the case.
The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement on December 27, 2023, and approved the
settlement at a hearing on April 23, 2024.
Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm
and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties.
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly Network 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 Rose class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Rose
v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The claims are against the Company and certain of its directors and
previous management as well as Longview and member of its then
board of directors, alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business
Combination business and financial prospects.
The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 12, 2021
and November 15, 2021, persons who exchanged Longview shares for
the Company's common stock, and persons who purchased Longview
stock pursuant, or traceable to, the Proxy/Registration Statement
filed with the SEC on November 27, 2020 or any amendment thereto.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Butterfly Network is a blank check company formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination
with one or more businesses.
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Bid Requiring to Produce Corporate Rep Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spectrum Scientifics, LLC
et al v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC et al. (RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia Demarchi entered an order denying the defendants' request
for an order requiring Orion to produce a corporate representative
to testify regarding the topics in defendants' Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice, without prejudice; defendants may serve an
amended notice.
The Court also entered an order denying the defendants' request for
an order requiring Orion to produce its individual employees for
deposition at this time.
The Court concludes that while some deposition testimony from Orion
and/or its employees may be warranted, defendants have not
adequately articulated what testimony they need or why they need
it, and their Rule 30(b)(6) notice is not reasonably limited to
topics that are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
This order is without prejudice to defendants serving an amended
notice on Orion that describes relevant topics with reasonable
particularity or seeking the depositions of Orion employees,
provided defendants can
articulate an adequate justification for taking such depositions.
The case is a private antitrust class action brought by plaintiffs
representing a proposed class of retailers, distributors, and
individual enthusiasts who directly purchased telescopes ("direct
purchaser plaintiffs" or "DPPs") manufactured or sold by defendants
between 2005 and the time of class notice.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qiHffU at no extra
charge.[CC]
CIGNA CORP: Court Denies Amara's Bid for Accounting or Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarala V. Nagala of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut denies the Plaintiffs' motion for accounting or
post-judgment discovery and motion to strike in the lawsuit styled
JANICE C. AMARA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CIGNA CORPORATION and CIGNA PENSION PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:01-cv-02361-SVN (D. Conn.).
In this long-pending class action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), two motions are currently
before the Court. First, the Plaintiffs have moved for an
accounting or post-judgment discovery, based on their contention
that the Defendants (collectively, "Cigna") have improperly
calculated award payments due to class members, in violation of
previous Court orders. Second, in response to the Defendants'
sur-reply opposing the Plaintiffs' motion for accounting, the
Plaintiffs moved to strike various portions of the Defendants'
sur-reply brief and its supporting declaration.
Judge Nagala notes that the case has a lengthy and complex history,
which has been set forth in numerous prior rulings in this case and
with which the parties' familiarity is presumed. The Court, thus,
provides only the background necessary to explain its decision on
the present motions.
In 2001, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated brought this
action, claiming that Cigna had violated ERISA in its switch from a
defined benefit pension plan ("Part A") to a cash balance plan
("Part B"). After a bench trial, Judge Mark R. Kravitz found in
favor of the Plaintiffs and held that, though the switch to Part B
was ultimately proper, it was not accompanied by appropriate
disclosures regarding the impact of the change to Part B (Amara v.
Cigna Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008)).
To address these violations, Judge Kravitz crafted a remedy, which
reformed the Cigna plan to provide class members "all accrued Part
A benefits in the form those benefits were available under Part A,
plus all accrued Part B benefits in the form those benefits were
available under Part B" ("A+B relief" or "Amara benefit").
Following a Supreme Court decision regarding which ERISA provision
could properly authorize such an award, see CIGNA Corp. v. Amara,
563 U.S. 421 (2011), Judge Janet B. Arterton found that the
reformation of the Plan to afford A+B relief previously awarded by
Judge Kravitz was authorized under the ERISA provision identified
by the Supreme Court, and was the appropriate remedy for Cigna's
violations of ERISA.
After A+B relief was affirmed by the Second Circuit, the project of
implementing this relief began. This project was, to say the least,
not a simple one, and itself spawned several more years of
litigation. In short, a methodology had to be adopted that would
allow Cigna to measure the Part A piece of the A+B relief that
class members were owed. This was complex in part because the
benefits class members accrued under Part A prior to the Plan
transition in 1998 had been rolled over as a lump sum to form the
opening cash balance (the "Initial Retirement Account") of the Part
B accounts.
After years of accumulating interest and benefit credits in the
Part B account, the piece of the Part B account that appropriately
represented the Part A benefit was difficult to ascertain. And,
while the Part A plan had to be taken in the form of an annuity
(and thus, the Amara benefit would be in the form of an annuity),
the Part B plan provided for payment in the form of either a lump
sum or an annuity. Furthermore, Cigna was entitled to credit itself
for the Part A benefits it provided to class members under Part B
through the Initial Retirement Accounts (the "offset").
Thus, in order to calculate A+B relief, a complex methodology was
adopted, across a series of rulings by Judge Arterton, to determine
the value of the Part A annuity--essentially by working backward
from the Part B benefits.
Of particular relevance to the motions before the Court, one aspect
of the methodology that was challenged and decided (in 2017) was
the use of "floor rates" in the calculation of the A+B remedy. By
way of background, Cigna's Part B Plan provides that an annuity
paid under Part B will be calculated using the "Applicable Interest
Rate," which is defined as the annual rate of interest on 30-year
Treasury securities, for November of the year before benefits are
commenced, unless the annuity produced using that number is lower
than the Applicable Interest Rate in effect as of July 1, 2009 (the
"floor rate").
Previously, in connection with deciding whether Cigna could use the
Plan's "floor rates" to add interest to the offset amounts for
participants, who had elected to receive their Part B benefits in a
lump sum, the Court held that "use of floor rates is inappropriate
for the calculation of the offset," because those rates fixed
interest rates at an "artificial floor," which was not actually
representative of the value received by class members who had
received their Part B benefits as a lump sum; in other words, Cigna
could not receive credit for an amount that was greater than that
actually provided.
The Plaintiffs' central argument in the motions before the Court is
that Cigna has disobeyed this Court's orders by using the floor
rates to calculate the offset for participants, who elected to
receive their Part B benefits in annuity form, leading to a greater
offset and decrease in the A+B relief available to class members
than is allowed. They also argue that the notices provided to class
members have violated Court orders in a variety of ways.
For its part, Cigna stresses that it does not use floor rates in an
inappropriate manner, and that it has been and continues to
implement A+B relief in compliance with all of this Court's
orders.
The parties dispute neither the legal standard nor the Court's
authority to order the requested relief in the Plaintiffs' motion
for accounting or post-judgment discovery, should it find the
standard met. Thus, the question for the Court is whether, as
applied here, the Plaintiffs have raised "significant questions
regarding noncompliance with a court order" sufficient to justify
the remedy sought.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs have not and thus, their motion is
denied.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not raised significant
questions regarding the Defendants' compliance with the Court's
previous orders regarding the use of floor rates. The Court also
holds that the manner in which the Defendants use the floor rates,
to calculate the Part B annuity payment owed to class members in
accordance with the Plan provisions at section 7.1, and then to
take an offset of that amount, does not run afoul of Judge
Arterton's prior rulings.
The Court also declines the Plaintiffs' invitation to explore a
novel legal issue (which essentially seeks to raise an entirely new
claim) through the vehicle of a motion for accounting or
post-judgment discovery and a motion to strike.
Although the Court has addressed the majority of the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike, given its significant overlap with arguments
raised in the motion for accounting or post-judgment discovery, the
Court briefly notes that it also rejects the Plaintiffs' remaining
arguments made in the motion to strike; namely, that Mr. Gay's
statements (again, it is not clear which ones) should be stricken
because he "appears to lack personal knowledge or be misinformed,"
that a special master is needed to perform an accounting, and that
the Defendants falsely contend that the Plaintiffs have not
explained what discovery they require.
The Plaintiffs' claim that Mr. Gay lacks personal knowledge because
he never actually communicated with the Plaintiffs' counsel does
not justify striking any portion of Mr. Gay's supplemental
declaration, Judge Nagala opines.
The Court finds that there is nothing false or misleading in Mr.
Gay's declaration. As the Court has denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for accounting or post-judgment discovery, it accordingly, denies
as moot the Plaintiffs' requests to appoint a special master and
strike the Defendants' statement that they did not explain
adequately what discovery was needed.
For the reasons described in this Ruling, the Court denies the
Plaintiffs' motion for accounting and/or post-judgment discovery
and their motion to strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7ynywu from PacerMonitor.com.
COMMUNITY LIVING: Piddock Bid for Court-Facilitated Notice Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheila Denise Piddock, v.
Community Living Network, Case No. 5:22-cv-10715-JEL-CI (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for court-facilitated notice under section
216(b) of the FLSA.
The Court said that the evidence in the record does not show that
Plaintiff and other employees are similarly situated, and that
Defendant had a company-wide overtime policy that violates the
FLSA. Because Plaintiff does not make this showing, the
requirements for court-facilitated are not met. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
The Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that "Defendant is a
third-party employer" that "employs Plaintiff and other Direct Care
Staff for companionship services, namely the fellowship and
protection of individuals with disabilities who require assistance
in caring for themselves." She claims that Defendant does not
compensate her or other Direct Care Staff at the overtime rate for
their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of
the FLSA.
In her "motion for conditional certification and notice," the
Plaintiff seeks court-approved notice for a proposed collective
of:
"all current and former Direct Care Staff working with
participants in Medicaid-funded Self-Directed Services
programs
and paid by the financial management system Community Living
Network at any time from three (3) years preceding the filing
of
this lawsuit through the culmination of this litigation who
worked over 40 hours in a workweek since April 1, 2019 and
were
not paid time and a half for the hours worked in excess of
40."
The Plaintiff originally filed her motion for conditional
certification on Dec. 16, 2022, after conducting limited discovery
on this issue.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VdBbXz at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMPLETE BUSINESS: SEC Seeks Approval of $6.75MM Attorneys' Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, v. COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR
FUNDING, et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-81205-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Class
Counsel request that the Court approve the Attorneys' Fund in the
amount of $6,750,000.
In connection with the Receiver's Motion for Approval of Settlement
Among the Receiver, Putative Class Plaintiffs, and Eckert Seamans,
Putative Class Counsel Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman
LLP, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Edelson
Lechtzin LLP, and Silver Law Group move this Court to approve the
Attorneys' Fund delineated in the parties' Settlement Agreement.
In addition, although the Securities and Exchange Commission takes
no position on the settlement or the Attorneys' Fund, the
percentage and amount of the Attorneys' Fund were vetted with the
SEC before filing this Motion.
The defendants in the Putative Class Actions included, among
others, Eckert Seamans.
Because Class Counsel seeks an award of significantly less than 25%
of the common fund, these factors weigh in favor of the requested
fee award.
In sum, each of the factors supports Class Counsels' request for
approval of the Attorneys' Fund equal to 15% of the Settlement
Amount
On May 6, 2024, the Receiver filed a motion to approve this
settlement, which provides for notice to investors and the ability
of investors to object.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S708KV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
Jason Kellogg, Esq.
Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
Miami Tower
100 SE 2nd Street, 36th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 403-8788
E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com
jk@lklsg.com
vjw@lklsg.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 656-2500
Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com
ScottTucker@chimicles.com
steveschwartz@chimicles.com
- and -
Scott L. Silver, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 755-4799
Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com
CONVERSE INC: Gutierrez Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORA GUTIERREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CONVERSE INC., a
Massachusetts Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 2:23-cv-06547-KK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on June 13, 2024, for an Order certifying the following class
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23:
"All people within California who communicated with Defendant
via
its online chat feature between July 5, 2021, and May 6,
2024."
The Plaintiff also moves for an Order appointing Nora Gutierrez as
the class representative for the Class, and appointing Tauler Smith
LLP as Class Counsel.
This motion is made upon the grounds that all of the prerequisites
for class certification set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are
satisfied in this case, and a class action is a superior to other
alternatives for resolution of this dispute.
This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
L.R. 7-3which took place on May 9, 2024. This Motion is based on
this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the accompanying Declarations of Dr. Tim Libert,
Robert Tauler, Narain Kumar, Camrie Ventry, and Nora Gutierrez, all
pleadings and other documents on file in this case, all other
matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any
further argument or evidence that may be received by the Court at
the hearing.
Converse is an American lifestyle brand that markets, distributes,
and licenses footwear, apparel, and accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lVb1Xj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 590-3927
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Samuel C. Cortina, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
mpanek@kslaw.com
CROCS INC: Redacted Order on Discovery Letter Briefs Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, et al.,
v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Peter Kang entered redacted order on discovery letter
briefs:
The Court is disappointed that there was evidently insufficient
communication between counsel during the mandatory meet and
confers, given the uncertainty as to facts on several of the
disputes and
proposals raised for the first time at the May 3rd hearing.
The disputes raised by the Joint Discovery Letters and the new
disputes raised at the May 3rd hearing are resolved as either
ordered herein or withdrawn as discussed.
The case is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiffs
against the Defendant concerning "shoes that the Defendant sells
made of 90% or more Croslite (TM) material."
Crocs designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes footwear and
accessories for men, women and children.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=26OnsB at no extra
charge.[CC]
CVS HEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Allison Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corp. 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 Allison shareholder class suit in the
Northern District of Illinois.
In January 2022, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in
the Northern District of Illinois, Allison v. Oak Street Health,
Inc., et al. Defendants include Oak Street Health and certain of
its pre-acquisition officers and directors.
The putative plaintiffs assert causes of action under various
securities laws premised on allegations that defendants made
omissions and misrepresentations to investors relating to marketing
conduct they allege may violate the False Claims Act.
The Company and the individual defendants are defending themselves
against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a
leading
health solutions company with more than 9,000 retail locations,
more than 1,000 walk-in medical clinics, 204 primary care medical
clinics, a leading pharmacy benefits manager with approximately
108
million plan members and expanding specialty pharmacy solutions,
and a dedicated senior pharmacy care business serving more than
one
million patients per year.
DI GIORGIO: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. DI GIORGIO INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, and POLLO, BRASA Y SAZON, CORP. d/b/a POLLO BRASA Y
SAZON, Case No. 1:24-cv-21846-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2024), is
brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza
(hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to
people who are disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses therein.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
DI GIORGIO INVESTMENT CORPORATION owned and operated a commercial
retail plaza located in Hialeah, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Email: amejias@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Primary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties 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 Sherman Act class suits in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
Beginning on August 31, 2023 through October 12, 2023, certain
private party plaintiffs filed several putative class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, against Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc.
("Datacomp") and several owner/operators of manufactured housing
communities, including ELS (the "Datacomp Litigation"), alleging
that the community owner/operators used JLT Market Reports produced
by Datacomp to conspire to raise manufactured home lot rents in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
ELS purchased Datacomp in connection with the MHVillage/Datacomp
acquisition during the year ended December 31, 2021.
On December 15, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint captioned, In re Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust
Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-6715.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages,
including attorneys' fees.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 29, 2024.
The Company believes that the Datacomp Litigation is without merit,
and the Company intends to vigorously defend our interests in this
matter.
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. together with MHC Operating
Limited Partnership and its other consolidated subsidiaries is a
fully integrated owner of lifestyle-oriented properties consisting
of property operations and home sales and rental operations
primarily within manufactured home and recreational vehicle
communities and marinas.
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Hwang Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Mickey Hwang,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-02033-NIQA (E.D. Pa., May 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS) --
https://www.fbcs-inc.com/ -- is a nationally licensed and bonded
collection agency offering pre-charge off, early out, and third
party collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea Bonner, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: abonner@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Kerr Sues Over Unprotected Systems
------------------------------------------------------
Dana Kerr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02075 (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant who failed to properly maintained and adequately
protected its systems which could have prevented the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff and Class members provided certain Personally
Identifying Information ("PII") to clients of Defendant, which
clients then provided the information to Defendant. As a
sophisticated financial industry company with an acute interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of the PII entrusted to it,
Defendant is well-aware of the numerous data breaches that have
occurred throughout the United States and its responsibility for
safeguarding PII in its possession.
The compromised data includes affected persons' "name, Social
Security number, date of birth, and account information." According
to a notice of data breach filed with the Attorney General of
Maine, the Data Breach has affected 1,955,385 individuals ("Data
Breach"). Defendant began notifying affected persons on April 26,
2024.8 Defendant's letter also offered free credit monitoring
services to those potentially impacted by the breach. Defendant did
not state why it was unable to prevent the Data Breach or which
security feature failed. Defendant did not state why it did not
contact affected persons about the breach until two months after
discovering the breach. Defendant failed to prevent the data breach
because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards
and failed to detect that its databases were subject to a security
breach.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and
omissions in failing to protect Plaintiff's PII, Plaintiff and the
Class have been damaged. Plaintiff and the Class have been placed
at a substantial risk of harm in the form of credit fraud or
identity theft and have incurred and will likely incur additional
damages, including spending substantial amounts of time monitoring
accounts and records, in order to prevent and mitigate credit
fraud, identity theft, and financial fraud, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant's clients.
FBSC represents that it is "a nationally licensed and bonded
collection agency offering pre-charge off, early out, and
third-party collection services for clients across a variety of
industry verticals" whose "diverse experience enables us to provide
our clients with the financial performance they need, while
minimizing risk.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 215-592-1500
Fax: 215-592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road - Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: 516-874-4505
Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch (PA 56887)
Connor P. Hayes (PA 330447)
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
connorh@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer M. French
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: 619) 762-1900
Email: jennf@lcllp.com
FIRST BOOK EQUITY: Weber Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Jake Weber, and other similarly situated aggrieved e
mployees, v. FIRST BOOK EQUITY HOLDINGS LITTLE HILLS, INC. and DOES
1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24SMCV02258 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code failure to compensate for
all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; and failure to pay
overtime.
Per his paystubs, Plaintiff received commission payments based on
sales, but also received hourly pay. Plaintiff's employment ended
on February 8, 2023. Moreover, Plaintiff's final paycheck, which
was issued on February 22, 2023, did not include all wages that
were owed to him, including regular wages, overtime, meal and rest
period premiums, and reimbursement for business expenses, among
other items. As such, FIRST BOOK violated Labor Code. Further,
FIRST BOOK did not provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees
with compensation for all hours worked and did not pay Plaintiff
and others the minimum wages to which they were entitled for work
performed "off the clock" pursuant to California Labor Code, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for FIRST BOOK in 2019 with his
latest position in sales.
FIRST BOOK EQUITY HOLDINGS LITTLE HILLS INC., is a California
corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Freshworks 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 securities class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
On November 1, 2022, a purported Company stockholder filed a
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of
its current officers and directors, and underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).
On April 14, 2023, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material
misstatements or omissions in offering documents filed in
connection with the IPO.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, and
rescission on behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of common stock
issued in the IPO.
On September 28, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the remaining claims in this action.
Freshworks Inc. is a software development company that provides
modern software-as-a-service products. It is headquartered in San
Mateo, California.
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURA SALAZAR, DAMARIS
VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v.
FULFILLMENT AMERICA, INC., JOHN BARRY SR., JOHN BARRY JR., Case No.
1:23-cv-11625-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order requesting that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
class certification motion be continued two weeks, from May 17,
2024, to May 31, 2024.
The Parties initially agreed that Plaintiffs would file their
motion for class certification on May 17, 2024.
The Plaintiffs request an additional two weeks to file the motion
for class certification, noting that the parties continue to confer
regarding written discovery requests.
The Plaintiffs state that the possibility of additional discovery
from Defendants may support the motion for class certification.
Additionally, a subpoena duces tecum was served by a process server
on a non-party on May 9, 2024, with a return date of May 28, 2024.
The Plaintiffs further state that allowing the non-party time to
produce requested documents may support the motion for class
certification. The Defendant has assented to this motion. This
motion is made in good faith and is not intended to delay the
litigation.
Fulfillment offers internet real-time order processing and
inventory management, e-mail order confirmation, on-line tracking,
and custom reporting services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XgIbb5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pablo Carrasco, Esq.
Thomas L. Smith, Esq.
JUSTICE AT WORK, INC.
33 Harrison Ave., Suite 501
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 865-8419
E-mail: pcarrasco@jatwork.org
tsmith@jatwork.org
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
oz@fairworklaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buchholz v. General Motors
LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-06004 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 6, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order granting unopposed motion
for extension of time as to experts for class certification
deadline as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall designate her class Aug. 29, 2024
experts by:
-- The Class Certification Motion is Aug. 29, 2024
also due:
-- The Defendant shall designate class Oct. 29, 2024
experts by:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Haiden Sues Over Disgorgement of Profits
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Haiden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, GENERAL MOTORS HOLDINGS
LLC, ONSTAR LLC, LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and VERISK
ANALYTICS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04030 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2024),
is brought for statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential,
punitive, and nominal damages, as well as restitution and/or
disgorgement of profits unlawfully obtained, injunctive relief, and
all other just and proper relief on behalf of all persons whose
driving data was unlawfully captured, stored, and/or transferred or
sold by Defendants without full notice or consent.
As cars have increasingly become "computers on wheels" equipped
with advanced software and GPS tracking, however, GM has found an
additional way to profit from consumers: their driving data.
Specifically, GM has deceived consumers like Plaintiff into sharing
a wide array of their driving data, including location data, under
the guise of improving users' driving safety—and then selling
that data to third parties like LexisNexis and Verisk for millions
of dollars a year. GM engages in this practice despite an array of
accuracy issues in the data it collects. LexisNexis and Verisk then
sell this unreliable and decontextualized driving data to insurance
companies who in turn use the data to substantially increase
consumers' auto insurance rates. The sPlaintiff is one of the
millions of GM users whose driving data was collected and exploited
by Defendants without his full knowledge and consent, and he has
suffered significantly higher insurance rates as a result, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has owned a GM-manufactured Chevrolet Bolt EUV since
December 2022.
General Motors has long manufactured and sold consumer vehicles in
the United States and around the world, under well-known brand
names like Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
(Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
117 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: (213) 723-0707
Fax: (858) 313-1850
Email: ekim@lcllp.com
tiffine@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer M. French, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (858) 313-1850
Email: jennf@lcllp.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Connor P. Hayes, Esq.
Patrick F. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (724) 656-1556
Email: gary@lcllp.com
connorh@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
HARRIS & HARRIS: Discovery Stayed in Church Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTER CHURCH,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated; LUDWIG
LAUDENCIA, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated;
JEREMY GYRON, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated; JESSICA BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., a foreign
corporation; DOES I-V, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I-V,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00517-APG-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge
Maximiliano Couvillier III Court entered an order stating that:
1. Discovery shall be stayed until such time as this Court
renders
its decision as to the motion to dismiss;
2. The Plaintiffs shall withdraw their motion to certify class
without prejudice; and
3. If the court denies the motion to dismiss, the parties shall
file a joint discovery Plan and Scheduling order within 21
calendar days of the Court's order.
Harris & Harris operates as credit rating agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EbbjHQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Ayers, Esq.
Sarah Hartig, Esq.
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
3740 Lakeside Drive, Ste. 202
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: (775) 322-4697
Facsimile: (775) 322-4698
E-mail: michael.ayers@qpwblaw.com
sarah.hartig@qpwblaw.com
HEALTH CAREER: Amended Response to Renewed Class Cert Bid Timely
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberson, et al., v.
Health Career Institute LLC, et al., Case No. 9:22-cv-81883 (S.D.
Fla., Filed Dec. 02, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II
entered an order that the Defendants' Amended Response to
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, shall be deemed
timely and correctly filed.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Violation.
HCIL provides career education & training.[CC]
HEIDI E. WASHINGTON: Williams Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heidi E. Washington,
et al. The case is styled as Terry Wayne Williams, and all of those
similarly situated and not yet identified v. Heidi E. Washington,
Director; in her individual and official capacity; Connie Horton,
Warden; in her individual and official capacity; James Corrigan,
Assistant Deputy Warden; in his individual and official capacity;
J. Woodgate, Correctional Officer; in his individual and official
capacity; Unknown Dicus, Correctional Officer; in his individual
and official capacity; Unknown Parties, named as Jane and John
Does; in their individual and official capacity; Case No.
2:24-cv-00078-MV (W.D. Mich., May 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Prison Conditions for
Prisoner Civil Rights.
Heidi E. Washington has served as the director of the Michigan
Department of Corrections since July 2015.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE: Baque Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yuliet Jiminez Baque, Devora Brown, Maria
Salazar Chavez, Carolina Claros-Argueta, Del Rio Confesor, Diego
German Osorio Cruz, Luz Escobar, Yesica Bravo Fiandenese Diosdado
Leon Gonzai, Elizabeth Horizonte Hernandez, Miriam Marin Carrera,
Maria Laura Mejia Pineda, Angel Penazola, Michael Lester Parker,
Medardo Isaac Alva Rivas, Luis Alva Rivas, Fernando Luis Morales,
Rosana Roblero, Maribel Sanchez Romero, Angel Raymundo Rojas, Anna
Saman, Tramonte, Kelly Lopez Villada, Lucila Wences, Richardo
Chiche Aguilar, Karla Vanessa Alvarado Bonilla, Yanoris
Banilla-Diaz, Samir Zedan, Jordan Baylon, and Ider Quintero,
Sebastian Eustacio De La Cruz, Maribel Sanchez, Jeison Colindres
Alvarado, Jorge Garcia Cantera, Ricardo Aguilar Chiche, Margarita
Sanchez, Maria Sanchez, Confesor DelRio on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC f/k/a
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, HENDRICK CORPORATION LLC f/k/a HENRICK
CORPORATION, HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a HENDRICK TOYOTA
NORTH CHARLESTON, HENDRICK TOYOTA NORTH CHARLESTON, AND RESC TYT,
LLC, Case No. 2024-CP-10-01979 was removed from the Court of Common
Pleas, Charleston County, South Carolina, to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 15, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03041-DCN-KFM.
The Plaintiff claims for relief against Defendants in the State
Court Action allege violations of the following federal laws: The
Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward D. Buckley Jr., Esq.
Nicholas J. Rivera, Esq.
CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP
Post Office Box 993
Charleston, SC 29402-0993
Phone: (843) 720-5413
Facsimile: (843) 579-1300
Email: ebuckley@ycrlaw.com
nrivera@ycrlaw.com
HORIZON HOSPITALITY: Chism Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Chism and Antonio Clark, 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-02089-MLB
(N.D. Ga., May 13, 2024), is brought to obtain full and complete
relief and to redress the unlawful employment practices which is
the Defendants' failures to pay their wages and failure to pay
their overtime premiums, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week.
For the past thirty-six-plus months, performing primarily
non-exempt work, the Plaintiffs have both consistently worked more
than forty hours per week. The Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiffs any overtime compensation for her work over 40 hours in
that workweek. The Defendants' actions regarding compensation for
Plaintiffs and other members of the Collective are willful and not
in good faith, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs began their employment with Defendants in 2016 and
2017.
Horizon and BKNS are each private corporations registered to do
business in the state of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Radford, Esq.
Jake Knanishu, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT LLP
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (678) 271-0300
Fax: (678) 271-0311
Email: jradford@radfordscott.com
jknanishu@radfordscott.com
IMPERIAL HEALTH: Katz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Health
Holdings. The case is styled as Jeffery Katz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperial Health
Holdings, A Professional Medical Corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-02854 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Imperial Health -- https://imperialhealthholdings.com/ -- is the
region's largest physician-owned multispecialty medical group in
Southwest Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
INCOMM FINANCIAL: Bid for Summary Judgment Continued to June 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN CLARK, et al.; v.
INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:22-cv-01839-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal
entered an order granting continuance of defendant Incomm's motion
for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to deny class
certification and of scheduling conference:
1. The hearing for the Defendant's motion is continued to June
17,
2024 at 9:00 a.m.;
2. The Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's motion is due
no
later than May 10, 2024;
3. The Defendant's reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition is due no
later than May 31, 2024; and
4. The scheduling conference is continued to June 17, 2024 at
9:00
a.m. in Courtroom 1, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside,
California
92501, with the Joint Rule 26(f) Report to be filed not later
than 14 days before the scheduling conference.
Incomm is a company that partners with businesses and consumers to
offer payment options and in-demand products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4nwGfU at no extra
charge.[CC]
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Collins Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Collins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. INFOSYS MCCAMISH SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02138-JPB (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information ("PII") for current and former
participants in deferred compensation plans serviced by Bank of
America, including, but not limited to, first and last name,
address, business email address, date of birth, Social Security
number, and other account information.
Prior to November 3, 2023, the Defendant stored the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible
environment on Defendant's systems. On November 3, 2023, Defendant
was impacted by a cybersecurity event when an unauthorized third
party accessed Defendant's systems, during which the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members may have been compromised (the "Data
Breach").
On February 1, 2024, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class
Members of the Data Breach. In notifying Plaintiff and Class
Members of the Data Breach, Defendant did not disclose that LockBit
had threatened to sell or leak 50 gigabytes of data exfiltrated
during the Data Breach unless a $500,000 ransom was paid. Instead,
the notices that Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members
merely stated that data "may have been compromised" and that "it is
unlikely that we will be able to determine with certainty what
personal information was accessed as a result of this incident."
Making matters worse, the notices stated that Defendant was "not
aware of any misuse involving your information."
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant
admits that the unencrypted PII obtained by an unauthorized
external party included name and Social Security number.
The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant has also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that
information. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and
Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that
they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity
theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial
harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive
information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with sensitive and
confidential information.
The Defendant is a Georgia limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Bosseler, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4200
P.O. Box 57007
Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
Email: gbosseler@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 448-1125
Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Marquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arturo Marquez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a Tennessee
Corporation; KEVIN DAVIS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. CVRI2401897 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on May 15,
2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01025.
The Complaint purports to assert fifteen categories of labor code
and wage order violations against IP on a class-wide basis, and a
single cause of action under the California Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (PAGA), stemming from the employment of
Plaintiff and the putative class members. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges causes of action under the California Labor Code
and Fair Employment and Housing Act for: failure to pay wages plus
interest; failure to pay overtime and double time wages;
unreimbursed business expenses; failure to provide meal periods and
unpaid meal period premiums; failure to provide rest breaks and
unpaid rest break premiums; noncompliant wage statements; deficient
pay penalties; failure to maintain payroll records; violation of
unfair competition; disability discrimination; retaliation;
wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to
prevent discrimination; failure to pay all compensation due upon
termination; whistleblower retaliation; and penalties under
PAGA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq.
Christopher M. Champine, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
Email: aolsen@fisherphillips.com
dmoore@fisherphillips.com
cchampine@fisherphillips.com
JOHN WOOD: Court Resets Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walther, et al., v. Wood
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00294 (N.D. Ind., Filed July 14, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Gretchen S. Lund entered an order granting the
parties' joint stipulation to vacate and reset the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due 60 days
after the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to stay discovery.
The Defendant's Rule 16 Motion to Vacate Class Certification
Deadline98 is denied as moot.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Janssen Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 Janssen class suit
dismissal motion filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.
In December 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and Janssen Biotech Inc. (collectively Janssen) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust laws and other state laws by delaying biosimilar
competition with STELARA through Janssen's enforcement of patent
rights covering STELARA.
The complaint seeks damages and other relief.
In March 2024, Janssen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies
corporation.[BN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 continues to
defend itself from ERISA class suit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
In February 2024, a putative class action was filed against the
Company, the Pension & Benefits Committee of Johnson & Johnson, and
certain named officers and employees, in United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
allegedly mismanaging the Company's prescription-drug benefits
program.
The complaint seeks damages and other relief.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies
corporation.[BN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain named officers in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the
Company violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc,
primarily JOHNSON'S Baby Powder, and that purchasers of the
Company's shares suffered losses as a result.
In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.
In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss.
In April 2021, briefing on Plaintiff' motion for class
certification was completed.
The case was stayed in May 2022 pursuant to the LTL Bankruptcy Case
and was reopened in May 2023.
In December 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
In January 2024, Defendants filed a petition with the Third
Circuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission
to appeal the Court's order granting class certification, and in
February 2024, the Third Circuit granted Defendants' petition.
Fact discovery closed in February 2024 and the Court ordered the
parties to mediate.
The Court stayed the case pending the mediation, which is scheduled
for May 2024.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies
corporation.[BN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Actelion Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 Actelion class
suit summary judgment is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.
In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals
U.S., Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively
Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to
supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
TRACLEER.
TRACLEER is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy
required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which imposes
restrictions on distribution of the product.
In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
In September 2019, the district court granted Actelion's motion to
dismiss the complaint.
In April 2024, the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the
district court.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Actelion's motion
for summary judgment currently are pending before the district
court.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies
corporation.[BN]
KADIANT LLC: Johnson Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tawonna Johnson, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. KADIANT LLC, a Limited
Liability Company and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 23CV001772 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01372-KJM-CKD.
In the Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following
causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums;
Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not
Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant
Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records;
Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and; Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Todd R. Wulffson, Esq.
Nancy N. ("Niki") Lubrano, Esq.
Osaama Saifi, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 622-1661
Email: twulffson@cdflaborlaw.com
nlubrano@cdflaborlaw.com
osaifi@cdflaborlaw.com
KEVIN IAN KANE: Exum Sues Over Illegally Coerced Rent
-----------------------------------------------------
Jakia Exum, On Her Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kevin Ian Kane, Esq., Offit Kurman, PA, and BDMG
Crestleigh Owners, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01425-GLS (D. Md., May 15,
2024), is brought involving a landlord who chose to disregard
Maryland law by seeking to collect unpaid rent for unlicensed
rental properties, and its debt collectors that aggressively
pursued payments for rent that Defendants were prohibited from
seeking to collect, which resulted in tenants illegally coerced
into paying rent that Defendants were prohibited from collecting,
in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")
and the Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA").
The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Property lacked
a rental license for the Crestleigh Unlicensed Period and that a
license was required. Despite that fact, the Defendants did not
inform the tenants in the Property that the Property had not been
licensed as a rental property and that rent could not be collected.
Indeed, the Defendants aggressively continued to pursue rent from
tenants of the Property during the entire Crestleigh Unlicensed
Period.
The Plaintiff rented 9516 Muirkirk Road, Unit 101 (the
"Apartment"), a unit in the Property, from the Defendants starting
on February 1, 2023. The Apartment had numerous health and safety
issues, including unsanitary ceilings and walls and leaking faucets
in the bathroom, and the Defendants was issued code citations for
the condition of the Apartment. Based on the issues with the
Apartment, the Plaintiff started attempting to withhold rent in
order to get the Defendants to make repairs. the Defendants would
then engage in aggressive collection efforts regarding the alleged
balance.
the Defendants's illegal collection efforts included sending
e-mails requesting payment, calling the Plaintiff, and providing
Notices of Intent to File a Complaint for Summary Ejectment on no
fewer than two occasions to the Plaintiff, all while the Property
was unlicensed. the Plaintiff made several payments in response to
those unlawful collection efforts by the Defendants.
Unaware that the Property had been unlicensed during the Unlicensed
Period and at the time the Second FTPR Action was filed, the
Plaintiff agreed to a consent judgment allowing Defendants to evict
her if she did not pay an amount that included the $1,975.00 in
alleged rental obligations incurred by the Plaintiff in June of
2023. When the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in time, she was
evicted. Defendants have not returned any of the rent collected
from tenants attributable to the Crestleigh Unlicensed Period, and
continue to pursue any unpaid rent from tenants from the Crestleigh
Unlicensed Period, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former residential tenant of the Property, and
is a "consumer."
Kane is a Maryland attorney whose principal place of business is in
Montgomery County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Mack, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. MACK
PO Box 65066
Baltimore, MD 21209
Phone: (443) 423-0464
Email: joseph@macklawonline.com
- and -
Ingmar Goldson, Esq.
THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE
One Research Court, Suite 450
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (240) 780-8829
Email: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com
- and -
Tatiana Laracuente, Esq.
LARACUENTE LAW
9701 Apollo Drive, Suite 100
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
Phone: (240) 599-3799
Email: tatiana@laracuentelaw.com
KIMPTON HOTEL: Latourette Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Waverly Latourette as an individual and on
behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members v. KIMPTON
HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; KHRG CANARY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-613426 was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02947.
The Complaint asserts eight causes of action for recovery of unpaid
minimum wages and liquidated damages; recovery of unpaid overtime
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to produce records in violation of Labor Code
section 226; failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair
competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Leo Q. Li, Esq.
Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: lli@seyfarth.com
sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com
- and -
Eric E. Hill, Esq.
Ping Wang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: ehill@seyfarth.com
pwang@seyfarth.com
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Sued for Depriving Insured Their Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Capane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LM General Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation,
Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Liberty Insurance
Underwriters Inc., Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Insurance Corporation, LM
Insurance Company, State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance
Company, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, Ohio Casualty
Insurance Company, Ohio Security Insurance Company, American
Economy Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01095-SMB (D. Ariz.,
May 13, 2024), is brought on behalf of all insureds who were
deprived of their right to stack benefits by any insurer linked
together with Defendant.
Auto insurers must permit their customers to stack policies or
coverages for uninsured and underinsured ("UM/UIM") motor vehicle
accident claims unless the insurers comply with two simple
requirements. First, they must include clear and unambiguous
language disavowing the ability to stack multiple policies or
coverages. Second, they must inform their insureds of the right to
select the policy or coverage that applies to the accident.
"Stacking" refers to "when an insured obtains coverages for several
vehicles and then attempts to claim multiple [UM or] UIM coverages
for the same accident."
As a matter of uniform and standard practice and procedure,
Defendant LM General Insurance Company applied a single UM/UIM
coverage limit to Plaintiff's claim even though Defendant LM
General Insurance Company neither included clear and unambiguous
language disavowing the customer's ability to stack multiple
coverages on the policy nor informed the class members of the right
to select which coverage to apply to the accident by including that
right in the policy or timely advising class members of that right
in writing. Similarly, none of the other Defendants, for their
respective insureds, complied with either of the statutory
requirements of A.R.S. More precisely, no Defendant included clear
and unambiguous policy language disavowing the insured's ability to
stack multiple policies or coverages or (2) informed the customer
of the right to select which coverage to apply to the accident
under either of the methods prescribed by statute.
Regarding Plaintiff specifically, Defendant LM General Insurance
Company was responsible for disclosing and providing UM/UIM
coverage up to the stacked limits required by Arizona law and the
properly construed insurance policy but failed to do so. Having
failed to qualify for the anti-stacking opportunity permitted by
law, failed to disclose the existence of stacked coverages to its
insureds, and failed to notify the insured of his right to select,
Defendant LM General Insurance Company breached its contractual and
legal duties to its customers, including underpaying the benefits
due, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an insured under a LM General Insurance Company
policy.
LM General Insurance Company is an insurance company incorporated
under the laws of Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John M. DeStefano, Esq.
E. Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
toryb@hbsslaw.com
LOANCARE LLC: Manar Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as April Manar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LoanCare LLC, Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-06026 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 15,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00494-MMH-LLL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
LoanCare, LLC -- https://myloancare.com/ -- is a leading national
provider of full service subservicing and interim subservicing to
the mortgage industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucy McShane, Esq.
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
MARYLAND: Connor Sues Over Poor Quality Care in Nursing Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Connor, Michael Nevin, Alex Noonan, Herman Dressel, and
Eleanor Hollman, on behalf of Richard Hollman, for themselves and
those similarly situated v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MDH),
and SECRETARY LAURA HERRERA SCOTT, in her official Capacity as
Secretary of Maryland Department of Health, Case No.
1:24-cv-01423-ABA (D. Md., May 15, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants dangerously poor quality care within nursing
facilities.
Despite the importance of its oversight responsibilities, MDH has
allowed more than 100 nursing facilities to go four years without
an annual inspection (known as a "survey"), with many more
facilities overdue for an annual survey, and has allowed a backlog
of thousands of uninvestigated complaints from nursing facility
residents to pile up. When MDH fails to carry out its oversight
responsibilities, dangerously poor-quality care within nursing
facilities goes undetected and uncorrected.
For years, MDH has failed to conduct statutorily-mandated annual
surveys or act on Plaintiffs' complaints within
statutorily-prescribed time frames. As a result, Maryland's nursing
facilities have not been held accountable when they fail to meet
mandated federal and state standards related to resident rights,
quality of care, and staffing. Because of Plaintiffs' mobility
impairments, this lack of accountability leaves Plaintiffs in
situations where they are vulnerable to neglect and mistreatment,
which lead to pressure ulcers, falls, and unnecessary seclusion.
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer personal
degradation and significant physical and psychosocial harm as a
result of Defendants' failures.
The Plaintiffs do not receive the benefit of state oversight when
the survey and complaint investigation processes and corrective
action process called for in federal and state law do not occur,
leaving nursing facilities to violate Plaintiffs' rights with
impunity. The Plaintiffs are uniquely impacted by this vicious
cycle. Due to their mobility impairments, Plaintiffs rely to a
greater extent than other residents on the nursing facility to
provide essential care. MDH's disability discrimination results in
a failure to detect and address violations within nursing
facilities, and as a result Plaintiffs suffer unique and
unaddressed harm due to the nature of their disability, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are with disabilities involving mobility
impairment.
The Maryland Department of Health (MDH) is the government entity
charged with regularly entering Maryland's nursing facilities to
assess their operations and to ensure compliance with federal and
state quality of care standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
Email: gardnerd@publicjustice.org
- and -
Regan Bailey, Esq.
Liam McGivern, Esq.
JUSTICE IN AGING
1444 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 683-1990
Email: RBailey@justiceinaging.org
LMcGivern@justiceinaging.org
- and -
Sheila S. Boston, Esq.
Samuel Lonergan, Esq.
Robert Grass, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Phone: (212) 836-8000
Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
Email: Sheila.Boston@arnoldporter.com
Samuel.Lonergan@arnoldporter.com
Robert.Grass@arnoldporter.com
MAZDA MOTOR: Clare Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Clare, Brent Freburg, Jon Croteau, Matt Cervasio, Nicole
Long, Shannon Foley, Jalen Carter, and Dallin Hardy on behalf of
themselves and the Putative Class v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.
and MAZDA MOTOR CORP., Case No. 3:24-cv-06146 (D.N.J., May 14,
2024), is brought arising out of Mazda's design, manufacture, and
warranting of the Class Vehicles, as well as Mazda's advertising,
promoting, marketing, distributing, selling, and leasing of the
Class Vehicles as a dependable, safe, and reliable vehicles which
is false and misleading.
The Class Vehicles are designed and manufactured with a uniform
manufacturing and design defect (herein the "Defect") which results
in coolant leaks at the cylinder head in the area around the
exhaust manifold. Mazda has issued five separate bulletins since
October 15, 2021 related to this problem and how to repair it as
well as a Service Advisory indicating a parts shortage regarding
the cylinder head However, in many instances partial or total
engine replacement is the only fix, and it is possible that the
sane problem will occur again with the replacement engine, since it
is the same as the original one. This Defect is inherent in the
design and/or manufacture of the Class Vehicles . As a result of
the Defect, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have been
subject, and continue to be subject, to a potential safety risk if
the vehicle shuts down without warning while on a busy road.
The Defendants knew or should have known before the time it sold
the first Class Vehicle, that the Class Vehicles contained the
Defect. Defendants had sole and exclusive possession of this
knowledge at or before the time it sold the first Class Vehicle, at
the time it made repairs outside the warranty and charged consumers
for those repairs, and until quite recently has remained in sole
and exclusive possession of virtually all information regarding the
Defect.
The Defendants concealed and failed to disclose information the
Defect, both at the time of sale or lease of the Class Vehicles
either as new or certified pre—owned vehicles and on an ongoing
basis, including but not limited to when the Class Vehicles were
brought in for service. The Defect exposes drivers and occupants of
the Class Vehicles, as well as others who share the road with them,
to an increased risk of accident, injury, or death.
As a direct and proximate consequence of Mazda's active and ongoing
concealment and omission of the Defect, the other members of the
Class purchased, leased, Plaintiffs and currently own or lease
defective vehicles and have incurred damages thereby. Had
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class known of the Defect at
the time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased
their vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them.
Each Plaintiff and Class member has suffered an ascertainable loss
resulting from Mazda' s omissions and/or misrepresentations
associated with the Class Vehicles, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Class Vehicles.
The Defendants were engaged in the business of marketing,
advertising, distributing, selling, and warranting automobiles,
other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in New Jersey and
throughout the United States of America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel
Randee M. Matloff
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: 973-618-0400
Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
- and -
Joseph Santoli, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
340 Devon Court
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Phone: 201-926-9200
Email: josephsantoli002@gmail.com
META PLATFORMS: Nichols Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Phyllis Nichols, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No.
24-CIV-02124 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 14, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-02914-DMR.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Meta "compelled disclosure"
of the identities of individuals who were "subjected to genetic
tests and related other personally identifying information
(collectively, 'Private Information')" that was entrusted to a
genetic services company, GEDmatch.com, through Facebook's
Conversions Application Programming Interface ("CAPI") and the
Facebook Pixel, pieces of computer code that are allegedly embedded
on thousands of websites such as GEDmatch.com. In her sole cause of
action, plaintiff alleges that Meta violated the Illinois Genetic
Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), by compelling the disclosure of
the identities of plaintiff and other Illinois resident putative
class members, who had been the subject of genetic tests. She seeks
statutory damages under GIPA and injunctive relief.[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
NUTRIEN AG: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Saal Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saal v. Nutrien AG
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01409-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.
Nutrien is a provider of agricultural products, services, and
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Iu721J at no extra
charge.[CC]
ON Q FINANCIAL: Eitemiller Files Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Q Financial LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Eitemiller, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-01125-JFM (D. Ariz., May 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
On Q Financial LLC -- https://onqfinancial.com/ -- operates as a
mortgage company. The Company offers investment, loan information
and advice to companies and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
55 W Monroe St., Ste. 1111
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (312) 984-0001
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
7508 N 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Phone: (623) 826-5593
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Carter Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Adeo Carter, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. PAGLIACCI PIZZA INC., a Washington for profit
corporation, Case No. 24-2-10891-2 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King
Cty., May 15, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages owed to
Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees and all other lawful
damages available under Washington law.
The Defendant willfully failed to reimburse delivery drivers for
their automobile expenses, resulting in rebates of their wages to
Defendant. This willful diminution of wages due also resulted in
pay below the minimum hourly wage due, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery driver in
October 2020.
The Defendant owns and operates multiple fast-food enterprises
throughout King and Snohomish Counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Johnson, Esq.
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206)652-8660
Email: djohnson@bjtlegal.com
- and -
Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq.
REKHI & WOLK, P.S.
529 Warren Avenue N., Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98109
Phone: (206) 388-5887
Fax: (206) 577-3924
Email: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com
PEOPLES BANK: Skees Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Timothy Skees, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PEOPLES BANK, Case No. 24-CI-002861
was removed from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Kentucky,
to the United States District Court for the District of Kentucky on
May 16, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00292-CHB.
On April 23, 2024, the Plaintiff alleging claims against Defendant
for breach of contract, including breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violations of the Electronic
Fund Transfers Act (Regulation E), and violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Annie S. Myers, Esq.
Joseph N. Tucker, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 581-8034
Email: joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com
annie.myers@dinsmore.com
PETMED EXPRESS: Fitchett Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Timothy Fitchett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No.
GD-24-004439 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 13, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00710.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts one individual and putative
class claim against PetMed under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practice and Consumer Protection Law (the "UTPCPL"). The Plaintiff
alleges that PetMed made misleading statements concerning price
reductions and used these "to deny Pennsylvania consumers the
discounts they bargained for upon purchasing Defendant's
products."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Leah Imbrogno, Esq.
500 Woodward Ave., Ste. 2700
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (313) 234-7100
Fax: (313) 234-2800
Email: limbrogno@foley.com
- and -
Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
Andrew C. Gresik, Esq.
150 East Gilman St., Ste. 5000
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 257-5035
Fax: (608) 258-4258
Email: mleffel@foley.com
agersik@foley.com
- and -
Cha'yra Eddie, Esq.
321 N. Clark St., Ste. 3000
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 832-4500
Fax: (312) 832-4700
Email: chayra.eddie@foley.com
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Golden Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Philadelphia
Inquirer, PBC. The case is styled as Desiree Golden, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. against The
Philadelphia Inquirer, PBC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02106-KSM (E.D. Pa.,
May 16, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Philadelphia Inquirer -- https://www.inquirer.com/ -- often
referred to simply as The Inquirer, is a daily newspaper
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
PIO PIO: Court Tosses as Moot Oband Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Obando v. Pio Pio NYC,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05894 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 10,
2023), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order denying
as moot motion to certify class.
In light of the Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment, the
motion is denied as moot.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Pio Pio specializes in traditional Peruvian cuisine.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Ictech-Bendeck Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIAS JORGE "GEORGE"
ICTECH-BENDECK, v. PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS OF LA, INC. ET AL.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-07889-SM-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting amended motion to certify class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jKqV5R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott R. Bickford, III, Esq.
Lawrence J. Centola, Esq.
Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
MARTZELL BICKERFORD & CENTOLA
338 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 581 9065
Facsimile: (504) 581 7635
E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com
ljc@mbfirm.com
jzl@mbfirm.com
- and -
Douglas S. Hammel, Esq.
HAMMEL LAWFIRM, LLC
3129 Bore Street
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 832 9942
Facsimile: (504) 304 9964
E-mail: douglashammel@gmail.com
- and -
Kacie F. Gray, Esq.
Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
Pearl Robertson, Esq.
Louise C. Higgins, Esq.
IRPINO, AVIN & HAWKINS
2216 Magazines Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-1500
E-mail: airpino@irpinolaw.com
lhiggins@airpinolaw.com
probertson@irpinolaw.com
kgray@airpinolaw.com
- and -
John D. Sileo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN D. SILEO
320 N. Carrollton Ave.,
Suite 101 New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 486-4343
E-mail: jack@johnsileolaw.com
csey@johnsileolaw.com
- and -
Seth H. Schaumburg, Esq.
FAVRET DEMAREST RUSSO LUTKEWITTE & SCHAUMBURG
1555 Poydras Street, Suite 70112
Telephone: (504) 562 1006
Facsimile: (504) 523 0699
E-mail: seth@favretlaw.com
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 24, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from several consumer class suits.
Beginning in January 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints were filed against the Company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.
The cases filed in the Southern District of California were
subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California.
On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the Company violated California and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things,
refusing to license standard-essential patents to its competitors,
conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband chipsets on the
purchaser first agreeing to license its entire patent portfolio,
entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc.,
and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with
its commitments to standard setting organizations.
The complaint sought unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that we be enjoined from further
unlawful conduct.
On September 27, 2018, the court certified the class.
The Company appealed the court's class certification order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth
Circuit).
On September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the class
certification order, ruling that the district court had failed to
correctly assess the propriety of applying California law to a
nationwide class, and remanded the case to the district court.
On June 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
limiting the proposed class to California residents rather than a
nationwide class.
It filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on January
6, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in
part our motion to dismiss.
It subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.
The court granted our motion in its entirety and, on October 5,
2023, entered final judgment in Qualcomm's favor.
On November 2, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in
this matter.
Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in
Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software, and services
related
to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G,
CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standard.
QUALCOMM INC: Trial on Consolidated Securities Suit Set for Oct. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 24, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2024, that the consolidated securities class
suit trial is scheduled on October 28, 2024.
On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its then current and
former officers and directors.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that we violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in connection with
certain allegations that the Company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.
The court consolidated the two actions, and on July 3, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the
same basic theories of liability and requesting the same basic
relief.
On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on March 20, 2023, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The order denied class certification on the basis of alleged
misrepresentations relating to its chip-level licensing practices,
but certified a class on the basis of alleged misrepresentations
relating to the separate operations of QCT and QTL.
Trial is scheduled to begin on October 28, 2024.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in
this matter.
Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in
Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software, and services
related
to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G,
CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standard.
RB ROYAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bohnert Extended to July 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bohnert v. RB Royal
Industries Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00141 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Feb 3,
2023), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting Joint
Civil L.R. 7(h) Expedited Non-Dispositive Motion to Extend
Conditional Certification Deadline and to Continue Tolling
Limitations Period for Putative Collective Members.
The court finds that the parties have shown good cause and grants
their motion.
The court orders that the time for the plaintiff to file his motion
for class certification is extended until the end of the day on
July 26, 2024.
The court continues to toll the limitations period applicable to
members of the conditionally certified collective(s) as of Nov. 3,
2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
RB Royal designs and manufactures custom hose and tube assemblies
as well as precision machined products.[CC]
RDI CORPORATION: Breslin Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Kambra Breslin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE RDI CORPORATION, a corporation, Case No.
1:24-cv-00279-JPH (S.D. Ohio, May 14, 2024), is brought arising
from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), The Nevada Wage and Hour Law ("Nevada Wage Act"), and
common law. As a result of failure to pay wages.
The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically
failing to compensate its Call Center Customer Service
Representative (collectively referred to as "CSRs") for work tasks
completed before and after their scheduled shifts and during their
unpaid meal periods, when they were not logged into Defendant's
timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in CSRs not
being paid for all overtime hours worked, and in non-overtime
workweeks, for regular hours. More specifically, Defendant failed
to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they spent turning on
and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to
clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system and when returning
from their meal periods; and putting to sleep and/or shutting down
their computer aner their last fielded call for the shift concluded
and after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked remotely for Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt CSR from October 16, 2023 through April 18, 2024.
The RDI Corporation is a corporation and maintains its principal
place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robat E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: 614-221-4221
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.c.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: 248-355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
REWORLD DADE: Parties Seek Continuance of All Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY and
MARIA ALEJANDRA DURAN, v. REWORLD DADE, LLC and REWORLD HOLDING
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 7.6, for a continuance of all
deadlines and request a status conference:
-- Parties exchange expert witness summaries June 10,
2024.
or reports:
-- Parties exchange rebuttal expert witness June 24,
2024
summaries or reports:
-- All discovery, including expert discovery, July 8, 2024
is completed:
-- All pre-trial motions and Daubert motions July 23,
2024
(which include motions to strike experts)
are filed:
-- Parties must file and submit joint pre-trial Aug. 20,
2024
stipulation, proposed jury instructions and
verdict form, or proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law, as applicable, and motions
in limine (other than Daubert motions):
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=geZrJi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce C. Kaplan, Esq.
KAPLAN & KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL
LAW FIRM, LLC
9737 Doral Boulevard, #482,
Miami, FL 33178
Telephone: (305) 407-2420
E-mail: bkaplan@kaplan.attorney
- and -
Francisco Guerra, IV, Esq.
Alicia O'Neill, Esq.
Jennifer A. Neal, Esq.
WATTS GUERRA LLP
875 East Ashby Place, Suite 1200
San Antonio, TX 78212
Telephone: (210) 447-0500
E-mail: fguerra@wattsguerra.com
aoneill@wattsguerra.com
jneal@wattsguerra.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer H. Silverglate, Esq.
Stephanie M. Simm, Esq.
Raul Alvarez, Esq.
CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A.
5301 Blue Lagoon Drive, 9th Floor
Miami, FL 33126
Telephone: (305) 377-0700
E-mail: ssilverglate@cspalaw.com
ssimm@cspalaw.com
ralvarez@cspalaw.com
- and -
Michael G. Murphy, Esq.
Katrina M. Krebs, Esq.
Timothy M. Sullivan, Esq.
Collin Gannon, Esq.
Casey T. Clausen, Esq.
James B. Slaughter, Esq.
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10022
E-mail: mmurphy@bdlaw.com
kkrebs@bdlaw.com
tsullivan@bdlaw.com
cgannon@bdlaw.com
cclausen@bdlaw.com
jslaughter@bdlaw.com
RICE DRILLING: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY J. GREGOR, et al.,
v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them
to file their Motion for Class Certification and Motion(s) to
exclude expert testimony provisionally under seal.
The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification as well as any motions to exclude Defendants' expert
witnesses is May 17, 2024.
The Plaintiffs were not able to take their Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
of The Defendants' corporate representative until May 14,
2024—just three days prior to the motion deadline. Because the
Plaintiffs had no way of knowing what facts would be established
through the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, it was not possible for them
to identify which confidential exhibits they would need to file in
support of their motions.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs request permission to file their Motion for
Class Certification and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
provisionally under seal for a period of 14 days.
The Defendants do not oppose this motion and therefore will not be
prejudiced.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UMOaBg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David P. Meyer, Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Jared W. Connors, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd
Columbus, OH 43201
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: dmeyer@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
jconnors@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Sean E. Jacobs, Esq.
Heidi R. Kemp, Esq.
EMENS WOLPER JACOBS & JASIN LAW
FIRM CO., LPA
One Easton Oval, Ste. 550
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 414-0888
Facsimile: (614) 414-0898
E-mail: sjacobs@ewjjlaw.com
hkemp@ewjjlaw.com
- and -
Scott K. Jones, Esq.
SCOTT K. JONES LAW, LLC
3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 103
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 410-2074
Facsimile: (513) 536-6393
E-mail: sjones@scottkjoneslaw.com
SAFE AUTO TRUCKING: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Auto Trucking
LLC. The case is styled as Robert Taylor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safe Auto Trucking LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00886 (D. Conn., May 16, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Safe Auto Trucking -- https://safeautotrucking.com/ -- provide
reliable car shipping for both individuals and companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (347) 526-4093
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
ari@marcuszelman.com
SAINT AGNES MEDICAL: Martin Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Martin, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and on
behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") v. SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER, a California
domestic nonprofit; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21CECG02303 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Fresno
on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00574-KES-HBK.
The Class Action Complaint seeks unpaid overtime pursuant to Labor
Code unpaid meal and rest break premiums pursuant to Labor Code,
unpaid minimum wages pursuant to Labor Code, penalties for untimely
payment of final wages pursuant to Labor Code, penalties for
non-compliant wage statements pursuant to Labor Code 226, unpaid
sick leave pursuant to Labor Code 246, and unreimbursed expenses
pursuant to Labor Code 2800 and 2802 on behalf of Plaintiff and the
Class, and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") pursuant to Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael S. Heisley, Esq.
Giulio A. Sanchez, Esq.
WANGER JONES HELSLEV PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 3 IO
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone: C 59) 233-4800
Facsimile: (559) 233-9330
SAINT GOBAIN: Lampton Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN LAMPTON JR., v.
SAINT GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-398-GAF (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, finally certifying the
Settlement Class, and finding the Notice Program satisfied due
process.
The Agreement provides for the following Settlement Class:
"All Persons who purchased one or more Covered Products at a
retail location in the United States and its territories
during
the Class Period for personal, family, or household
purposes."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all Persons who
purchased or acquired the Covered Products for commercial or
business purposes, or resale; (ii) Defendant and its
employees;
(iii) any Person who properly and timely opts out pursuant to
this Agreement; (iv) federal, state, and local governments
(including all agencies and subdivisions thereof (but
employees
thereof are not excluded)); and (v) any judge who presides
over
the consideration of whether to approve the settlement of this
class action and any member of their immediate family.
The Agreement provides Settlement Class members with significant
monetary and non-monetary benefits. With respect to the monetary
benefits, Defendant will pay up to $900,000 to Settlement Class
Members.
on June 16, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this consumer protection
class action. Doc 1. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on Aug.
15, 2022.
The Plaintiff opposed this Motion on Aug. 29, 2022, and Defendant
filed its Reply on Sept. 12, 2022.
Saint-Gobain manufactures abrasive products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pMCh97 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
Nichelle L. Oxley, Esq.
Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
221 West Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
pda@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
nlo@hfmlegal.com
kds@hfmlegal.com
SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Labor Code-Related Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanmina Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a Labor Code class suit in California.
A class action, a complaint under California's Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq.), alleges
substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision
governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually
and on behalf of the State of California and other "aggrieved
employees," along with attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously.
Sanmina Corporation is an American electronics manufacturing
services provider headquartered in San Jose, California that
serves
original equipment manufacturers in communications and computer
hardware fields.[BN]
SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Sanmina Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Ramirez class suit in Alameda County Superior
Court.
On November 14, 2023, Gerardo Ramirez, an employee at the Company's
Newark, California plant, filed two lawsuits against the Company in
the Alameda County Superior Court.
A putative class action (as amended in February 2024), alleges
violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order
requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and
rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during
employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of
business expenses.
The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all
current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company
within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021
and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties,
restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of
suit.
The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously.
Sanmina Corporation is an American electronics manufacturing
services provider headquartered in San Jose, California that
serves
original equipment manufacturers in communications and computer
hardware fields.[BN]
SCHENKER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wickam Suit Reset to Oct. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC M. WICKHAM, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. SCHENKER, INC., a New
York company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:23-cv-00946-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts
entered an order resetting the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion
for class certification to Oct. 10, 2024.
On April 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class
Certification. Shortly thereafter, the parties realized they had
erroneously calculated the dates in the Stipulation and submitted
an amended stipulation to the Court to correct the dates.
Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98x8B6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Brian P. Louis, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
brian@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
Jamie Y. Lee, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone (213) 443-4300
Facsimile (213) 443-4299
E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
jylee@littler.com
SCHENKER INC: Parties Seek to Reset Class Cert Hearing Date
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC M. WICKHAM, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. SCHENKER, INC., a New
York company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:23-cv-00946-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order resetting the hearing date on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification to Oct. 10, 2024.
On April 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class
Certification, consistent with the Stipulation and Order.
Shortly thereafter, the parties realized they had erroneously
calculated the dates in the Stipulation and submitted an amended
stipulation to the Court to correct the dates.
Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TPosgL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Brian P. Louis, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
brian@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
Jamie Y. Lee, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone (213) 443-4300
Facsimile (213) 443-4299
E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
jylee@littler.com
SCORPION SERVICES: Enriquez Sues Over Failure to Pay for All Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Enriquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCORPION SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, Case No.
24STCV12293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants failure to provide compliant meal
periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay
for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime owed, wage
statement penalties, waiting time penalties, violation of Unfair
Competition Law, Private Attorneys General Act.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal
breaks because meal breaks were regularly missed because there was
no one to relieve Plaintiff for their meal breaks. Plaintiff was
required to remain on call, on premises and on duty because there
was no one to relieve them. Despite not being provided with
compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these
missed breaks at Plaintiffs regular rate of pay. Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest breaks because Plaintiff
was required to remain on call, on premises and on duty because
there was no one to relieve them for his rest breaks.
Despite not being provided with compliant rest breaks, Defendant
did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all
hours worked because Plaintiff was required to clock out for meal
break but remain on call, on premises and on duty, Thus, Employer
owns Plaintiff 30 minutes of unpaid time per shift. The Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime owed because Plaintiff
regularly worked in excess of eight hours in a day and 40 hours in
a workweek. Since Plaintiff was required to perform work off the
clock, it follows that this time was often overtime. Thus,
Plaintiff was not paid all overtime wages owed.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not
accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other
things. Due to Defendants' failure to pay all wages due to
Plaintiff during their employment, it follows that Defendant failed
to pay all wages due at the conclusion of Plaintiffs employment as
well. Therefore, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for waiting
time penalties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was the Defendants' employee.
SCORPION SERVICES, INC. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, v.
SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David Keesler
entered an order granting the "joint motion to extend deadlines in
pretrial order and case management plan pursuant to court's
order:"
-- Discovery completion: June 28, 2024
-- The Plaintiff's Expert Report July 29, 2024
-- Defendant’s Expert Report Aug. 30, 2024
-- Class certification motion: Oct. 25, 2024
-- Defendant's response to class Nov. 27, 2024
certification motion:
-- Plaintiff's reply to class Dec. 13, 2024
certification motion:
SelectQuote is a one-stop for life, auto, home and Medicare
insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6AZezX at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Certeza Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Industries
Home Improvements LLC. The case is styled as Alfredo Certeza,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated v. Southern Industries Home Improvements LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03020-DCN (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Southern Industries Home Improvements LLC --
https://southernindustries.com/ -- offers installation of home
improvement products including siding, replacement windows,
gutters, sun rooms, screen rooms, patio covers, carports,
decks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
STATE FARM: Parties Must File Finding of Fact by July 5
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ, et al.,
v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-03128-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza Quiñones
Alejandro entered an order that:
1. The transcripts of the class certification hearing held on
May
15 and May 16, 2024, shall be transcribed by June 6, 2024;
2. The parties shall file a joint or separate finding of fact
and
conclusions of law, and any other briefing the parties deem
necessary, by July 5, 2024;
3. Any response thereto shall be filed by July 26, 2024; and
4. No replies will be permitted.
State Farm offers automobile, property, casualty, health,
disability, and life insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TK8lKi at no extra
charge.[CC]
STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Danielle Andrea Perez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Statewide Traffic Safety
and Signs, Inc., Traffic Solutions Corporation, Statewide Safety
System, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
30-02024-01382264-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01042-JWH-KES to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
Statewide Safety & Signs, Inc. provides traffic work zone products
and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Benjamin Hickson Haber, Esq.
Daniel Jonathan Kramer, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
benjamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
dkramer@wilshirelawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michelle Ann Clark, Esq.
Aaron M. Bausch, Esq.
Annureet K. Grewal, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
5200 North Palm Avenue Suite 302
Fresno, CA 93704-2225
Phone: (559) 244-7500
Fax: (559) 244-7525
Email: miclark@littler.com
STATEWIDE TRAFFIC: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Danielle Andrea Perez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY
AND SIGNS, INC., a corporation; TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, an
unknown entity; STATEWIDE SAFETY SYSTEMS, an unknown entity; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01382264-CU-OE-CXC
was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for
the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-03990.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit
Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination;
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michelle A. Clark, Esq.
Annureet K. Bezwada, Esq.
Aaron M. Bausch, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
Fresno, CA 93704.2225
Phone: 559.244.7500
Fax: 559.244.7525
Email: miclark@littler.com
abezwada@littler.com
abausch@littler.com
TECO ENERGY: Roche Seeks to Certify Grandfathered Participant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alejandro Roche,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TECO Energy, Inc. and TECO Energy Group Retirement Plan, Case No.
8:23-cv-01571-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- Certifying the putative Class under Rule 23(b)(3):
"All Grandfathered Participants who received an optional
pension
Lump sum from the Plan in 2023 calculated using the Code
section
417(e) segment rates for August 2022."
-- Appointing him as the named plaintiff representative for the
Class, and
-- Appointing attorneys Cantarella, Geller, and Thomson as counsel
for the Class.
During a Teams meeting on March 26, 2024 and by email on May 13,
2024 lead counsel for the parties conferred about the Plaintiff's
intent to file a motion for class certification. On both occasions,
lead counsel for Defendants informed lead counsel for Roche that
the Defendants intend to oppose the motion.
The suit says that because TECO's lookback methodology for
selecting the interest rates it uses to compute optional pension
lump sums and the significance of that methodology is nowhere
disclosed in the summary plan description ("SPD") for the Plan (ECF
1-3), this made it impossible for Roche or any other Grandfathered
Participant to make an informed decision as to when to retire.
As explained in the Complaint and Roche's response to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, TECO's failure to include this
highly pertinent information in the SPD violated the disclosure
rules under Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
section 102 and TECO's fiduciary duties under ERISA section 404(a),
29 U.S.C.
TECO is an energy-related holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rMyWiq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eva Cantarella
Robert Geller
Elizabeth Thomson
HERTZ SCHRAM PC
1760 S. Telegraph Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (248) 335-5000
Facsimile: (248) 335-3346
E-mail: ecantarella@hertzschram.com
- and -
Sean Estes, Esq.
HOYER LAW GROUP, PLLC
2801 W. Busch Blvd., Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33618
Telephone: (813) 375-3702
Facsimile: (813) 375-3710
E-mail: sean@hoyerlawgroup.com
THOMPSON MICHIE: Cantu Suit Removed to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christina Cantu and Rebekah Svinning, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THOMPSON MICHIE
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; TM EQUITIES
INC., f/k/a THOMPSON MICHIE ASSOCIATES, INC., a foreign
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
A-24-890712-C was removed from the Clark County District Court, to
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on May
14, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00908.
The Complaint contains two causes of action arising under federal
law: alleged "Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of the FLSA
(Fair Labor Standards Act)" and alleged "Retaliation under the
FLSA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey D. Winchester, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Phone: 702.893.3383
Facsimile: 702.893.3789
Email: jeffrey.winchester@lewisbrisbois.com
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Degioanni Sues Over Falsely Advertised Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Degioanni, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01843 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2024), is
brought alleging that the Defendant's Food Club fruit and grain
cereal bars (raspberry, blueberry, mixed berry, apple cinnamon, and
strawberry flavors) ("the Products"), which are manufactured,
packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant,
are misbranded and falsely advertised.
The Products' labels state they are "Naturally Flavored" or contain
"Natural Flavors with Other Natural Flavors" and are "Made With
Real Fruit." These statements are false and/or misleading. All of
the Products contain an ingredient known as "malic acid." Malic
acid derived from natural fruit sources (usually apples) is
commonly known as "L malic acid" instead of its scientific name,
2-Hydroxybutanedioic acid. There is a synthetic or artificial
version of malic acid derived from a petroleum substrate and other
synthetic components. It is commonly referred to as DL malic acid,
instead of its scientific name of d-hydroxybutanedioic acid.
Counsel for Plaintiff commissioned testing of the specific items
that were purchased by Plaintiff. That testing was conducted on or
about September 15, 2023 by Krueger Food Laboratories, Inc. of
Chelmsford, Massachusetts, a reputable independent food testing and
analysis laboratory that has conducted testing for the food and
beverage industry since 1984. This testing by Krueger Food
Laboratories revealed that the D isomer was present in every
Product purchased by Plaintiff. As a result, this testing
establishes that the malic acid used in these Products is
artificial DL malic acid, and not natural L malic acid.
DL malic acid is not a "natural flavor" as this term is defined by
federal and state regulations because it is not derived from a
fruit or vegetable or any other natural source, but rather from a
petroleum substrate. The Products therefore contain artificial
flavorings. Further, the presence of artificial malic acid in the
Products has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of
the Products, and consumers may be and have been misled about the
presence or absence of the artificial DL malic acid that is a
component in the Product. Because the Products contain artificial
flavoring, federal regulations and corresponding state law
incorporating and enacting those regulations require the Products
to display both front- and back-label disclosures to inform
consumers that the Products are artificially flavored.
Consumers including Plaintiffs especially rely on label claims made
by food product manufacturers such as Defendant, as they cannot
confirm or disprove those claims simply by viewing or even
consuming the Products. The Plaintiff suffered economic injury by
Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive conduct as stated herein, and
there is a causal nexus between Defendant's deceptive conduct and
Plaintiff's injury, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products.
The Defendant formulates, manufactures, and sells fruit-flavored
cereal bars under the trade name Food Club.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: 858.414.7465
Fax: 858.300.5137
TOYOTA MOTOR: Greif Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Greif, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case
No. 24STCV00688 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 16, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-04098.
On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging that
unspecified model years of the Tacoma were made with defective
paint and/or clear coat "in that they were of poor quality and/or
not properly or adequately applied, which caused the clear coat to
weaken and/or deteriorate and the paint to oxidize and turn
dull."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir M. Nassihi, Esq.
Joan R. Camagong, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission St., Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.544.1900
Fax: 415.391.0281
Email: anassihi@shb.com
jcamagong@shb.com
TRADITIONAL EQUITATION: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Allen, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, v.
GOLDEN ROAD FOOD SERVICES, LLC, RON COOLBAUGH and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12059 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code the appropriate Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order no. 5 for failure to pay proper wages.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory
minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work,
failed to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees overtime
compensation, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12
hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their
employment, failed to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with 10-minute rest periods for every
four hours of work, or majority portion thereof, throughout their
employment, failed to provide hourly, non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiff and others, the requisite 30-minute,
uninterrupted meal periods for every 5 hours of work throughout
their employment, failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees all wages due to them within any time
period specified by California Labor Code, failed to keep accurate
and complete payroll records showing the actual hours worked per
day and the wages paid to Plaintiff and others pursuant to
California Labor Code, and failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees earned and due wages upon
separation of employment, either immediately upon involuntary
termination, or within hours of resignation.
Additionally, the Defendants violated Labor Code Section 351 and
353 by taking some of the tips meant for employees and also
deducting the tips from Plaintiff's and others' earned wages.
Furthermore, the Defendants did not provide proper and
correct/accurate sick pay that was also delineated on employee pay
stubs and also failed to provide proper sick leave in violation of
Labor Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and
the latest job title was Shift Manager.
GOLDEN ROAD FOOD SERVICES, LLC, is a California limited liability
company, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Budde Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Renee Budde and Richard Budde, and all others
similarly situated v. TRANE TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. D512023CV62 was
removed from the District Court for the 10th Judicial District,
Pueblo County, Colorado Court, to the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on May 14, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-01355.
On February 15, 2024, the 10th Judicial District Court of Pueblo
County, Colorado ordered that the parties hold a mediation or
settlement conference.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Berard, Esq.
Matin Fallahi, Esq.
Daniel J. Corley, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
101 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 1100
Troy, MI 48084
Phone: (248) 205-3300
Fax: (248) 205-3399
Email: Matthew.berard@bowmanandbrooke.com
matin.fallahi@bowmanandbrooke.com
daniel.corley@bowmanandbrooke.com
TRINITY BROADCASTING: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leah Smith, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TRINITY BROADCASTING OF TEXAS. INC. d/b/a/
TRINITY BROADCASTING NETWORK, Case No. 30-2024-01388184-CU-BT-CXC
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 14, 2024, and assigned Case No.
8:24-cv-01046.
The Complaint asserts a single claim against TBT for alleged
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988
("VPPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Isabelle Ord, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Phone: 415.836.2500
Facsimile: 415.836.2501
Email: Isabelle.Ord@us.dlapiper.com
- and -
Ashleigh Lynn Angeletti, Esq.
Oliver M. Kiefer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Phone: 858.677.1400
Facsimile: 858.677.1401
Email: Ashleigh.Angeletti@us.dlapiper.com
Oliver.Kiefer@us.dlapiper.com
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Ambridge Area School Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries 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 Ambridge Area School class suit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.
On December 8, 2023, a lawsuit was filed against TILC titled
Ambridge Area School District et al. v. Norfolk Southern
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01530-CB, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs in this putative class action lawsuit assert claims
against Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway
Company, Oxy Vinyls, LP, GATX Corporation, General American Marks
Company, and TILC for negligence, negligence per se, strict
liability, public and private nuisance, future health monitoring,
trespass, and punitive damages.
On February 23, 2024, TILC filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’
amended complaint, which remains pending.
TILC was the owner of one tank car cited in this action, which was
leased to a third party, who is also a defendant in the
litigation.
The Company believes it has substantial defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all allegations in the third-party
and direct claims asserted against TILC.
TWO JINN: Parties in Medina Seek to Reset Class Cert. Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA and ALICIA
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TWO JINN, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a
ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, and ADLER WALLACH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
California corporation, d/b/a AWA COLLECTIONS, Case No.
3:22-cv-02540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order resetting following deadline as follows:
Event Current Stipulated
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Opposition to May 16, 2024 May 30, 2024
Defendants' Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings
Defendants' Reply in support of May 23, 2024 June 13,
2024
their Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings
Hearing on Defendants' Motion for July 16, 2024 July 30, 2024
Judgment on the Pleadings
Two Jinn provides consulting services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QvtVzR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
J. Aaron Lawson, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
Natasha Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
alawson@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
jzhu@edelson.com
nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
K.C. Jaski, Esq.
Katelyn L. Kang, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com
kjaski@cooley.com
kkang@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
- and -
David Kaminski, Esq.
Martin Schannong, Esq.
Michael P. Lavigne, Esq.
CARLSON & MESSER LLP
5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 242-2200
Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
schannongM@cmtlaw.com
lavignem@cmtlaw.com
UNITED CONCORDIA: Lyngaas TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. UNITED CONCORDIA COMPANIES, INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11604-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g), certifying a class of persons
and entities alleging claims against Defendant United Concordia
Companies, Inc. pursuant to Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA):
"All persons or entities sent one or more facsimiles from
United
Concordia on Oct. 6-8, 2020, March 2-3, 2021, May 10-11, 2021,
or
June 22, 2021, of a "Special Fax Bulletin" about property,
goods,
or services offered by Prophy Magic, DRNA, GradFin, or Steri
Check."
UCCI is excluded from the class.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff’s
counsel as class counsel.
In 2020, UCCI started faxing "Special Fax Bulletins" to the
Plaintiff and other network providers about discounted goods and
services available from vendors in its "Value Add Program" ("VAP").
UCCI sent four different, but substantially similar faxes. The
Plaintiff alleges these faxes were unsolicited advertisements.
The Plaintiff agreed to provide dental services to UCCI's plan
participants at UCCI's rates, but UCCI did not seek or obtain the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to send advertising material or
information about VAP vendors to the Plaintiff's fax machine. Nor
did UCCI seek or obtain any other provider's consent.
UCCI carefully tracked all fax transmissions. Its system
automatically generated fax transmission logs identifying the date
and time of each successful fax transmission to each fax number,
including the Plaintiff's
The Plaintiff has been a dentist in UCCI's provider network since
2009.
UCCI administers group dental insurance plans.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jx8jHu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
6550 Lakeshore Street
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 (fax)
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and -
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. La Salle St. Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5501
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
UNITED SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Wright Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, ROBERT
MANNING, ELLIOT CHEFITZ, and JOSHUA STEISS, individually, and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA GENERAL INDEMINITY COMPANY, Case
No. 1:23-cv-11155-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court finds that at least some of the requested remedies are
not barred by the filed-rate doctrine (assuming it applies), it
declines to dismiss the case on this basis.
The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on August 10, 2023. The
Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 11, 2023. The Plaintiffs
opposed on Oct. 17, 2023, and the Defendants filed a reply on Oct.
23, 2023.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly rely on policy
holders' military "pay grade" to determine whether they receive
insurance from GIC or United Services, in violation of
Massachusetts law.
The Plaintiffs are firefighters, who were all enlisted in the
military in the past.
USAA provides private passenger automobile insurance ("PPA") to
current and former military personnel "through four different
insurers that operate under common management and control."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9KJt4n at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Beltran Class Certification Bid Nixed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PALMA BELTRAN, et al., v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ,et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03349 (D.D.C.,
Filed Oct. 25, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order
denying class certification.
The instant Motion asserts that the Court's denial of class
certification is "in flagrant violation to the basic principle of
law Chevron Deference Doctrine."
But Chevron deference is an administrative-law doctrine entirely
inapplicable to Plaintiffs' efforts to certify a class action in
federal court. Because Plaintiffs plainly cannot adequately
represent the proposed class, the Court again denies class
certification.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.
Department of Justice is a federal executive department of the
United States government tasked with the enforcement of federal law
and administration of justice in the United States.[CC]
US 1 LOGISTICS: Albizures Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US 1 Logistics LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Gilda Albizures, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. US 1 Logistics LLC, PRP
Logistics, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005674 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., May 13, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
US 1 Logistics -- https://www.us1logix.com/ -- is the leading
transportation solutions provider in the Midwest, proudly servicing
all 48 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, 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
US HEALTHWORKS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES and
DARRICK FIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting joint motion and stipulation to
continue hearing on class certification and set briefing schedule:
1. To continue the date of the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for
class Certification from May 24, 2024, to June 28, 2024,
which
is the same date set for the hearing on Defendants' Motion to
Disqualify Expert Dr. Durrani.
2. The Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Disqualify
shall be due June 7, 2024.
3. Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Class Certification shall be
due
June 21, 2024.
4. The Defendants' Reply in support of the Motion to Disqualify
shall be due June 21, 2024.
U.S. HealthWorks was an American healthcare provider network.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4LDtNc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Scott Erlewine, Esq.
Kyle P. O'malley, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 - The Presidio
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 398-0900
Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
E-mail: rse@phillaw.com
kpo@phillaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletree.com
cameron.flynn@ogletree.com
US IMMIGRATION: Mugimu Bid for Class Status Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Willis Mugimu, v. US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case No. 1:24-cv-00021-SE-AJ
(D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Samantha Elliott entered an order denying
without prejudice the petitioner's request for class
certification.
US Immigration enforces federal laws governing border control,
customs, trade, and immigration.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jfr48H at no extra
charge.[CC]
VALVE CORP: Ct. Sets Deadline for Parties to File Bids to Seal Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v.
Valve Corporation (RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour
entered an order that:
1. The deadline for parties and non-parties to file Motions to
Seal
the Schwartz Report, Valve's Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, and Valve's Daubert motion will be
four
(4) weeks after the Court enters an order regarding Valve's
initial motion to seal the class certification brief.
2. Parties and non-parties will have three (3) weeks to oppose
or
otherwise respond to the above-referenced motions to seal.
3. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Valve may initially file its
forthcoming Daubert Motion under seal.
Valve is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital
distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BVkxxF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David LeRay, Esq.
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
Charles Stevens, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7231
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
charliestevens@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
Noah Brecker-Redd, Esq.
Wyatt Fore, Esq.
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 350-2700
Facsimile: (212) 350-2701
E-mail: akapoor@constantinecannon.com
wfore@constantinecannon.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq.
Timothy B. McGranor, Esq.
Kara M. Mundy, Esq.
Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 464-6400
Facsimile: (614) 719-4796
E-mail: kjrubin@vorys.com
tbmcgranor@vorys.com
kmmundy@vorys.com
tnmccormick@vorys.com
- and -
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
Allison B. Smith, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Telephone: (206) 883-2500
Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com
korourke@wsgr.com
allison.smith@wsgr.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Blake Marks-Dias, Esq.
Eric A. Lindberg, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 625-8600
Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
E-mail: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com
elindberg@corrcronin.com
- and -
Kristen Ward Broz
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
2020 K. St. NW, Ste. 500
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 794-1220
Facsimile: (202) 461-3102
E-mail: kbroz@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Charles B. Casper, Esq.
MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER
& RHOADS LLP
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 772-1500
E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Ahringer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics 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 Ahringer class suit in the United States
District Court, Central District of California.
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Justin Ahringer and Michael Donner
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, titled Ahringer et al. v.
LoanDepot, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Case No.:
8:23-cv-00186.
Plaintiffs assert violations of California's Invasion of Privacy
Act, Unfair Competition Law, and a violation of class members’
privacy rights under the California Constitution.
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants recorded visitors' electronic
communications without their consent.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of individuals who
visited LoanDepot.com and provided personal information on the
website’s forms to receive a quote or apply for a loan.
They allege that the aggregate claims of all members of the
proposed class exceeds $5.0 million.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory or punitive damages or
restitution, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and other costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on April
13, 2023.
The parties are currently engaging in jurisdictional discovery in
response to the court's demand to Plaintiff to demonstrate why this
case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The court found jurisdiction is proper and partially denied our
motion on February 7, 2024.
The Company filed its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on February
22, 2024.
At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the
liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early
stages.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and
technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research,
and
deep industry knowledge.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Cantinieri Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics 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 Cantinieri class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a
putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services
Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v.
Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911.
The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of its
databases by unauthorized entities.
Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries,
including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their
financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated
with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud.
They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney's fees and
costs.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on
April 22, 2022.
On March 30, 2023 the court denied its motion to dismiss without
prejudice, allowing it an opportunity to re-file the motion once
limited jurisdictional discovery has been completed.
Its renewed motion to dismiss was fully briefed on February 16,
2024. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the
liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early
stages.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and
technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research,
and
deep industry knowledge.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Telematics Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics 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
continues to defend itself from the telematics class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
As of April 19, 2024, various Plaintiffs filed four, separate
putative class action lawsuits against General Motors LLC ("GM"),
OnStar LLC ("OnStar"), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.
("LexisNexis") and Verisk (collectively, "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
the Eastern District of Michigan and Southern District of New York.
The Complaints generally allege that Defendants GM and OnStar
collected consumers' driver behavior data through vehicle software,
transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and
Verisk shared the data with insurance companies, without the
individuals' knowledge or consent.
Plaintiffs seek certification of both nationwide classes of
individuals and subclasses of various state residents who had their
vehicle's driving data collected by Defendants and shared with a
third party without their consent.
The Plaintiffs also seek actual, statutory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and other
costs.
At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the
liability related to these matters, as they are still in their
early stages.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and
technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research,
and
deep industry knowledge.
VERISK ANALYTICS: ERISA Class Suit Settlement for Fiduciary Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics 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 ERISA class suit
settlement is subject to independent fiduciary review.
On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare,
Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski ("Plaintiffs"), filed suit in the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey (No.
2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF) against Defendants Insurance Services Office
Inc. ("ISO"), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance
Services Office Inc. and its members ("Committee Defendants"), and
the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc.
and its members.
The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, as amended ("ERISA").
The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan ("Plan"), at any time between September 24, 2014
through the date of judgment.
The complaint alleges that all defendants are fiduciaries with
respect to the Plan.
Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants
to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the
amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants.
Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees,
the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence
and loyalty.
Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by
failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege
committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary
breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January
12, 2021, which the court partially denied on April 13, 2021.
Fact discovery was completed.
The court stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the
parties’ mediation, but the stay was lifted on May 5, 2023.
The parties engaged in expert discovery, and this matter was
settled before a mediator on October 4, 2023.
The settlement agreement was signed by both parties, and on
January 12, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of class
action settlement.
As a requirement to this class action settlement, an independent
fiduciary will review the settlement on behalf of the Plan.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and
technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research,
and
deep industry knowledge.
VIRGINIA UNION UNIVERSITY: Mgaresh Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Union
University. The case is styled as Ali Mgaresh, Jeffrey Minter, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Virginia
Union University, Case No. 3:24-cv-00337 (E.D. Va., May 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Virginia Union University -- https://www.vuu.edu/ -- is a private
historically black university in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 934-6377
Fax: (703) 934-6379
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settlement in Rieger Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENI RIEGER, et al., v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, d/b/a
AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10546-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel will grant the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards and the
Plaintiffs' motion for an order granting final approval of the
settlement.
The court concludes that these awards are appropriate based on the
time and effort plaintiffs have expended, including participation
in initial interviews with counsel, collection and preservation of
relevant documents and other evidence, and review of the various
iterations of the complaint and settlement.
The Plaintiffs' claims center on an alleged defect present in class
vehicles.
The original complaint was filed in April 2021 and thereafter twice
amended to add additional plaintiffs.
On May 4, 2023, Judge Noel L. Hillman (Ret.) granted in part and
denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding, in
part, that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing to assert
common-law claims on behalf of a nationwide class, and provided
plaintiffs 30 days to specify their allegations and address the
standing issue. The Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class-action complaint on June 2, 2023.
On Oct. 19, 2023, Judge Hillman entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.
The settlement defines settlement class vehicles as certain model
year 2012, 2013, and 2014 Audi A4, A5, A6, and Q5 vehicles; 2012,
2013, 2014, 2016, and 2017 Audi TT vehicles, and 2015, 2016, and
2017 Audi A3 vehicles imported and distributed by the defendant
for sale or lease in the United States or Puerto Rico and
designated by vehicle identification number (VIN).
The settlement class refers to individuals and entities who
purchased or leased a settlement class vehicle, excluding various
groups including those who have previously reached a settlement and
release-of-claim with defendant and those who have timely and
properly requested to be excluded from this settlement.
Volkswagen Group is responsible for five marques: Audi, Bentley,
Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated May 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UnqiYt at no extra
charge.[CC]
WAGS AND WALKS: Roseman Sues Over Unpaid Statutory Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Roseman, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees,
v. WAGS AND WALKS; LESLEY BROG; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case
No. 24SMCV02258 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2024),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code failure to pay statutory minimum wage.
The Defendants violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so for various
reasons, including the fact that Plaintiff was not compensated
whatsoever for her on-call time and her time in partaking in the
emergency triaging and outreach line. Despite the fact that
Plaintiff was under the control of the employer and in charge of
responding to the emergency line/crisis line, Plaintiff was not
compensated at all in violation of California's minimum wage laws.
Furthermore, the company had a policy and practice of "time
shaving" and rounding down work hours, which is akin to a minimum
wage violation in that Plaintiff and others were not paid for all
hours worked. Moreover, and to the extent that Plaintiff and others
worked through meal periods, they were not compensated for this
time, which is akin to a minimum wage violation. In addition, it is
important to note that Plaintiff was misclassified as a salaried,
exempt employee during her employment tenure and as such did not
receive compensation for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's employment with WAGS AND WALKS started several
years ago as a medical team member.
WAGS AND WALKS is and was a California corporation, doing business
in Los Angeles County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
WALGREEN CO: Dorschel Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffery Dorschel, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. S-CV-0052570 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on May 16, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-at-00625.
The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against
Defendant: Violation of Whistleblower Protection laws; Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Failure to Provide Paid
Sick Leave; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Violation
of California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code; Failure to
Provide Payroll Records Upon Request; and Civil Penalties Pursuant
to Private Attorney General Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
Amelia Alvarez, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614-7276
Phone: (949) 223-7000
Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
amelia.alvarez@bclplaw.com
WALGREEN CO: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA BARGETTO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case
No. 3:22-cv-02639-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief
in further opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Evidence and arguments raised by the Plaintiff for the first time
in her Reply, as well as subsequent actions taken by the
Plaintiff's counsel, warrant a sur-reply to allow the Court
properly to consider the Plaintiff's pending motion for class
certification.
Specifically, the Plaintiff's reply included an affidavit from a
previously undisclosed witness and putative class member, Benjamin
Roodman.
The import that Plaintiff attached to Mr. Roodman's affidavit is
legally incorrect—the Court cannot substitute a class
representative prior to or at the moment of class
certification—and, perhaps more importantly, subsequent events
have made it even clearer that the Court's consideration of the
pending motion for class certification and the reply in support
thereof should be considered with the aid of Defendant’s brief,
narrowly-focused sur-reply.
In the time since Walgreens filed its Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification, factual circumstances have occurred
that bear on the issues in Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and Plaintiff's Reply that should be brought to the
Court's attention.
Walgreen operates as a drugstore chain in the United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W0nFU3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cory E. Manning, Esq.
Jarrett O. Coco, Esq.
Miles E. Coleman, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
1320 Main St., 17th Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 255-5524
Facsimile: (803) 256-7500
E-mail: cory.manning@nelsonmullins.com
jarrett.coco@nelsonmullins.com
miles.coleman@nelsonmullins.com
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Compel Limited Deposition Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Telexfree
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG (D. Mass.),the
Hon. Judge Katherine Robertson entered an order:
-- denying Wells Fargo's emergency motion for order compelling
limited depositions of TelexFree Litigants, and
-- granting the joint cross-motion to quash and for protective
order
of non-party Valdecir Dos Santos and former Plaintiffs
Christopher
McCormick, Edivaldo Reis, Esam Abdelgadir, Joseph Shikhman,
Luci
Miranda, Olavo Magalhaes, and Violet Smart.
Mindful of the First Circuit’s admonition about discovery
directed to absent class members, considering the burdens of
depositions coupled with extensive document production obligations,
and considering the other sources of information available to Wells
Fargo bearing on class certification and the less than persuasive
justifications offered for these depositions, the court finds that
Wells Fargo’s emergency motion to take the depositions of eight
putative or absent class members is not justified.
The few Proposed Deponents might, but might not, be able to shed
light on two other justifications offered by Wells Fargo, those
being about the different representations made by recruiters about
the nature of TelexFree, and about whether they were injured by
recruiters who absconded with their funds rather than by
TelexFree's fraudulent operations.
Finally, Wells Fargo took the depositions of the remaining named
Plaintiff and of Rita Dos Santos, a former TelexFree plaintiff, and
has not shown that the eight Proposed Deponents possess information
that the Plaintiff and Ms. Dos Santos did not have.
This case arises from a large scale and complex fraud that
functioned simultaneously as a pyramid and a Ponzi scheme.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rugcep at no extra
charge.[CC]
WHALECO INC: Silva Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WhaleCo, Inc. The
case is styled as Eli Silva, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WhaleCo, Inc. doing business as: Temu, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02890-SK (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
WhaleCo, Inc. doing business as Temu -- https://www.temu.com/ -- is
an online marketplace operated by the Chinese e-commerce company
PDD Holdings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group 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 a consolidated securities suit in the Western
District of Washington.
On November 16, 2021, November 19, 2021 and January 6, 2022, three
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things,
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those
who purchased our stock between August 7, 2020 and November 2,
2021.
The three purported class action lawsuits, captioned Barua v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al., Silverberg v. Zillow Group, et al. and
Hillier v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. were brought in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington and were
consolidated on February 16, 2022.
On May 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
complaint which alleges, among other things, that it issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its Zillow
Offers business.
The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct.
The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
July 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss on September 2, 2022, and it filed a reply in support of
the motion to dismiss on October 11, 2022.
On December 7, 2022, the court rendered its decision granting
defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, and denying the motion, in
part.
On January 23, 2023, the defendants filed their answer to the
consolidated complaint.
On March 14, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and it filed its opposition on April 26, 2024.
The Company intends to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend the claims in this consolidated
lawsuit.
Zillow Group is an American tech real-estate marketplace company.
*********
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 ***