/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240603.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, June 3, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 111
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Burgess Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Burke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Byrnes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Charlton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Clayton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
AJO PIZZA LLC: Smith Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Dabnet Expected to Be Approved
ALTRIA GROUP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 23, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Stipulation Coordinating Discovery & Order Entered
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Settlement in Boone Gets Initial Nod
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence Suit Seeks to Certify Class
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 31, 2025
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hirsch Due Nov. 19
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE: Continues to Defend Moriarty Class Suit
APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
APA CORP: PCRS Settlement Deal for Court Approval
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Taylor City Suit for Court Nod
AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit
BARKER LOUNGE: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BARRETT BUSINESS: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
BAYOU STEEL: Fleming Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit
BENNETT ENTERPRISES: Barajas Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed
CATHAY PACIFIC: Class Cert. Hearing in Goldthorpe Set for July 18
CCC CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Building Materials, L&W Supply Suit Claims
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks Extension to File Opposition
CIGNA CORP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 28, 2025
CINEMARK USA INC: Continues to Defend Shane Class Suit in Texas
CITIGROUP INC: Becker Sues Over Racial Discrimination
CLOROX COMPANY: Class Action Settlement in Swetz Gets Final Nod
CLOVERLEAF HEALTHCARE: Bayless Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit
COLUMBIA PHOTO: Trippett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION: Garcia FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CORE CONTRACTING: Torres Suit Removed to S.D. California
COUNTRY MUTUAL: Cameron Sues Over Consumer Protection Act Violation
COURSERA INC: Continues to Defend Video Privacy Class Suit
CULTUREFLY LLC: Pearlman Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
DAILY HARVEST: Class Settlement in Peni Suit Gets Initial Nod
DANVIFO CORP: Echevarria Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DELL INC: Townsend Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
DISCOUNT OFFICE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Says
DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Suit
DOMUS MANAGEMENT: Jeon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DOORDASH INC: Court Remands Floyd Suit to Superior Court
EAGLE TRUCKLINE: Kumar Seeks Conditional Collective Status
ELON MUSK: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class in Pampena Suit
ERC SOLUTIONS: Avila Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by July 8
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Busby Alleges
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Wagner Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info
GOLDMAN SACHS: Jiang Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Shapovalov Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wachtel Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Zaheer Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
HERSHEY COMPANY: Reese's Products' Ads "Deceptive," Vidal Alleges
HUMBL INC: Seeks to Dismiss Pasquinelli Shareholder Suit
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Klein Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
MULTIPLAN INC: Faces Suit Over Insurance Reimbursement Scheme
MYGRANT GLASS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATIONAL STEEL: Eyong Suit Removed to S.D. California
NEW YORK: Bronx Freedom Fund Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
NORAZZA INC: Piatek Sues Over Defective Design
OPTUM INC: Lancaster Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
OSCEOLA COUNTY, FL: Balint Sues Over Deprivation of Overtime Wages
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: O'Cain Sues Over Unpaid Wages
PENSACOLA, CA: Pruett Files Suit in N.D. Florida
REDWIRE CORPORATION: Lemen Files Suit in E.D. New York
SAGAL FISH MARKET: Pastor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SATURDAYS SURF: Zelvin Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
SIKA AG: Benevento Sues Over Cement Additives Price Monopoly
SINGING RIVER: Austin Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
SM I MMS: Faces Cuevas Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Steen Sues Over 401(k) Plan's Excessive RKA Fees
TAKEDE PHARMACEUTICALS: EPP Seeks Class Certification
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Arbitration Order in Agha to 7th Cir.
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Blanton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED MORTGAGE: Mattson Seeks Extension to File Response
UNITED SERVICES: Must File Class Cert Response by July 2
UNITED STATES: Poffenbarger Appeals Dismissal Ruling to 6th Cir.
UNITED WHOLESALE: Manwarren Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Allen Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
UPBOUND GROUP: Continues to Defend McBurnie Class Suit
US AVIATION SERVICES: Ragone Suit Removed to C.D. California
US CUSTOMS: Initial Case Management Conference Set for June 6
UTILITY TREE: Settlement in Lopez Suit Gets Final Nod
VERRA MOBILITY: Continues to Defend Brantley Class Suit
VGW HOLDINGS: Kennedy Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Glikin Variable Rate Class Suit
VOYAGE RUN: Riley Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
WARRENTON MANOR: Painter Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WASHINGTON: Plaintiffs Must Amend or Dismiss Complaint w/in 60 Days
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Berseneva Says
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Radney Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
WHALECO INC: Ziboukh Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
WINE & ROSES: Tolentino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YODLEE INC: Clark Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
YOUR HOMETOWN: Clardy Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification
*********
3M COMPANY: Burgess Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Burgess, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-01839-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 12, 2024), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the military, and/or
training.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his
military career and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
rlee@belllegalgroup.com
gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Burke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Burke, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-01820-RMG (D.S.C., April 11, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson
Marc S. Whitehead
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Byrnes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Byrnes, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-01826-RMG (D.S.C., April 11, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson
Marc S. Whitehead
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Charlton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Charlton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.);
Case No. 2:24-cv-01827-RMG (D.S.C., April 11, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson
Marc S. Whitehead
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Clayton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renauld Clayton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE,
LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-01828-RMG (D.S.C., April 11, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Madison T. Donaldson
Marc S. Whitehead
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
AJO PIZZA LLC: Smith Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AJO Pizza LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Chase Smith, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. AJO Pizza LLC, Allen J. Opie, Case
No. 5:24-cv-00510-J (W.D. Okla., May 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Ajo Pizza LLC is a local pizzeria in Oklahoma City, OK that offers
a variety of pizza options for dine-in and takeout.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 904-1649
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Dabnet Expected to Be Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alignment Healthcare 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 2, 2024, that the Dabnet class suit
settlement is expected to be approved in the third quarter of
2024.
On April 27, 2022, a former employee of the Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit (Dabney v. Alignment Healthcare USA,
LLC, Orange County Superior Court) alleging that the Company failed
to provide hourly employees with required meal and rest breaks or
pay such workers a premium equal to an hour of pay for missed meal
or rest breaks.
Discovery in the matter commenced on June 8, 2022.
On September 2, 2022, the court granted a stay of proceedings and
discovery in anticipation of mediation scheduled for August 2023.
On August 15, 2023, the Company entered into a tentative settlement
of the action in consideration of an aggregate payment of $913.
The settlement of this matter is subject to approval by the court
which is expected in the third quarter of 2024.
Alignment is a publicly traded company incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Orange, CA. The company partners with leading
health care systems and Medicare advantage plans in order to
provide health care that is more convenient and coordinated for
senior citizens, and that results in improved outcomes. Its common
stock is traded on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol ALHC. [BN]
ALTRIA GROUP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 23, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group,
Inc. et al (JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick
entered an order modifying pre-trial schedule as follows:
Close of written and documentary fact discovery: Sept. 13,
2024
Fact discovery cut-off: Nov. 15,
2024
Expert disclosure: Dec. 20,
2024
Expert rebuttal: Feb. 26,
2025
Close of expert discovery: Apr. 25,
2025
Deadline for motions for class certification: May 23,
2025
Deadline for oppositions to class certification July 3,
2025
and opening Daubert motions:
Deadline for replies in support of class Aug. 22,
2025
certification and oppositions to Daubert
motions:
Deadline for replies in support of Daubert Sept. 5,
2025
Motions:
Last day to hear MSJ: Jan. 28,
2026
Pretrial Conference: Apr. 6,
2026
Trial: May 4,
2026
Altria operates as a holding company, which engages in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WEAViQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Stipulation Coordinating Discovery & Order Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAFARI MBADIWE and RACHEL
MILLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order that:
1. Fact discovery shall be coordinated with fact discovery in
FTC
v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01495-JHC (W.D. Wash.)
and
California v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. CGC-22-601826 (Cal.
Super. Ct.).
2. Consistent with the deadlines set forth in the FTC case and
the
CA AG case, the fact discovery deadline shall be Aug. 8,
2025.
3. The Parties shall meet and confer regarding expert discovery
within sixty 60 days of the close of fact discovery
4. Within 21 days of the resolution of all summary judgment
motions
in the FTC and CA AG cases, should this case still be
pending,
the parties shall meet and confer and submit a proposed
schedule
for class certification briefing in the case.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RZP0lB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Goldman, Esq.
BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
San Clemente, CA 92673
Telephone: (949) 369-3700
E-mail: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL, PLLC
3728 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Settlement in Boone Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER BOONE, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00241-KES-BAM (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an order granting
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
-- The following persons are conditionally certified as Class
Members
solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in this
matter:
"All current and former non-exempt employees of Amazon.com
Services, LLC in California who underwent one or more COVID-19
temperature screenings during the period of April 1, 2020,
through
July 17, 2021 for individuals who did not work at the facility
known as OAK4 in Tracy, California, or the period of April 1,
2020
through February 23, 2022 for those individuals who worked at
the
facility known as OAK4 in Tracy, California."
-- The Court finds that, for settlement purposes only, the
settlement
class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that: (1) the class is
ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members of
the
class is impracticable; (2) there are common questions of law
and
fact, and the questions of law and fact common to the class
predominate; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims
of
the members of the class; (4) Plaintiffs will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the members of the class;
and
(5) a class action is superior to other available methods for
the
efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Amazon.com retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances,
apparels, and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRFnpf at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN P. SPENCE, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00552-O (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order on motion for
class certification.
The Court concludes that the elements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b) are
satisfied. The Court also finds the class sufficiently
ascertainable. As a result, class certification is proper.
Therefore, Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiff may proceed in this case as representative of himself and
the following class:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the American Airlines,
Inc.
401(k) Plan and/or the American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan for
Pilots from June 1, 2017, through the date of judgment,
excluding
(i) Plan participants and beneficiaries who invested solely
through
the Plan's self-directed brokerage account, and (ii) Defendants
and
any of their directors, officers, or employees with
responsibility
for the Plans investment or administration."
American Airlines is a major airline in the United States
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bsROoY at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 31, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasner v. American
Economy Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11047 (D.
Mass., Filed June 24, 2021), the Hon. Denise J. Casper Judge
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Completion of Phase I (class certification) Nov. 15, 2024
fact discovery:
-- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures re class Dec. 16, 2024
Certification:
-- The Defendant's expert disclosures re Jan. 16, 2025
class certification:
-- Close of Phase I expert discovery: Feb. 28, 2025
-- Last day to file class certification March 31,
2025
motion:
-- Reply brief for class certification Nov. 18, 2024
motion [30 days after filing of class
certification motion] Status Conference
set for:
The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance.
American Economy offers auto, home, renters, condo, boat, car,
motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and landlord protection insurance
services.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hirsch Due Nov. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hirsch, et al., v.
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04005
(W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order granting the third joint motion to amend the
scheduling order.
(1) Class certification discovery shall Sept. 12,
2024
close on:
(2) Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 19,
2024
certification and any individual
motions for summary judgment are due
on or before:
The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance.
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE: Continues to Defend Moriarty Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American General Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Moriarty class suit.
American General Life Insurance Company (AGL) continues to defend
against Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Co. (S.D.
Cal.), a putative class action involving Sections 10113.71 and
10113.72 of the California Insurance Code.
In general, those statutes require that for life-insurance policies
issued and delivered in California: (1) the policy must contain a
60-day grace period following nonpayment of premium during which
the policy remains in force; (2) the insurer must provide a 30-day
pre-lapse notice; and (3) the insurer must notify policy owners of
the right to designate a secondary recipient for lapse notices.
The Moriarty plaintiff contends AGL did not comply with these
requirements for a policy issued before these statutes went into
effect.
The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief.
AGL asserts various defenses to the plaintiff's claims and to class
certification.
In 2022, the District Court held a trial was necessary to determine
whether AGL was liable, and it denied class certification.
In May 2023, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 14,
2023, the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim.
On September 26, 2023, the District Court decided that good cause
exists to allow the plaintiff to file a third motion for class
certification.
At the same time, however, the District Court certified its August
14, 2023 order for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit and
stayed trial-court proceedings pending the outcome of AGL's appeal.
The Ninth Circuit granted AGL's petition for interlocutory appeal
on November 21, 2023, which remains pending.
American General operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers life, travel, annuities, mutual funds, and home loan.
APA CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
APA 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Kulp Minerals class suit in the Fifth Judicial
District.
On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class
action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache
Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial
District.
The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to
represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under
New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments.
The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
APA CORP: PCRS Settlement Deal for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------
APA 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 2, 2024, that the Plymouth County class suit
settlement agreement is subject to the approval of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and date
of hearing is not yet set.
On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement
System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) against the Company and certain current and former
officers.
The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class
action, alleges, among other things, that (1) the Company
intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and
composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) the
Company did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely
and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if
they existed in the amounts purported; (3) certain statements and
omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company's
operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading.
With no admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability,
or wrongdoing, but only to avoid the expense and uncertainty of
litigation, the parties have agreed to a settlement resolving all
claims made against the defendants by the class.
The settlement agreement will be subject to court approval, and a
hearing is expected to be held in the coming months.
The settlement will not have a material effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity and is
subject to insurance coverage that companies have for these types
of claims.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and
natural gas liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Taylor City Suit for Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Astec 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 2, 2024, that the City of Taylor
shareholder class suit settlement is subject to the preliminary and
final approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.
The Company and certain of its former executive officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed
on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The
action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System
v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-24-CEA-CHS. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and that the individual defendants were
control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
stock of the Company between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and
seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
On October 25, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.
On February 19, 2021, the Motion to Dismiss was granted with
prejudice and judgment was entered for the defendants.
On March 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed Amended Complaint,
which was denied on May 5, 2021.
The plaintiff appealed the Motion to Dismiss and denial of its
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and For Leave to File the
Proposed Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.
On March 31, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued an opinion reversing the dismissal of the Company
and one former executive officer, affirming the dismissal of
certain other former executive officers and remanding the action to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
On March 22, 2024, the parties notified the District Court that
they reached an agreement in principle to resolve this action for
$13.7 million.
Plaintiff will file a motion seeking entry of an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and establishing notice
procedures on or before May 6, 2024.
The settlement is subject to both preliminary and final approval by
the District Court.
The Company's insurance carriers will fund the entire $13.7 million
settlement amount. In connection with the pending settlement,
management recorded a liability of $13.7 million in "Other current
liabilities" and a corresponding $13.7 million receivable from the
Company's insurance carriers in "Trade receivables, contract assets
and other receivables, net" during the first quarter of 2024.
Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing 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 2, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the ERISA class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In May 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed against
ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey.
The complaint asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and
investment decision-making.
The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
The Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, with respect to this matter.
The Company is vigorously defending against this lawsuit.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides comprehensive cloud-based
human capital management solutions that unite HR, payroll, talent,
time, tax and benefits administration.
BARKER LOUNGE: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Norberto Vega, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE BARKER LOUNGE FRANCHISING, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-06318-MCA-AME (D.N.J., May 21, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it
enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full
integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons
with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and
other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and
visually impaired persons.
Because the Defendant's website, www.thebarkerlounge.com (the
"Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.artofpure.com
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods
and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
BARRETT BUSINESS: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services 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 2, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from labor-related class suit.
On April 5, 2011, several individual plaintiffs filed a wage and
hour class action in the California Superior Court, County of
Fresno, naming as defendants their employer, a Merry Maids
franchisee; BBSI, which was providing PEO services to the
franchisee; and various parties related to the franchisor.
Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that BBSI and the
franchisor were their joint employer with franchisee and therefore
jointly responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations.
The case was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, and on January 18,
2019, the District Court certified a class of former non-exempt
employees who resided in California and worked for the franchisee
in certain positions during the period from April 6, 2007 through
January 19, 2019.
On November 30, 2020, the District Court granted BBSI's motion for
summary judgment to be removed from the case.
Thereafter the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on June 2, 2022, the Court of
Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to BBSI.
The court held that there is a triable issue of fact concerning
whether or not BBSI was a joint-employer under applicable
California law.
BBSI intends to vigorously defend the claim, including continuing
to assert its defense on the ground that it was not a
joint-employer of plaintiffs. Given the uncertainties surrounding
this litigation, management is unable to estimate a potential range
of loss.
Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies with a
management platform that integrates a knowledge-based approach from
the management consulting industry with tools from the human
resource outsourcing industry.
BAYOU STEEL: Fleming Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TROY FLEMING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Troy Fleming, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Bayou Steel BD Holdings II, LLC and Black Diamond Capital
Management LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-1476, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act seeking recovery
for Bayou Steel's former employees of damages in the amount of 60
days' back pay, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
benefits and other damages.
On September 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs learned that they were to be
terminated immediately, or had already been terminated, without
cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoff
or facility closing ordered by Bayou Steel Entities and the
Defendants. Such termination violated the notice requirements of
the WARN Act because the Defendants failed to give them at least 60
days' advance written notice of termination, says the complaint.
On February 23, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment was entered in
favor of Defendants Bayou Steel BD Holdings II LLC, Black Diamond
Capital Management L.L.C. against Plaintiffs Charles Ziegeler,
Davarian Ursin, Jarrod Nabor, Ronnie Millet, Troy Fleming,
dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint at their cost.
On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration regarding the said Summary Judgment ruling which
the court denied on April 20, 2022, through an Order signed by
Judge Carl Barbier.
On Apr. 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to the
Apr. 20 Order.
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Court of Appeals ordered and adjudged that
the judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
Each party would bear its own costs on appeal.
On Jan. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a joint motion to continue
trial.
On Apr. 16, 2024, Judge Barbier entered a final judgment which
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against Black
Diamond.
The appellate case is captioned Fleming v. Black Diamond Capital
Management LLC, Case No. 24-30291, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TROY FLEMING, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Brent Bennett Barriere, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
201 Saint Charles Avenue
Place Saint Charles
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
- and -
Randal Leroy Gaines, Esq.
7 Turnberry Drive
LaPlace, LA 70068
Telephone: (504) 487-9904
- and -
Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
LAMBERT ZAINEY SMITH & SOSO, A.P.L.C.
701 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 581-1750
- and -
Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
3500 N. Hullen Street
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 456-8677
- and -
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
201 Saint Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5259
Defendant-Appellee Black Diamond Capital Management L.L.C. is
represented by:
Don S. McKinney, Esq.
ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P.
701 Poydras Street
Hancock Whitney Center
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 585-0134
- and -
Jeffrey H. Zaiger, Esq.
ZAIGER, L.L.C.
2187 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (917) 572-7701
BENNETT ENTERPRISES: Barajas Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Barajas, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. BENNETT ENTERPRISES, A
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, Case
No. 24STCV12791 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 21, 2024),
is brought pursuant to California Code as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay all straight time wages; failure to pay
all overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; failure to authorize and permit
recovery periods; knowing and intentional failure to comply with
itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to
reimburse/illegal deductions; failure to pay all wages due at the
time of termination of employment; failure to adopt a compliant
sick pay/paid time off policy; and violation of Unfair Competition
Law.
Throughout the statutory period the Defendants has not paid its
landscapers and/or other workers with similar job designations or
titles for all time they were performing work and/or are subject to
the Defendants' control. Failing to pay for all hours worked while
under the Defendants control and/or while suffered or permitted to
work has resulted in landscapers and/or other workers with similar
job designations or titles being deprived of straight time and/or
overtime wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.
BENNETT ENTERPRISES provides services to both residential and
commercial properties, including maintenance, tree trimming,
irrigation, landscape design, and construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
Jill Vecchi, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 302
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 234-2833
Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
- and -
Peter Horton, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS, APC
4100 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (323) 486-5101
Facsimile: (323) 306-5571
CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nqadolo, et al., v. Care
at Home, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn., Filed April
29, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Order denying their Motion for Class
Certification, Motion for Conditional Certification, and Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court misunderstood the distinction
between the alleged improper exclusion of 8 hours of sleep time and
3 hours of meal times and the failure to count and pay for
interruptions to such sleep and meal times, and in doing so,
overlooked the factual and legal allegations in the complaint that
were supported by the record developed through discovery.
The Plaintiffs also argue that the Court should again revisit its
determination that the food and lodging credit issue should be
struck from this case. Neither argument meets the strict standard
set forth in Van Buskirk .
As to the first argument, the Court did not misapprehend the
distinction between unpaid sleep and meal time and unpaid
interruptions to sleep and meal time.
To the contrary, it was this very distinction that revealed that
Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify a class as to claims not
pled. Indeed, Plaintiffs admit that that their motions for class
and conditional certification "sought to address theories of
liability that were not explicitly addressed in the complaint."
The Plaintiffs do not identify case law or facts the Court
overlooked; rather, Plaintiffs take issue with the Court's
application of the law to the facts presented here.
Further, in rendering its decision, the Court scrutinized the
allegations in the Amended Complaint, and, citing to applicable
case law regarding class actions generally as well as FLSA class
and conditional actions, determined that the Court was unable to
certify a class to claims not pled in the operative complaint. That
Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's assessment as to the nature of
the claims actually (as opposed to inferentially) alleged, is not
sufficient to overcome their burden on a motion for
reconsideration.
The Plaintiffs' citation to successful motions for reconsideration
in inapposite cases is also not persuasive. As to the second
argument regarding the food and lodging credit, Plaintiffs cite no
case law in support of their request for the Court to revisit this
theory of liability because, they argue, the Amended Complaint
already contains allegations regarding the same.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Care At Home supports and provides care for individuals with
developmental and intellectual disabilities.[CC]
CATHAY PACIFIC: Class Cert. Hearing in Goldthorpe Set for July 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goldthorpe, et al., v.
Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03233
(N.D. Cal., Filed June 5, 2017), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria
entered an order that all deadlines currently in place are extended
for four weeks:
-- Responses due by: June 20, 2024
-- Replies due by: June 27, 2024
-- Designation of Experts due by: Aug. 15, 2024
-- Rebuttal Reports due by: Aug. 29, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff due by: Sept. 12, 2024
-- Class Certification Hearing set for: July 18, 2024
n light of all the delays that have taken place in this case, the
Court will not simply vacate all litigation deadlines based on a
vague announcement that the parties have reached a settlement.
Especially since the parties have not even specified whether it is
a class action settlement or a settlement of the claims of the
named plaintiffs.
These dates will not be vacated, and no further extensions will be
granted, until and unless a motion for settlement approval is filed
(whether it is a motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement or a motion for approval of settlements with the named
plaintiffs).
This means that if no motion for approval is filed by June 20, the
defendant must file its opposition to the class certification
motion on that date.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation --
Diversity-(Citizenship).
Cathay is Hong Kong's flag carrier, offering passenger and cargo
services.[CC]
CCC CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Building Materials, L&W Supply Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
L&W SUPPLY CORPORATION, individually and as a proposed class
representative for a class of subcontractors and materialmen,
Plaintiff v. CCC CUSTOM CARPENTRY CORP., WILLIAM VERGAKIS, RICHARD
RAFFERTY, PLAZA CONSTRUCTION, LLC, SRS ENTERPRISES, INC., NEW
ENGLAND GYPSUM SUPPLY, INC. d/b/a NYC ACOUSTICAL SUPPLY, IMPERIAL
DAMPER & LOUVER LLC, PARK AVENUE BUILDING AND ROOFING SUPPLIES,
LLC, EULER HERMES NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ABC COMPANIES
(1-5), and JOHN OR JANE DOES (1-5), Defendants, Case No.
513902/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 17, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, foreclosure of public improvement lien and action on
bond, and unlawful diversion of Lien Law Article 3-A trust funds.
The case arises from the Defendants' refusal to compensate the
Plaintiff for the building materials that it provided on a credit
account according to plans and specifications referred to in a
contract dated, on or about July 1, 2019. The Plaintiff performed
each and every obligation on its part to be performed but it has
not been paid, despite due demand therefor. The Plaintiff commenced
this action against the Defendants for payment due for the goods
and services.
L&W Supply Corporation is a distributor of building materials based
in Chicago, Illinois.
CCC Custom Carpentry Corp. is a specialty contractor based in New
York.
Plaza Construction, LLC is a contractor based in New York.
SRS Enterprises, Inc. is a construction company based in Carle
Place, New York.
New England Gypsum Supply, Inc., doing business as NYC Acoustical
Supply, is a supplier of construction materials, doing business in
New York.
Imperial Damper & Louver LLC is a manufacturer of dampers and
louvers in New York.
Park Avenue Building and Roofing Supplies, LLC is a building
materials supplier in New York.
Euler Hermes North America Insurance Company is an insurance firm
based in Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN LLC
14 Penn Plaza
225 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10122
Telephone: (862) 245-2667
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks Extension to File Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------
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
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte
application and extending the Defendants' deadline to file its
Opposition until Aug. 10, 2024, Plaintiffs' reply to Aug. 26, 2024,
and continuing the hearing until Sept. 19, 2024.
The current deadlines, as per the Scheduling Order entered on
February 27, 2024.
Celestron manufactures life science equipment.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=18AgcR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Frost, Esq.
John Maatta, Esq.
Joshua Stambaugh, Esq.
FROST LLP
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 254-0441
Facsimile: (424) 600-8504
E-mail: chris@frostllp.com
john@frostllp.com
josh@frostllp.com
- and -
Shauna A. Izadi
IZADI LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
13155 Noel Rd, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75240
E-mail: sizadi@izadilegal.com
CIGNA CORP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 28, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart, et al., v. CIGNA
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00769 (D. Conn., Filed June
10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order
granting motion to further extend deadlines.
-- All discovery shall be completed on Dec. 20, 2024
or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Feb. 28, 2025
certification shall be submitted on
or before:
-- The Defendant's response thereto April 25, 2025
shall be filed on or before:
-- Any reply in support of the motion May 23, 2025
shall be submitted on or before:
The parties are free to set and amend any interim discovery
deadlines without the court's approval provided such deadlines do
not postdate the deadline for all discovery.[CC]
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
CIGNA provides insurance and related products and services.[CC]
CINEMARK USA INC: Continues to Defend Shane Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Shane class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division.
Shane Waldrop, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, vs. Cinemark USA, Inc.
This putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company on April 16, 2024, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, alleging
violations of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act, violations of
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment based on the
Company's alleged mislabeling of twenty-four ounce draft beer cups
used at certain theatres.
The Company denies the allegations and will vigorously defend
itself against the lawsuit.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.
Cinemark is a movie theatre chain whose portfolio includes Cinemark
Century at Pacific Commons and numerous other theatres in this
district. Cinemark's website allow consumers to select the movie of
their choice and to purchase tickets online for video viewing.[BN]
CITIGROUP INC: Becker Sues Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Werner Jack Becker, Dana Guida, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CITIGROUP INC. d/b/a CITIBANK and
CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 0:24-cv-60834-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 17,
2024), is brought involving express, unabashed racial
discrimination that violates federal and state law.
From July 14, 2016, to the present day, Citi has had an express
policy of charging customers different ATM fees based on race.
Under that policy, Citi does not charge out-of-network ATM fees to
people who bank at financial institutions that are "minority
owned." But it does charge those fees to people who bank at other
financial institutions.
This policy was no secret. Citi has advertised its race-based
pricing scheme, maintained it without interruption, and often
boasted about it. This makes Citi's racial discrimination markedly
different from the mine run of discrimination cases where intensive
factual development is necessary to establish whether a defendant
engaged in discrimination. Here, it's indisputable that Citi
intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated for banking with financial institutions owned by people of
the wrong race. Citi is thus liable to Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated under both and state law for each ATM fee they
paid at Citi's ATMs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs do not bank with Citi.
Citigroup Inc. d/b/a Citibank is a multinational investment bank
and financial services corporation headquartered in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Shapiro, Esq.
Bryan Weir, Esq.
Brandon M. Haase, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: (703) 243-9423
Email: daniel@consovoymccarthy.com
bryan@consovoymccarthy.com
brandon@consovoymccarthy.com
CLOROX COMPANY: Class Action Settlement in Swetz Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN SWETZ on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE CLOROX COMPANY,
Case No. 7:22-cv-09374-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip
Halpern entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of class action settlement.
-- The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary
Approval
Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement
only,
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure, the Settlement Class.
-- Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and
for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby
re-affirms
its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order
-- Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the
provisions
of the Settlement Agreement.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement on May 1, 2024.
Clorox Company is an American global manufacturer and marketer of
consumer and professional products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zF14mv at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLOVERLEAF HEALTHCARE: Bayless Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn D. Bayless, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CLOVERLEAF HEALTHCARE OF KNIGHTSVILLE, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00188-MPB-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 21, 2024), is brought against
Cloverleaf to address class-wide wage and hour violations committed
by Cloverleaf by failing to pay overtime and all wages.
Specifically, Cloverleaf is and has been significantly underpaying
its hourly-paid healthcare workers (particularly nurses) wages and
overtime on a systematic, class-wide basis based upon Cloverleaf's
excessive work demands and corresponding disciplinary rules.
Specifically, Cloverleaf has suffered or permitted its hourly paid
healthcare workers to work off the clock and at home (away from
work) to perform required "charting" and medical record duties.
Cloverleaf has been providing a company password that enables its
healthcare workers to gain access to the Cloverleaf computer server
and perform medical charting while at home (away from work),
however Cloverleaf is not paying healthcare workers for this off
the clock "charting" time spent performing required work.
For four months of her employment with Cloverleaf, Bayless was
completing her patient medical charts from home, but without her
hourly pay. Bayless would work up to three hours at a time, one or
two times per week to complete the charts while working from home.
Cloverleaf did not pay Bayless anything for this home charting
time. However, the fact of the unpaid charting should be easy to
prove, as Cloverleaf had to provide its password to Bayless and her
healthcare coworkers in order to allow this off the clock charting
to occur. In the same way, Cloverleaf had to know its hourly paid
employees were being cheated of wages and working without pay off
the clock, as Cloverleaf controlled the decision to provide the
password needed to work away from the Cloverleaf facility.
For herself and similarly situated healthcare workers, Bayless is
seeking all unpaid overtime and all unpaid wages created by
Cloverleaf's scheme to obtain substantial hours of unpaid work from
its healthcare workers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN").
Cloverleaf is a nursing care facility in Clay County, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Phone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Underwood class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In October 2021, a purported class action captioned Underwood et
al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court")
against the Company alleging claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and
29(b) of the Exchange Act, and violations of certain California and
Florida state statutes.
On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes
of action, including alleging claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and
15 of the Securities Act and violations of certain New Jersey state
statutes.
Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 1, 2023, the District Court dismissed all federal
claims (with prejudice) and state law claims (without prejudice)
against Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong.
Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed that
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals"), and the parties completed briefing the appeal
on September 13, 2023.
Oral argument took place on February 1, 2024 and on April 5, 2024,
the Court of Appeals issued a Summary Order affirming the District
Court's dismissal order with respect to the claims alleging
violations of the Exchange Act, and reversing the District Court's
dismissal order with respect to the claims alleging violations of
the Securities Act and violations of the state statutes.
The defendants continue to dispute the claims in this case and
intend to vigorously defend against them.
Coinbase, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coinbase Global, Inc.
operates globally and is a leading provider of end-to-end financial
infrastructure and technology for the crypto-economy offering
consumers the primary financial account for the crypto-economy,
institutions a state of the art marketplace with a deep pool of
liquidity for transacting in crypto assets, and developers
technology and services that enable them to build crypto-based
applications and securely accept crypto assets as payment.
COLUMBIA PHOTO: Trippett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Photo
Studio, Inc. The case is styled as Alfred Trippett, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Columbia Photo Studio,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03668-TAM (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Columbia Photo Studio is a dedicated photo studio in New York City
providing great photography services including passport photos,
wedding photos and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical
Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Erica Elaine Garcia, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Community Medical Centers, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005922 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 20,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Community Medical Centers, Inc. (CMC) --
https://www.communitymedicalcenters.org/ -- is a growing non-profit
network of neighborhood health centers serving San Joaquin and
Solano counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
Phone: 213-761-5484
Fax: 818-561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION: Garcia FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose L. Garcia, individually and on behalf of
all others Similarly Situated v. Contemporary Information Corp.,
Case No. 24STCP01238 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04226-CBM-KS to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Contemporary Information Corp. -- https://www.cicreports.com/ --
empowers insurance, banking, and rental housing businesses like
yours with predictive housing and criminal public records.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Chase Ghaffari, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 787-8589
Fax: (213) 418-3982
Email: eghaffari@forthepeople.com
- and -
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 257-3450
Email: craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN PA
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 577-4722
Fax: (813) 257-0572
Email: medelman@forthepeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin M. Penn, Esq.
Sara Emily Franks, Esq.
HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476
Phone: (213) 680-2800
Fax: (213) 614-7399
Email: jpenn@hinshawlaw.com
sfranks@hinshawlaw.com
CORE CONTRACTING: Torres Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan Torres, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CORE CONTRACTING, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
37-2024-00017668-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
May 21, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00891-LL-BLM.
The Plaintiff's claims are substantially dependent upon the
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements governing the
terms and conditions of employment. The claims are, therefore,
preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947 ("LMRA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
cameron.flynn@ogletree.com
COUNTRY MUTUAL: Cameron Sues Over Consumer Protection Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George Cameron and Janin Cameron, Country Mutual Insurance Company
claimants, and all others similarly situated throughout Washington
State and the United States of America v. Country Mutual Insurance
Company, an insurance company, Country Financial, an insurance
conglomerate, Country Casualty Insurance Company, An insurance
company, Country Preferred Insurance Company, an Insurance company,
Country Investor Life Assurance Company, an insurance Company and
Country Life Insurance Company, an insurance company, Case No.
1:24-cv-03075-MKD (E.D. Wash., May 21, 2024), is brought for
violation of The Consumer Protection Act, The Insurance Fair
Conduct Act and the Washington Administrative Code.
The Camerons have procured insurance through Country Mutual
Insurance Company and Country Financial for many years. On or about
August 28, 2021 the Camerons renewed their insurance policy with
Defendants. This policy included insurance on a Challenger MT525B
valued at $84,500 and a Kirby Bale Processor valued at $45,000 as
part of an Agriplus Insurance Policy.
While operating the Challenger, there was an unknown malfunction
which caused the tractor to catch fire. This fire rendered the
Challenger inoperable and irreparable and caused extensive damage
to the Kirby. Within the next couple of days Cameron reported the
occurrence to the company. On June 8, 2022, there is internal
company records that Cameron requested that the company cover the
damage to his Challenger tractor and Kirby wagon as well as payment
for the lost fuel, a lost tire which was practically new and the
cost of removing the debris from his property.
On August 8, 2022, Country Mutual, using Country Financial
letterhead and a Country Financial email address, sent Cameron a
letter stating that the insurer was still investigating the
valuation of the Challenger. In the meanwhile, Cameron sent various
valuations on the Challenger and quotes for the removal of the
Challenger debris along with quotes to repair the Kirby. Country
Mutual adopted the lowest valuation of the Challenger as the actual
value of the Challenger and sent out a check for the damage. The
Camerons sent the check back stating that it did not cover all
their claims and the damage reported.
The Camerons have procured insurance through Country Mutual
Insurance Company and Country Financial for many years. On or about
August 28, 2021 the Camerons renewed their insurance policy with
Defendants. This policy included insurance on a Challenger MT525B
valued at $84,500 and a Kirby Bale Processor valued at $45,000 as
part of an Agriplus Insurance Policy. The Defendants have violated
RCW by failing to follow the minimum claim settlement practices,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have paid Country Mutual Insurance Company for
insurance services.
Country Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company doing
business in Yakima County, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Reynolds, Esq.
4780 32nd Ave. S #105
Seattle, WA 98118
Phone 801-427-9025
Email: seth@robertreynoldslaw.com
COURSERA INC: Continues to Defend Video Privacy Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Coursera 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from video privacy class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
In November 2023, a putative class action complaint, Iman
Ghazizadeh, et al v. Coursera, Inc., was filed against Coursera,
Inc. in the United States District Court (the "Court") for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 5:23-cv-05646) for
alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2710 et seq. ("VPPA").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that without consent or
knowledge of the plaintiff, Coursera disclosed the video viewing
history and certain other information of the plaintiff to a
third-party company and made similar disclosures without the
knowledge or consent of other unidentified users.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages for certain violations under
the VPPA, including interest and reasonable attorney’s fees.
In January 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is
pending before the Court.
Given the procedural posture and the nature of such litigation
matter, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the probability
that it will ultimately prevail or be held liable for the
violations alleged in this complaint, nor is it possible to
reasonably estimate the loss, if any, or range of loss that could
result from this matter.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend
against them.
Coursera is an online learning platform that connects learners,
educators, and institutions with the goal of providing world-class
educational content that is affordable, accessible, and relevant.
CULTUREFLY LLC: Pearlman Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
India Pearlman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CULTUREFLY LLC, Case No. 514150/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Kings Cty., May 21, 2024), is brought seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for wrongful termination, together with an award
of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in violations of the New
York Labor Law.
The Defendant blatantly violates New York's wage transparency laws,
including by failing to include salary or wage ranges in its job
postings and by prohibiting employees from discussing their
compensation. On April 17, 2024, the Defendant enforced these
illegal policies and practices against the Plaintiff by terminating
her employment. A human resources manager told plaintiff that she
was being fired because she allegedly "created a hostile work
environment by discussing wages with fellow employees," says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a designer for seasonal
goods and packaging.
CultureFly LLC is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J.P. Howley, Esq.
THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.c.
1345 Aven the Americas, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10105
Phone: (212) 601-2728
DAILY HARVEST: Class Settlement in Peni Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Breeanne Buckley Peni,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Daily Harvest, Inc. and Second Bite Foods, Inc., d/b/a "Stone Gate
Foods," Case No. 1:22-cv-05443-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Denise Cote entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
settlement.
The Court conditionally certifies the Settlement class:
"All persons in the United States (including its territories)
who
purchased, received, or consumed French Lentil + Leek Crumbles
and
directly suffered personal injuries caused by consumption of the
Crumbles, and all persons in the United States (including its
territories) who suffered consequential monetary damages arising
from consumption of the Crumbles."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the presiding judge
in
the Actions; (2) any member of the judges' immediate families,
(3)
the Settling Defendants subsidiaries, parents, corporate
affiliates
and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives,
heirs,
successors or assigns; (5) counsel for the Parties; and (6) any
persons who timely-opt-out of the Settlement Class.
Daily Harvest offers smoothies, overnight oats, flatbreads, chia
parfaits, sundaes, and soups.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zL72FD at no extra
charge.[CC]
DANVIFO CORP: Echevarria Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Echevarria, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. DANVIFO CORP. d/b/a POMPEI PIZZA RESTAURANT,
VINCENT PRESTIGIACOMO, and THOMAS PRESTIGIACOMO, Case No.
2:24-cv-03681 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"), as well as for failure to
pay spread of hours compensation under the NYLL, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements for each pay period under NYLL, failure to
provide a wage notice upon his hire under NYLL, and any other
claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein.
The Plaintiff regularly worked between fifty-nine and seventy hours
each week. Throughout his employment, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay, for hours worked in excess
of forty hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.
Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff often worked
more than ten hours in a single day. The Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay for each day in which his spread of
hours exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants willfully disregarded and
purposefully evaded record-keeping requirements of the FLSA by
failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by
Plaintiff and the Collective Action Plaintiffs daily and weekly.
The Defendants failed to post notices explaining wage and hour
requirements in conspicuous places as required by the FLSA, and the
New York Labor Law. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff upon
hire written notice in his native language of his rate of pay and
other information required by NYLL of the New York State Labor Law.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate
statement with every payment of wages listing the correct number of
regular hours worked and the correct number of overtime hours
worked in violation of NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from May 2022 to
September 2023.
Pomepi Pizza is and was a domestic business corporation with its
principal place of business located in Rocky Point, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 25 7-5588
DELL INC: Townsend Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY TOWNSEND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00536
(W.D. Tex., May 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of
implied contract, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty,
and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
computer systems following a data breach discovered on or about May
9, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members
was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Dell, Inc. is an American technology company, with its principal
place of business in Round, Rock, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
212 W. Spring Valley Road
Richardson, TX 75081
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
DISCOUNT OFFICE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT OFFICE ITEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03833 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.officesupply.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
DISCOUNT OFFICE ITEMS, INC. retails stationary supplies. The
Company offers office supplies, furniture, technology, paper
products, ink and toner, cleaning, and breakroom items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
Hicksville, NY 11801
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Solutions 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 2, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Cyber Incident class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On February 10, 2022, DSG disclosed that its computer network was
the subject of a cyber incident potentially involving unauthorized
access to certain confidential information (the "Cyber Incident").
On April 4, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Cyber
Incident Suit") was filed against DSG entitled Lardone Davis, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Lawson
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02118, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
The plaintiff in this case, who purports to represent the class of
individuals harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by DSG in
connection with the Cyber Incident, asserts a variety of common law
and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief
and other related relief related to the potential unauthorized
access by third parties to personal identifiable information and
protected health information.
DSG disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the
Cyber Incident Suit.
Distribution Solutions Group, Inc. operates as a specialty
distribution company. The Company provides high touch and
value-added distribution solutions to the maintenance, repair and
operations (MRO), original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and the
industrial technologies markets. [BN]
DOMUS MANAGEMENT: Jeon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Domus Management
Company. The case is styled as Sun Young Jeon, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Domus Management Company, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005996 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 21,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Domus Management -- http://www.domusmc.com/-- is a company with
twenty years' experience in property management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jill Vecchi, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 302
San Diego, CA 92108-1632
Phone: 619-234-2833
Fax: 619-234-4048
Email: jvecchi@maralawfirm.com
DOORDASH INC: Court Remands Floyd Suit to Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER FLOYD, v.
DOORDASH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01740-BJR (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order denying as
moot motion to dismiss and remanding case to King County Superior
Court.
The Court said that because Mr. Floyd lacks standing, this Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address the parties’
additional arguments.
Accordingly, DoorDash's motion under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) is
denied as moot.
On Aug. 7, 2023, Alexander Floyd applied through LinkedIn for a job
opening with DoorDash. He alleges that the job posting did not
disclose the wage scale or salary range. Mr. Floyd filed suit
against DoorDash in the King County Superior Court on Oct. 10,
2023. He claims to represent more than 40 potential class members
who also applied for jobs with DoorDash for positions that did not
disclose the wage scale or salary range. Mr. Floyd asserts three
causes of action: (1) Violation of RCW 49.58.110; (2) Injunctive
Relief; and (3) Declaratory Relief. He seeks statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to RCW 49.58.070(1).
DoorDash is a San Francisco–based company that operates an online
food ordering and food delivery platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n2epNP at no extra
charge.[CC]
EAGLE TRUCKLINE: Kumar Seeks Conditional Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAJAT KUMAR, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. EAGLE TRUCKLINE LLC,
SIMAR GILL, and GURKIRAT GILL, Case No. 1:23-cv-02581-KMW-MJS
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA");
(2) ordering the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
location,
dates of employment and position of ALL current and former
non-
exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time
from
May 11, 2020 to the present within 21 days of the entry of
the
order;
(3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any
relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or
social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
the
putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
and
accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants
certifying that the list is complete and from existing
employment records;
(4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
(5) authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
on
Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
(6) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may
also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting
the communities of Hindi-speaking immigrant worker;
(7) directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice
in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed
locations likely to be seen by all currently employed
members
of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;
(8) directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
in
an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
Defendants'
expense by social media and by publication in newspaper
should
Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more
than
20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no
forwarding address to be published in English, and Hindi;
and
(9) directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation
on
this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the
Opt-in Period.
Eagle is an active carrier in Carteret, New Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BLMuu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
ELON MUSK: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class in Pampena Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIUSEPPE PAMPENA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ELON MUSK, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Lead
Plaintiffs will ask the court on Aug. 2, 2024 to enter an order
granting class certification, appointment of class representatives
and appointment of class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
The Class that Plaintiffs seek to be certified is defined as:
"All persons and entities who sold the publicly traded stock
or
call options, or purchased the put options, of Twitter, Inc.
during the period from May 13, 2022 through Oct. 4, 2022, both
dates inclusive, and who suffered damages by Defendant's
alleged
violations of §10(b) and of the Exchange Act."
The Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
on June 8, 2023. The Defendant Musk filed a motion to dismiss the
FAC on July 10, 2023. The Court granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss by order dated December 11,
2023.
The FAC alleges that on April 13, 2022, Musk made an offer to buy
Twitter at $54.20 per share.
On April 21, 2022, Musk confirmed he had waived due diligence when
he filed an Amended Schedule 13D which stated that his acquisition
proposal was no longer subject to the completion of financing and
business due diligence.
On July 12, 2022, Twitter sued Musk in Delaware Chancery Court
seeking specific performance.
On Aug. 29, 2022 and Sept. 9, 2022, Musk sent two more termination
letters to Twitter that contained false statements.
On Sept. 13, 2022, Twitter's stockholders met and approved the
buyout.
On Oct. 4, 2022, two weeks before the Delaware trial was set to
begin, Musk shocked the market by announcing that he intended to go
through with the Merger at the initial price of $54.20.
On April 12, 2023, in an interview with the BBC, Musk admitted that
he made false statements about the Merger to drive Twitter’s
stock down because he did not want to pay the price he had agreed
to and that he agreed to complete the buyout at the full $54.20
price in order to avoid the trial in Delaware because he knew he
was going to lose.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zbhTQM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq.
Gia Jung, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
gjung@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Aaron P. Arnzen, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
aarnzen@bottinilaw.com
ERC SOLUTIONS: Avila Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge A. Avila, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ERC Solutions, Corp., and Erick Ramirez,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21751 (S.D. Fla., May 6,
2024) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular
and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants, in this case, violated the
FLSA by failing to pay him and other similarly situated individuals
the proper compensation for regular hours and overtime hours at the
rate of time and one-half their regular rate.
Plaintiff Avila was hired by the Defendants from approximately May
26, 2023 to February 1, 2024, or 36 weeks, as a welder, fabricating
metal walk-in and rolling gates, fences, staircases, and other
metal products.
ERC Solutions is a manufacturer of metal cabinets, fences, gates,
staircases, and other metal products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by July 8
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kraft, et al., v. Essentia
Health, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00121 (D.N.D., Filed July 10,
2020), the Hon. Judge Peter D. Welte entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Plaintiff(s) Class Certification May 23, 2025
Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports
and Motion for Class Certification
due by:
-- The Defendant(s) Class Certification July 8, 2025
Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports
and Response to Motion for Class
Certification due by:
-- The Plaintiff(s) Rebuttal Class Aug. 20, 2025
Certification Expert Disclosures and
Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification due by:
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.[CC]
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Busby Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN BUSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02129-TJS (E.D. Pa., May 17,
2024) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the
Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and hundreds of thousands of
similarly situated persons ("Class Members") due to the Defendant's
impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused
the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals
(the "Data Breach") between February 14, 2024 and February 26,
2024.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, from the loss of the benefit
of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or
diminished value of their Personal Information, emotional distress,
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the
fallout of the Data Breach.
FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS INC. is a private family
owned business and leading provider of accounts receivable
management and collection services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
2005 Market Street, Suite 350
Philadelphia, PA 1910
Telephone: (215) 446-9795
Email: cboylan@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Wagner Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
GRIFFIN R. WAGNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02119-NIQA (E.D. Pa., May 17,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract,
breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory
judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
computer systems following a data breach between February 14, 2024,
and February 26, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. is a debt
collection agency based in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Jiang Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
YAN CAI JIANG is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the
lawsuit entitled Alma Felix, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10286, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the securities
class action is brought on behalf of all those investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired IQIYI shares contemporaneously with
the Defendants' unlawful trades from March 22, 2021 through and
including March 29, 2021 (the "Class Period"), pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The class action arises from the alleged unlawful use of material
non-public information by Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, who collectively avoided billions in losses by selling
shares of IQIYI Inc. ("IQIYI" or the "Company"), a leading online
discount retailer for brands in China, to Plaintiff and other
unsuspecting and unwitting public shareholders, after
confidentiality learning that Archegos Capital Management
("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under management,
failed (or was likely to fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it
to fully liquidate its position in the Company.
On Jun. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 12, 2022.
On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 18, 2023.
On Apr. 1, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jed S. Rakoff. The Court
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to state claims under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thus they have ipso facto failed to allege
violations of Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act. The Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Felix v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Case No. 24-1166, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant YAN CAI JIANG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Max Raphael Schwartz, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Helmsley Building, 17th Floor
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Defendants-Appellees GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Charles Duggan, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2921
New York, NY 10017
GOLDMAN SACHS: Shapovalov Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SHAPOVALOV is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Chew King Tan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-8413, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought over the Defendants' alleged Sections 20A, 10(b), and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case arises from the unlawful use of material non-public
information by the Defendants to avoid billions in losses by
selling shares of Vipshop Holdings Ltd. from March 22, 2021 through
and including March 29, 2021 after confidentially learning that
Archegos Capital Management, a family office with $10 billion under
management, failed to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully
liquidate its position in Vipshop. The Defendants knew, or were
reckless in not knowing, that they were prohibited from trading
based on this confidential market-moving information, but traded
anyway, disposing to the Plaintiff and other members of the Class
their Vipshop stock before the news about Archegos was announced
and Vipshop's shares plummeted. As a result, the Plaintiff and the
Class have been damaged, says the suit.
On Jun. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 12, 2022.
On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 18, 2023.
On Apr. 1, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jed S. Rakoff. The Court
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to state claims under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thus they have ipso facto failed to allege
violations of Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act. The Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Tan v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Case No. 24-1162, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER SHAPOVALOV, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Ira Fistel, Jr., Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Defendants-Appellees GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Charles Duggan, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2921
New York, NY 10017
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wachtel Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY WACHTEL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Alison Scully, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10791, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the securities
class action is brought against the Defendants for their unlawful
use of material non-public information and collectively avoided
billions in losses by selling shares of Baidu Inc., a Chinese
multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related
services and products and artificial intelligence, to the Plaintiff
and other unsuspecting and unwitting public shareholders, after
confidentiality learning that Archegos Capital Management, a family
office with $10 billion under management, failed to meet a margin
call, requiring it to fully liquidate its position in Baidu.
On Jun. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 12, 2022.
On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 18, 2023.
On Apr. 1, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jed S. Rakoff. The Court
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to state claims under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thus they have ipso facto failed to allege
violations of Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act. The Plaintiffs' complaints were dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Scully v. Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., Case No. 24-1173, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY WACHTEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Defendants-Appellees GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Charles Duggan, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2921
New York, NY 10017
GOLDMAN SACHS: Zaheer Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SYED ZAHEER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the
lawsuit entitled Travis Florio, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-8618, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal securities laws by using non-public information and
collectively avoided billions in losses by selling shares of Gaotu
Techedu Inc., a leading online discount retailer for brands in
China.
On Jun. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 12, 2022.
On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 18, 2023.
On Apr. 1, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jed S. Rakoff. The Court
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to state claims under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thus they have ipso facto failed to allege
violations of Sections 20A and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act. The Plaintiffs' complaints were, therefore, dismissed with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Florio v. Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., Case No. 24-1177, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SYED ZAHEER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Defendants-Appellees GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Charles Duggan, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2921
New York, NY 10017
HERSHEY COMPANY: Reese's Products' Ads "Deceptive," Vidal Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN VIDAL, DEBRA KENNICK, ABDJUL MARTIN, and EDUARDO GRANADOS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-60831 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Reese's Peanut
Butter products. According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely
represented several Reese's Peanut Butter products as containing
explicit carved out artistic designs when there are no such
carvings in the actual products and the products are blanks. The
Defendant's packaging for the products are materially misleading
and numerous consumers have been tricked and misled by the pictures
on the packaging. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive,
misleading, and unfair practices, the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers have suffered damages, says the suit.
The Hershey Company is a chocolate manufacturer with its principal
executive offices in Hershey, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony J. Russo, Esq.
ANTHONY J. RUSSO, JR., P.A.
1001 Yamato Road, Suite 106
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (844) 847-8300
Email: anthony@therussofirm.com
HUMBL INC: Seeks to Dismiss Pasquinelli Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
HUMBL, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 20, 2024, that on July 7, 2023, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
HUMBL's Motion to Transfer Venue and transferred the case to the
District Court of Delaware. On October 30, 2023, the company filed
a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit with said court which the parties
have fully briefed and which motion is presently pending for
resolution before the court.
On May 19, 2022, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
shareholder derivative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
styled "Matt Pasquinelli and Bryan Paysen v. HUMBL, LLC, Brian
Foote, Jeffrey Hinshaw and George Sharp," Case No. 22CV0723 AJB
BLM.
The complaint alleges federal securities law violations by the
Company, including false or misleading statements regarding its
business and operations, that the HUMBL Pay App did not have the
functionality that it promised to investors and that several
international business partnerships had a low chance of
contributing material revenues to our bottom line, and sales of
unregistered securities through its BLOCK Exchange Traded Index
products, which plaintiffs allege caused a decline in the market
value of our shares of common stock.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. On October 27, 2022,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, which is presently pending for resolution before the
court.
HUMBL is a Web 3, digital commerce platform built to connect
consumers, businesses and governments in the digital economy by
providing simple tools and packaging for complex new technologies
such as blockchains.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brenda Mendoza, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STCV06972 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04120.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 10 causes of action: failure to
pay overtime wages; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest break
premiums; unpaid minimum wages; failure to pay final wages timely;
failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to provide
accurate and itemized wage statements; failure to keep requisite
payroll records, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses,
and unfair business practices, in violation of California Business
and Professions Code Section.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Eric T. Angel, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Phone: 714.513.5100
Facsimile: 714.513.5130
Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
eangel@sheppardmullin.com
META PLATFORMS: Klein Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Advertiser Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order:
(1) certifying a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class;
(2) appointing Advertiser Plaintiffs Affilious, Inc., Jessyca
Frederick, Mark Berney, 406 Property Services, PLLC, Mark
Young, and Katherine Looper as representatives of the
Advertiser Class; and
(3) appointing Yavar Bathaee of Bathaee Dunne LLP and Amanda F.
Lawrence of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Co-Lead
Class
Counsel for the Advertiser Class.
The Advertiser Plaintiffs propose that the Advertiser Class for
their Sherman Act claims be defined as follows:
The Advertiser Class
"All persons, including entities and/or corporations, in the
United States who purchased advertising from Meta Platforms,
Inc. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.) between Dec. 1, 2016, and Dec.
31,
2020."
Excluded from the Advertiser Class are Meta Platforms, Inc.
(f/k/a Facebook, Inc.) and its officers, directors,
employees,
and successors; any person or entity who has (or had during
the
Class Period) a controlling interest in Meta; any affiliate,
legal representative, heir, or assign of Meta; any judicial
officer presiding over this action and their immediate
family
members and judicial staffs; and any juror assigned to this
action.
The Advertiser Plaintiffs allege that Meta has engaged in three
types of antitrust violations under the Sherman Act: (1)
monopolization under Section 2; (2) attempted monopolization under
Section 2; and (3) restraint of trade under Section 1.
Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nElGny at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
Edward M. Grauman
Allison Watson Cross
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
across@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Patrick J. McGahan, Esq.
Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Henry J. Kelson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3997
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
acohen@lfsblaw.com
MULTIPLAN INC: Faces Suit Over Insurance Reimbursement Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS F. ROBINSON, M.D., INC., d/b/a/ PANORAMIC MEDICINE,
individually on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC.; AETNA, INC.; THE CIGNA GROUP; and
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-02993-SK (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants are engaged in a cartel among insurance companies to
artificially reduce reimbursement rates paid to Providers for
out-of-network healthcare claims.
As part of the Defendants' cartel, the Defendant engages in
numerous actions, which, in the absence of concerted action, would
be against their individual economic self-interest, but which, in
the context of the scheme, maximize profits for the collective. The
Defendants' conduct was undertaken with the intent, purpose, and
effect of artificially suppressing out-of-network reimbursement
rates below the competitive level. Defendants perpetrated this
scheme with the specific intent of decreasing reimbursement rates
for their own benefit, says the suit.
MULTIPLAN, INC. provides healthcare cost management solutions. The
Company specializes in providing claim cost management solutions
for controlling the financial risks associated with medical bills.
MultiPlan also offers primary preferred provider organization (PPO)
network solutions for accessing hospitals, ancillary care
facilities, and healthcare professionals in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natasha J. Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312)589-6378
Email: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
jzhu@edelson.com
MYGRANT GLASS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mygrant Glass
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Keith Williams, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. Mygrant Glass Company, Inc., Case No. 24CV076127 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., May 17, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Mygrant Glass Company, Inc. -- https://www.mygrantglass.com/ --
operates as an auto glass wholesaler and retailer. The Company
motor vehicle supplies, accessories, tools, and equipment, as well
as accepts online orders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Keledjian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205-1218
Phone: 818-962-6465
Fax: 818-962-6469
Email: d.keledjian@d.law
NATIONAL STEEL: Eyong Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Emmanuel Eyong, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. NATIONAL
STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, a Nevada corporation; NASSCO
HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00017371-CU-OE-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of California, for the County of
San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on May 17, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00877-L-MMP.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims on an
individual and class action basis: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and
Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to
Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination;
Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed
Business Expenses; Unlawful Business Practices; and Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
E. Joseph Connaughton, Esq.
Christina Rea Snider, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-8285
Phone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
Email: joe.connaughton@quarles.com
christina.snider@quarles.com
NEW YORK: Bronx Freedom Fund Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE BRONX FREEDOM FUND is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled The Bronx Freedom Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-10614, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The Bronx Freedom Fund alleges that the Bronx County Criminal Court
Clerk's Office, together with the New York City Department of
Finance, regularly forfeits cash bails without following the proper
procedures.
On May 19 and 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 15 and 21, 2022.
On Mar. 31, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety through an Order
entered by Judge John P. Cronan.
On Apr. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 20, 2023.
On Mar. 28, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Cronan. Count One was
dismissed without prejudice as to Kalish, Barry, and the John and
Jane Doe Defendants for want of jurisdiction and with prejudice as
to the City. Count Two was dismissed without prejudice to refiling
in state court. Count Three was dismissed without prejudice for
want of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court was also directed to close
the pending motions and to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned The Bronx Freedom Fund v. City of
New York, Case No. 24-1174, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant THE BRONX FREEDOM FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Oren Giskan, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON, LLP
90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by:
Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
- and -
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005
NORAZZA INC: Piatek Sues Over Defective Design
----------------------------------------------
Spring Piatek, Individually and as Next Friend of Lily Piatek and
Theodore Piatek, and as Administrator of the Estate of Timothy
Piatek, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Norazza,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04122 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant's defective design and failure to adequately
warn of foreseeable dangers with regard to the Defendants Endust
product.
The Defendant has known for decades of the foreseeable danger with
its duster products. Rather than fix its defective design and
adequately warn of foreseeable dangers, The Defendant instead
exploited a vulnerable population for its own gain. It is complicit
in creating the public health crisis of inhalant abuse because it
is aware of the extremely addictive nature of DFE yet continues to
promote these cheap computer dusters for easy consumption by
individuals addicted to huffing who frequent stores again and again
purchasing multipacks on each visit. The Defendant fails to
provide a warning that inhaling DFE is extremely addictive, which
increases the risk of injury and death to inhalant users. And it
falsely warrants that a bitterant was added which would help deter
inhalant abuse.
When The Defendant started to receive pushback in the early 2000s
related to the injuries and deaths from its products, The Defendant
began to include the bitterant denatonium benzoate ("DB") in its
cans of computer duster to forestall inquiry. Indeed, big box
retailers began requiring the addition of bitterant to the product
due to the increased huffing of inhalants like duster products.
However, the inclusion of DB--and the representations that the
bitterant deters abuse--is misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, and
unreasonably dangerous for multiple reasons.
First, by design, in the manner and quantity in which it is added
to computer dusters, DB has no meaningful impact because it is
undetectable in the gas vapor phase. And, even if added in the
quantity stated in patents, it would never trigger an actual
deterrent effect upon huffing. Second, The Defendant is aware that
DB is among a class of bitter substances that a significant portion
of the population cannot detect. Namely 15-30% of the adult
population has a genetic trait which renders them incapable of
detecting the bitter taste of certain molecules. Finally, and
perhaps most damning to the duster industry's promises regarding
the deterrent effect of the bitterant, DB is a bronchodilator which
relaxes muscles in the lungs and widens the inhalant abuser's
airways. As a result, DB increases the amount of DFE which the
inhalant abuser might otherwise absorb into their lungs while
huffing. This operates to make huffing the duster even riskier and
more dangerous than it otherwise would be absent the bitterant.
The Defendant's labels are inadequate for multiple reasons
including insufficient warnings on some foreseeable dangers and
non-existent warnings for other foreseeable dangers. Despite the
ineffectiveness of the bitterant and the dangers of DFE, The
Defendant provides express assurances that DB will "discourage
inhalant abuse." The Defendant only provides minimal, general
warnings that abuse of the products "may be harmful" or "fatal,"
which Defendant then cancels out by reassuring consumers that their
products were designed to prevent abuse. Defendant's products also
do not provide any express warnings on addiction and the specific
injuries that can result from huffing, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is decedent Tim Piatek's surviving spouse.
The Defendant designs, manufactures, tests, labels, markets, and
distributes Endust.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen D. Phillips, Esq.
Stephen J. Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES
161 N Clark St #4925,
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 346-4262
Email: sphillips@phillipslegal.com
sjphillips@phillipslegal.com
- and -
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (913) 901-0505
Fax: (913) 261-7564
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
- and -
Austin P. Brane, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: abrane@wcllp.com
OPTUM INC: Lancaster Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTUM, INC., Defendants, Case No.
24-002176-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., May 16, 2024) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
OPTUM, INC. provides supply chain solutions. The Company designs
software that enables, coordinates, and optimizes business
processes across multi-tier supply chain networks by generating
data from business operations to aid management in decision making.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
OSCEOLA COUNTY, FL: Balint Sues Over Deprivation of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Balint, Brandon Bowling, Brian Carroll, John Crichton,
Andreas Delay, Brett Ford, Erik Jarvis, Dominic Lynn, Matthew
Mcnab, Paul Mccorkell, John Murphy, Adam Seithel, Brian Sheets,
John Taylor, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. OSCEOLA COUNTY, FL, Case No.
6:24-cv-00938 (M.D. Fla., May 20, 2024), is brought for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") because of Defendant's
unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights to overtime
compensation.
Prior to August 26, 2023, Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs as
"exempt" employees and unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime
compensation at one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, or in excess of
53 hours in a workweek, or 159 hours in a 21-day work period.
Instead, Defendant either compensated Plaintiffs for only their
regularly scheduled hours or paid Battalion Chiefs straight time
hours for additional hours worked pursuant to the Battalion Chief
Work Back provisions of the collective bargaining agreements
("CBA"). The Defendant, prior to August 26, 2023, intentionally
failed and to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay when it suffered
or permitted Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week, or
in excess of 53 hours in a week, or 159 hours in a 21-day work
period, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs work or have worked for Defendant in the position of
Battalion Chief.
The Defendant is a political subdivision organized under the laws
of the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Siwica, Esq.
EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A.
231 East Colonial Drive
Post Office Box 2231
Orlando, FL 32802-2231
Email: rsiwica@eganlev.com
- and -
Lauren P. McDermott, Esq.
Mark Linscott, Esq.
MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
1920 L Street, NW, STE 400
Washington, DC 20036
Email: lmcdermott@mooneygreen.com
mlinscott@mooneygreen.com
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: O'Cain Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
T. O'Cain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
BRIAN LEVINE, an individual, and DOE 1 through and including DOE
10, Case No. 24STCV12693 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May
20, 2024), is brought under the California Labor Code, Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), seeking unpaid wages, damages,
civil penalties, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Defendants employed individuals such as Plaintiff and Class
Members to work on the production on motion pictures, yet
Defendants failed to timely or fully pay them, all in violation,
inter alia, of the California Labor Code. By failing to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members all wages when due at termination,
Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to continuing wages
pursuant to section 203 of the California Labor Code, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a crew member
during the class period.
Paramount Pictures Corporation is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
David Garrett, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203n
Phone: 323.962.3777
Fax: 323.962.3004
Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
PENSACOLA, CA: Pruett Files Suit in N.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Pensacola
Florida. The case is styled as Holli Pruett, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. The City of Pensacola Florida,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00223-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., May 21, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The City of Pensacola -- https://www.cityofpensacola.com/ -- is
home to beautiful beaches, a bustling metropolitan community, and
rich cultural history.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH LAW FIRM PA - WINTER PARK FL
1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 574-4999
Fax: (833) 423-5864
Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
REDWIRE CORPORATION: Lemen Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redwire Corporation.
The case is styled as Jed Lemen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Redwire Corporation formerly known as:
Genesis Park Acquisition Corp.; Peter Cannito; William Read; Case
No. 1:24-mc-02000-ENV (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024).
Redwire Corporation -- https://redwirespace.com/ -- is an American
aerospace manufacturer and space infrastructure technology company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa Cameron Wood, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
155 Seaport Boulevard
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 832-1117
Fax: (617) 832-7000
Email: lwood@foleyhoag.com
SAGAL FISH MARKET: Pastor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Pastor, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SAGAL FISH MARKET INC., FERNANDO SANCHEZ and ADALGISA
HERNANDEZ, Individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-03899 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as recently amended by
the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from
Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR") and to
recover, among other things, unpaid overtime wage compensation for
the Plaintiff.
Throughout the entire period of the Plaintiff's employment,
Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. 3.
However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants only
compensated Plaintiff at a flat rate of $16.84, $18.73, and $20.34
per hour. They failed to pay the Plaintiff the lawful overtime
compensation of one and a half times her regular rate for the
period from March 2020 until February 28, 2024, during which she
consistently worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants owned and operated SAGAL FISH MARKET INC. and
corporate entities engaged in Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
SATURDAYS SURF: Zelvin Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN ZELVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SATURDAYS SURF, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03826 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.saturdaysnyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order,
ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning,
inaccurate alternative text (alt-text) on graphics, inaccessible
drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the
denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Saturdays Surf, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SIKA AG: Benevento Sues Over Cement Additives Price Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
BENEVENTO CONCRETE CORP., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN
S.A.; SAINTGOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH;
CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM
INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03806 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2024) arises from the Defendants'
unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a) concrete admixtures,
(b) cement additives, (c) admixtures for mortar, and (d) products
containing or bundled with any of the foregoing (collectively,
"CCAs") in violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants entered
into an agreement to consolidate their control over the global
manufacture of CCAs and charge supracompetitive prices for CCAs
through price increases and the imposition of surcharges.
This agreement, which was effectuated through Defendants' shared
membership in numerous trade associations, resulted in Plaintiff
and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs
in the United States and its territories, says the suit.
SIKA AG operates as a specialty chemicals company. The Company
specializes in development and production of systems and products
for bonding, sealing, damping, reinforcing, and protection in the
building sector and automotive industry. Sika serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
Lillian R. Grinnell, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-1094
Email: burt@whafh.com
grinnell@whafh.com
- and -
Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq.
ISQUITH LAW PLLC
103 East 84th Street
New York, New York 10028
Telephone: (718) 775-6478
Email: isquithlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (646) 799-6729
SINGING RIVER: Austin Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lila Austin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:24-cv-00151-HSO-RPM
(S.D. Miss., May 17, 2024), is brought arising out of the
Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately
destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach")
that, upon information and belief, contained personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and
other individuals ("the Class"). The Data Breach occurred between
August 16, 2023, and August 18, 2023, and Defendant released a
Notice of Data Event on its website on October 18, 2023. Defendant
released an update about the breach on May 13, 2024.
The Defendant admits Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information was unlawfully accessed and may have been exfiltrated
by an unauthorized actor. The Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health
information of individuals whose Private Information was maintained
by Defendant, including Plaintiff. A wide variety of PII and PHI
was implicated in the breach, including potentially: names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical
information, and health information. The Data Breach was a direct
result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for
either treatment or employment, or both.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt
and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a patient and customer at Singing River Hospital
three times within the last three years.
The Defendant is a full-service health care provider that owns and
operates hospitals, pharmacies, clinics, and specialty centers
across the state of Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main St, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: 850-202-1010
Fax: 760-304-8933
Email: jwitkin@awkolaw.com
cduer@awkolaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
SM I MMS: Faces Cuevas Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SM I MMS, LLC d/b/a MANHATTAN MINI STORAGE,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-24-006972 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May
17, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
SM I MMS, LLC d/b/a MANHATTAN MINI STORAGE is a moving company that
focuses on self-storage, full service plus, supplies, vehicle and
business storage services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Steen Sues Over 401(k) Plan's Excessive RKA Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL STEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF THE SONOCO RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN, and JANE AND
JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03105-JD (D.S.C., May
17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other
fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duty of
prudence they owed to the Sonoco Plan participants by requiring the
Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administration (RKA) fees
to its recordkeeper, Empower Annuity Insurance Company. The Sonoco
Plan could have received materially identical services from
national recordkeepers other than Empower for a lower fee, or
negotiated with Empower to accept a reasonable fee, had they
adhered to the standard of care for prudent plan fiduciaries.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to monitor the fiduciaries
responsible for the Sonoco Plan administration with regard to RKA
fees. As a result of the Defendants' omissions, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated Plan participants suffered losses in the form of
paying excessive RKA fees, says the suit.
Sonoco Products Company is a packing solutions company with its
principal place of business in Hartsville, South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shane W. Rogers, Esq.
Doug Smith, Esq.
JOHNSON, SMITH, HIBBARD & WILDMAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
220 N. Church Street, Suite 4
Post Office Drawer 5587
Spartanburg, SC 29304
Telephone: (864) 582-8121
Facsimile: (864) 585-5328
Email: srogers@jshwlaw.com
dsmith@jshwlaw.com
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Street, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Gabriel Mandler, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 673-2405
Email: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 720-4057
Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
TAKEDE PHARMACEUTICALS: EPP Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ACTOS END PAYOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:13-cv-09244-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting End-Payor
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs allege that Takeda blatantly misrepresented its
patents to the FDA to delay the availability of lower-priced
generics and reap billions more in profits for its blockbuster
diabetes drug, ACTOS. EndPayor Plaintiffs ("EPPs") are the patients
and third-party payors ("TPPs") at the end of the pharmaceutical
distribution chain who foot the bill for the high prescription drug
prices that Takeda's conduct caused EPPs seek class certification
of a class defined as follows:
"All entities that, for consumption by their members, insureds,
or
beneficiaries, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or
all
of the purchase price of Actos or generic pioglitazone in the
Class
States or territories,38 other than for resale, at any time from
January 17, 2011 through and until December 31, 2015; and
"All individuals who paid for some or all of the purchase price
of
Actos in the Class States or territories at any time from
January
17, 2011 through and until December 31, 2015."
The following entities are excluded from the Class:
(a) Defendants and their subsidiaries and affiliates; and
(b) federal and state governmental entities.
The following individuals are excluded from the Class:
(a) Judges assigned to this case and their chambers' staff and
any
members of the judges' or chambers staff's immediate family;
(b) Defendants' officers, directors and employees;
(c) individuals who after August 17, 2012 purchased only Actos
and
did not purchase generic pioglitazone; and
(d) any "flat copay" consumers who purchased Actos only via a
fixed
dollar copayment that does not vary on the basis of the
drug's
status as brand or generic."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rOcd9t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
Richard M. Brunell, Esq.
Tina Miranda, Esq.
Sherwin Faridifar, Esq.
Deirdre Mulligan, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th St., Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
sfaridifar@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
dmulligan@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 903-3170
E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
Justin Boley, Esq.
Tyler Story, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
kae@wbe-llp .com
jnb@wbe-llp .com
tjs@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, Fl 27
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0040
E-mail: MBuchman@motleyrice.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Arbitration Order in Agha to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
denying in part its motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss
Plaintiffs' complaint as to Plaintiff Kenneth Zurek in the lawsuit
entitled Mazen Hasan Agha, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-17182, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois law.
The Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration under the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Illinois Uniform Arbitration
Act (IUAA).
On Apr. 22, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration through an Order entered
by Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The Court concluded that the Circuit
Court of Cook County's determination that Plaintiff Zurek is not
bound to arbitrate claims arising after he entered into the 2022
Platform Access Agreement (PAA) is preclusive in this case. The
Court, therefore, denied Uber's motion to compel Zurek to arbitrate
claims arising after he entered into the 2022 PAA. With respect to
the three remaining Plaintiffs, the District Court disagreed with
the court in Zurek and concluded that the Plaintiffs' later
opt-outs do not supersede or invalidate their earlier agreements to
arbitrate.
The appellate case is captioned Mazen Hasan Agha, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 24-1749, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 1, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees MAZEN HASAN AGHA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
- and -
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Matthew Carrieri, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
mcarrieri@llrlaw.com
Defendant-Appellant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is represented by:
Richard W. Black, Esq.
Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
Matthew J. Ruza, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 372-5520
Email: rblack@littler.com
jwaxman@littler.com
mruza@littler.com
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Blanton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Blanton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00484-LF-JMR (D.N.M., May 17, 2024), is brought arising out
of Defendant's failure to pay overtime to Plaintiff when they
worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act ("NMMWA").
The Defendant's Case Manager RNs regularly worked over 40 hours per
week. The Defendant classified Case Manager RNs as exempt from
state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime when
they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks. During
Plaintiff's employment, Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff
to work over 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks. Prior to
January 2018, Defendant classified Plaintiff as exempt from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA and NMMWA. Because Plaintiff
primarily performed non-exempt work, Defendant should have
classified her as non-exempt. Prior to January 2018, Defendant paid
Plaintiff a salary. Prior to January 2018, when Plaintiff worked
over 40 hours in individual workweeks, Defendant did not pay her
overtime at one-and-one-half times her regular rate of pay for
hours worked over 40, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Case Manager RN.
The Defendant is a managed care services company that contracts
with subsidiaries to provide care coordination and other
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: (281) 572-0727
Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
UNITED MORTGAGE: Mattson Seeks Extension to File Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00996-YY (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order extending deadline to respond to
United's motion to deny class certification.
The evidence in this case is lengthy and Plaintiff requires a brief
extension to ensure the appropriate evidence is submitted and
referenced for the Court to review.
United provides mortgage services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qZqYuB at no extra
charge.[CC]
S. Amanda Marshall, Esq.
S. AMANDA MARSHALL, LLC
4545 SW Angel Avenue
Beaverton, OR 97005
Telephone: (503) 472-7190
E-mail: amanda@maclaw.law
- and -
Gregory K. Zeuthen, Esq.
GREGORY K. ZEUTHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
210 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-7257
Facsimile: (503) 228-1556
E-mail: gkz@zlawoffice.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
120 Santa Barbara St., Ste. C9
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 837-2000
Facsimile: (310) 882-9711
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
UNITED SERVICES: Must File Class Cert Response by July 2
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a
married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John Holcomb entered an order granting joint stipulation to
extend case schedule:
-- The Defendant shall file its response to July 2,
2024
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification
by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of Aug. 9,
2024
His motion for class certification by:
-- All discovery, including discovery motions shall Aug. 16,
2024
be filed and have been heard by:
-- The parties shall have until Aug. 23,
2024
to conduct settlement proceedings:
-- The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for Sept. 17,
2024
Class certification:
United Services is an American financial services company providing
insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the
military, veterans and their families.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P15uxK at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Poffenbarger Appeals Dismissal Ruling to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MICHAEL POFFENBARGER has filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 18, 2024 entered in the lawsuit
styled MICHAEL POFFENBARGER, Plaintiff v. HON. FRANK KENDALL, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00001-MWM-CHG, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Thomas M. Rose of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, granted on Sept. 2, 2022 the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay
this Matter Pending Resolution of Issues in Doster v. Kendall, No.
1:22-CV-84.
Mr. Poffenbarger filed the present action on Jan. 2, 2022, seeking
redress for the Government's alleged violation of his rights under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. He also sought a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The Court denied
the temporary restraining order, but subsequently granted the
preliminary injunction on Feb. 28, 2022.
On Feb. 16, 2022, 18 plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati --
Doster. Like Poffenbarger, the plaintiffs in the Doster case have
an affiliation with either the United States Air Force or the
United States Space Force, and both Poffenbarger and the plaintiffs
in Doster are represented by the same attorneys. The claims in
Doster and in the present case are the same (violation of the RFRA
and violation of the First Amendment), although at least some of
the relief requested is different.
In Doster, on March 31, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On May
27, 2022, the Government filed an appeal of that preliminary
injunction order. On July 14, 2022, the court in Doster granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. It found that the plaintiffs
"have satisfied the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, as well as Rule
23(b)(1)(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)."
On July 27, 2022, the court in Doster granted a class-wide
preliminary injunction that also modified the parameters of the
class. In part, the Doster court added the ability to opt out of
the class. On Aug. 15, 2022, the Government filed a notice of
appeal, appealing the class certification order and the class-wide
preliminary injunction.
On January 23, 2024, the stay on Poffenbarger case was LIFTED. The
parties were DIRECTED to provide the Court with briefing on the
question of mootness in light of the James M. Inhofe National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.
On March 18, 2024, the Court sua sponte DISMISSED the case WITHOUT
PREJUDICE through an Order signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Poffenbarger v. Frank
Kendall, III, et al., Case No. 24-3417, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 14, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL POFFENBARGER, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thomas Bernard Bruns, Esq.
BRUNS, CONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG
4555 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 330
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 312-9890
- and -
Zachary Gottesman, Esq.
GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES
404 E. 12th Street, First Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-2121
- and -
Aaron Siri, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (888) 747-4529
- and -
Christopher David Wiest, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER DAVID WIEST
50 E. Rivercenter Boulevard, Suite 1280
Covington, KY 41011
Telephone: (513) 257-1895
Defendants-Appellees FRANK KENDALL, III, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force, et al., are represented by:
Andrew E. Carmichael, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street, N.W., Suite 12002
Washington, DC 20005
- and -
Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 7513
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-3427
UNITED WHOLESALE: Manwarren Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MANWARREN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 24-002204-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., May 17, 2024)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC provides mortgage lending services.
The Company offers mortgage loans and online financing services to
home purchasers. United Wholesale Mortgage serves customers in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Allen Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Allen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Universal Protection Services, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04175 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2024), is brought against
Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail
Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information (collectively referred to
herein as "biometric data" and/or "biometrics"), in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").
As part of being permitted to continue her employment at Allied,
Plaintiff was required when clocking into and out of her daily
shift, to have her face scanned. In these instances, Allied
utilizes a biometric application software to collect the face scans
of their employees, including Plaintiff. Allied's employees,
including Plaintiff, are required to undergo this biometric
authentication each shift in order to receive compensation. Allied
collects, stores, possesses, and otherwise obtains, uses and
disseminates its employee's biometric data. However, Allied failed
to permanently destroy Plaintiff's face scan following each time
punch or at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment. As such,
Allied's retention of Plaintiff's biometric information was
unlawful and in violation of the BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Allied and had her biometric information
processed via a face scan.
Universal Protection Services, LLC provides security guard services
to businesses in and around Illinois, under the assumed name,
Allied Universal Security Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street,
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
UPBOUND GROUP: Continues to Defend McBurnie Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Upbound 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the McBurnie class suit.
The Company is a a defendant in a putative class action entitled
McBurnie, et al. v. Acceptance Now, LLC, brought on behalf of
individuals who entered into a rental purchase agreement with the
Company's Acceptance Now business in California and were charged a
processing fee and/or an expedited fee.
Plaintiffs allege that the fees they were charged were neither
"reasonable" nor "actually incurred" in violation of the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act and other California state consumer protection
laws.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages pursuant to the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act; statutory damages pursuant to the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act; attorneys' fees and costs; exemplary damages;
and public injunctions for alleged violations of the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
and California unfair competition laws.
The action is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.
On November 30, 2022, the District Court denied our motion to
compel arbitration, and in December 2022, it filed an interlocutory
appeal of that denial with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, pending which the District Court proceedings
were stayed.
On March 14, 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's denial of our motion to compel arbitration and its finding
that plaintiffs' challenge to the processing fee was not moot,
while remanding the action to the District Court to consider
whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the expedited payment
fee.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this case.
US AVIATION SERVICES: Ragone Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bryan Ragone, as an individual and on behalf of
all other similarly situated Class Members v. U.S. AVIATION
SERVICES CORP., a Nevada Corporation; UNITED SERVICE COMPANIES,
INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
CIVSB2409463 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 20, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01073.
The Complaint sets forth eight purported causes of action: Recovery
of Unpaid Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; Recovery of Unpaid
Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in
Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in
Lieu Thereof; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
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:
Christina T. Tellado, Esq.
Mary T. Vu, Esq.
Billy Sahachartsiri, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.896.2400
Fax: 213.896.2450
Email: Christina.Tellado@hklaw.com
Mary.Vu@hklaw.com
Billy.Sahachartsiri@hklaw.com
US CUSTOMS: Initial Case Management Conference Set for June 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez Mora, et al., v.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02430
(N.D. Cal., Filed April 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson
entered an order setting Initial Case Management Conference for
June 6, 2024.
On April 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed both a Class Action
Complaint and Motion for Class Certification.
However, it appears Defendants may not be on notice of the
complaint and the motion. Relatedly, Defendants may not have had a
chance to have met and conferred with Plaintiffs regarding the
substance of complaint and motion.
The suit alleges violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
United States Customs and Border Protection is the largest federal
law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland
Security.[CC]
UTILITY TREE: Settlement in Lopez Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORENTINO LOPEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:22-cv-01404-JES-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons Jr.
entered an order:
-- certifying settlement class;
-- finally approving proposed settlement;
-- awarding fees and costs to class counsel;
-- awarding service payments to plaintiffs; and
-- directing entry of judgment.
1. The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the
requirements of a settlement class under Rule 23 of the
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The Court further finds that the settlement of Plaintiffs'
PAGA
claim is fair and reasonable, and finally approves the
Settlement and release of that claim and the payment to the
LWDA
in the amount of $18,750.00.
3. The following persons are certified as Class Members solely
for
the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter:
"All persons who worked for Defendant in California as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee at any time from February
15,
2020, through January 22, 2024."
4. Plaintiffs Florentino Lopez and Luis Hernandez are confirmed
as
the Class Representatives for settlement purposes. Moon Law
Group, PC and Wilshire Law Firm are confirmed as Class
Counsel.
5. Simpluris is confirmed as the Settlement Administrator,
pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. The Court
hereby directs payment to the Administrator, Simpluris, for
fees
and expenses, in the amount of $12,267.00, to be paid
pursuant
to the Settlement's terms for such distribution.
6. The Court awards Class Counsel, Moon Law Group, PC and
Wilshire Law Firm, $283,333.33 in attorney's fees, with 75%
($212,500.00) to Moon Law Group, PC and 25% ($70,833.33) to
Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and $12,342.69 in costs to Moon Law
Group, PC and $5,044.81 in costs to Wilshire Law Firm, PLC.
Utility Tree is a vegetation management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3oXVsI at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERRA MOBILITY: Continues to Defend Brantley Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Verra Mobility 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Brantley class suit in the 24th Judicial
District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.
Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the
24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against
the City of Gretna (the "City") and its safety camera vendor,
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. in April 2016.
The Company acquired Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. as part of its
June 2021 purchase of Redflex Holdings Limited.
The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges
that the City's safety camera program was implemented and operated
in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution,
including that the City's hearing process violated the plaintiffs'
due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of liability for
traffic infractions.
Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid.
The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial
court's ruling granting class certification, which was denied and
their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling
by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined.
Merits discovery in the trial court is underway.
Trial is expected to occur in mid- to late 2025.
Based on the information available to the Company at present, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss
for this action and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.
Verra Mobility Corporation offers integrated technology solutions
and services by offering toll and violation management solutions
for the commercial fleet and rental car industries by partnering
with the leading fleet management and rental car companies.
VGW HOLDINGS: Kennedy Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Destiny Kennedy, on behalf of herself and all
Other Georgia citizens similarly situated v. VGW Holdings Limited,
VGW Malta Limited, VGW Luckyland Inc., VGW GP Limited, Case No.
24cv002780 was removed from Superior Court of Fulton County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 17,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02184-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
VGW -- https://www.vgw.co/ -- is an innovative global technology
company, leading the way in online games with an advanced approach
to social gameplay.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barry L. Williams, Esq.
PO Box 1483
Villla Rica, GA 30180
Phone: (404) 519-4586
Email: advocatedib@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael A. Sullivan, Esq.
Nicole Antoinette Archambault, Esq.
FINCH MCCRANIE, LLP
229 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 658-9070
Fax: (404) 688-0649
Email: msullivan@finchmccranie.com
narchambault@finchmccranie.com
VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Glikin Variable Rate Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables 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 2, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Glikin variable rate class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric
Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed by
a Maryland customer in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, attempting to represent a class of all Major
Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy
acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable
rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable
statute of limitations period up to and including the date of
judgment.
The Company moved this case to the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-MJM) and in
December 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter; however, given the
current early stage of this matter, it cannot predict the outcome
of this case at this time.
Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services
company. The Company provides residential and commercial customers
in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative
choice for their natural gas and electricity.
VOYAGE RUN: Riley Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOYAGE RUN CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03844 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.join-hilma.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, hidden elements on the web page, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, inaccurate alternative text
(alt-text) on graphics, ambiguous link texts, changing of content
without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Voyage Run Co. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
WARRENTON MANOR: Painter Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Painter, individually and for others similarly situated v.
WARRENTON MANOR, L.L.C., Case No. 4:24-cv-00707 (E.D. Mo., May 20,
2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant.
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and its other Patient Care
Employees on an hourly basis. The Plaintiff and the other Patient
Care Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But the
Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and its other Patient Care
Employees for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant
automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff's and
its other Patient Care Employees' recorded work time for so-called
"meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually received a bona
fide meal break (the Defendant's "auto-deduct policy").
Thus, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the other Patient
Care Employees for that time. But the Plaintiff and the other
Patient Care Employees did not actually receive bona fide meal
breaks. Instead, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and its other
Patient Care Employees to remain on-duty and perform compensable
work throughout their shifts, and the Defendant continuously
subjected them to work interruptions during their unpaid "meal
breaks," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Patient
Care Employees at its facility in Wright City, Missouri.
Warrenton Manor is a nursing home community that provides
rehabilitation services for patients in Warren County,
Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 766-4000
Email: carl@fitz.legal
WASHINGTON: Plaintiffs Must Amend or Dismiss Complaint w/in 60 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KURT J. ANGELONE, JOHN
GRIFFIN HEADRICK, ADAM PERSELL, ALEX MIYARES, and JONATHAN
JOHNSTON, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
SUPERINTENDENT RONALD HAYNES, AHCC, AARON BROWN, LANCE HALL, SGT.
D. YOUNG, SGT. McKINNEY, DANIEL JONES, JANE and JOHN DOE
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL, Case No. 2:24-cv-00096-TOR
(E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Rice entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs shall amend or voluntarily dismiss their
Complaint within 60 days of the date of this Order pursuant
to
the instructions set forth above, or risk dismissal under 28
U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2), and a "strike"
under
28 U.S.C. section 1915(g).
2. The Clerk's Office shall SET a case management deadline 60
days
after the date of this Order.
3. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, memorandum,
declarations in support, requesting appointment of interim
counsel to protect class pending certification and
appointment
of class counsel; or joinder of parties, ecf no. 3, is
denied.
4. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Question the Multiple Filing Fees
and
Request for Single Filing is denied.
The Plaintiffs accuse Ron Haynes of colluding with Doe Defendants
to
“coverup the misuse of force by manufacturing a fictional
account, Exhibit 1 of the events a few hours after the gas attack
omitting the material facts therefrom to keep all the defendants
from being liable for their actions."
The Plaintiffs are prisoners at the Airway Heights Corrections
Center ("AHCC").
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UE6OhY at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Berseneva Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOFIA BERSENEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01180-K (N.D. Tex., May 16, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health
information, personally identifiable information, stored within
Defendant's information network.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to
take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data,
and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the suit.
WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC is a third-party administrator
operating out of Irving, Texas. The company creates custom health
plans for employers that are designed to lower health plan costs.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Radney Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Radney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WebTPA Employer Services, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01206-D
(N.D. Tex., May 20, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's
recent data breach ("Data Breach") resulting from its failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices
and for the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to,
the following: name, contact information, date of birth, and Social
Security numbers ("Private Information").
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information 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. The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach letter
(the "Notice Letter") from Defendant on May 8, 2024. According to
the Notice Letter, "the unauthorized actor may have accessed and/or
obtained personal information between April 18 and April 23,
2023."
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter
failure to protect its employees' and patients' sensitive data.
Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing
the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received the Notice Letter.
The Defendant is a third-party administrator based out of Irving,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. StecklerC
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@swclaw.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612)-336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
WHALECO INC: Ziboukh Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jehan Ziboukh, Margret Philie, Vera Figlock,
Nicole May, Tyana Daughtery, Solaliz Hernandez, and Debra Krystyn,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
WHALECO INC. D/B/A TEMU, AND PDD HOLDINGS INC. F/K/A PINDUODUO
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-15653 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03733-NGG-VMS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Whaleco Technology Limited, doing business as Temu --
https://www.temu.com/ -- is an online marketplace operated by the
Chinese e-commerce company PDD Holdings.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas Geoffrey Smith, Esq.
ALPHEUS LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 451-6708
Email: dsmith@alpheusllc.com
- and -
Jeannie Y. Evans, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (708) 628-4966
Email: jeannie@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Haichuan (Hadrian) Luo, Esq.
Matthew P. Valenti, Esq.
Serrin Turner, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 906-1200
Email: hadrian.luo@lw.com
matthew.valenti@lw.com
serrin.turner@lw.com
- and -
Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
Gary Feinerman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 876-7700
Email: mark.mester@lw.com
gary.feinerman@lw.com
WINE & ROSES: Tolentino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wine & Roses, LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Antonio Y. Tolentino, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wine & Roses, LLC,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005998 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., May 21, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Wine & Roses -- https://www.winerose.com/ -- features distinguished
hotel rooms, an innovative restaurant, a wellness resort spa, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
YODLEE INC: Clark Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK, ET AL.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
YODLEE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court , on July 22, 2024,
for an order certifying the following proposed classes:
-- Nationwide Damages Class:
"All natural persons in the United States who linked financial
accounts to PayPal using Yodlee, Inc.'s Instant Account
Verification ("IAV") service during the period of Jan. 1, 2014
to
Aug. 24, 2020."
-- California Subclass:
"All California residents who linked financial accounts to
PayPal using Yodlee's IAV service during the Class Period."
-- Injunctive Relief Class:
"All natural persons in the United States who linked financial
accounts to PayPal using Yodlee's IAV service during the Class
Period."
-- California Subclass:
"All California residents who linked financial accounts to
PayPal using Yodlee's IAV service during the Class Period."
The Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee used deceptive IAV process to
collect and store banking data from roughtly 44 million PayPal
users and 122 million bank accounts during the Class Period.
Yodlee is a financial data company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UhJEp7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Li Zhu, Esq.
Ben Steinberg, Esq.
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
55 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 310
Redwood City, CA 94065-2133
Telephone: (605) 784-4013
Facsimile: (605) 784-4041
E-mail: bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com
klerner@robinskaplan.com
lzhu@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
achristina@lowey.com
- and -
John Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
- and -
Robert Kitchenoff, Esq.
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
150 Monument Road, Suite 107
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
- and -
Michele Carino, Esq.
GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC
881 Lake Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06831
Telephone: (203) 622-6001
E-mail: Mcarino@grwlegal.com
YOUR HOMETOWN: Clardy Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND CLARDY and IMANI
ARMSTRONG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. YOUR HOMETOWN MOVERS LLC d/b/a YOUR HOMETOWN MOVERS
and JAKE FREEDMAN and KATE FREEDMAN, individually, Case No.
7:23-cv-11172-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court for an
order as follows:
(1) Conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a
representative
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
(2) Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to covered
employees; including a consent form (or opt-in form) as
authorized by the FLSA;
(3) Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
(4) Production of names, last known mailing address, alternate
address, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers and
dates
of employment of all covered employees; and
(5) Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in
conspicuous
locations at the Defendants.
Your Hometown is a full-service moving company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=taU3FA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
- and -
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 634-6340
E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***