/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240604.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 112
Headlines
18TH AVE. FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ojeda Says
23ANDME INC: Roe Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
3M COMPANY: Cross Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Crowley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Deane Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Edgar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Emanuel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Lawrence Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Senft Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Thompson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
A PLACE FOR MOM: Pineda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
A2 RAILLA DEVELOPMENT: Cortez Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages
ACUITY BRANDS: Jones Sues Over Invalidating Resignation Requirement
ADR RESTAURANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Uddin Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. California
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Record Holder Class Wins Certification
AK RESTAURANT: Lopez Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
ALFA INSURANCE: Faces Moore Suit Over Vehicle Insurance Claims
ALLY FINANCIAL: Breached Duties to Service Members, Thompson Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Certification Bid in Floyd Due Jan. 13, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Grants Bid to Amend Complaint in Floyd Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Milkes Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Wickham
AMERICAN FEDERATION: District of Columbia Dismisses Morgan Suit
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Newman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC: Macklin Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ANGELCARE USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davis Due Feb. 7, 2025
APPLE INC: Aguiar Sues Over Monopolization of the Market
APPLE INC: Faces Filter Suit Over Smartphone Monopoly
APPLE INC: Hernandez Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices
APPLE INC: Seeks to Extend Deadline to Oppose Class Certification
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Dale Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ASAP SOLAR PROS: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
ASCENSION GENESYS: Buford FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
ASCENSION HEALTH: Brown Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
ASR GROUP: City Wok Sues Over Unlawful Agreement to Fix Prices
ASR GROUP: Faces Suit Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
ATLAS MEDICAL: Katz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
AUTO SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Stephens Due August 20
AZ TORRES LLC: Conde Files FLSA Suit in D. Arizona
BAI BRANDS: Kouyate Sues Over False Claims and Deceptive Marketing
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Revised to Jan. 15, 2025
BAY AREA REAL: Court Grants Bid to Stay Proceedings in Grace Suit
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Cumalander Suit Transferred to E.D. Tennessee
BOCA POWERLINE: Building Inaccessible to Mobility-Impaired Person
BYRON UDELL: Bice Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
C2 EDUCATIONAL: Deploys TikTok Software on Website, Moody Says
CALIFORNIA: Wilson v. Castro Transferred From N.D. to E.D. Cal.
CASPER SLEEP: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Shutler Seeks July 15 Class Cert Bid Filing
COTERIE BABY: Diapers Contain PFAS, Saedi Class Suit Alleges
COVIA HOLDINGS: $6-Mil. Settlement in Plagens Suit Has Final Nod
CRYSTAL CLINIC ORTHOPAEDIC: Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
CSC PRODUCTIONS: Braddock Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
DEL FRISCOS: Faces Wright Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
DUN & BRADSTREET: Petition on Batis Class Suit Rehearing Pending
EAD ENTERTAINMENT: Lucente Seeks Initial Class Settlement Approval
EGGLAND'S BEST: Roye Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
EQUIFAX INFO: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Bristol Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Grants Patrick Leave to Amend Complaint
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Continues to Defend California Law-Related Suit
EVOLENT HEALTH: Seeks to Invalidate By-laws, Kelly Suit Alleges
EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Francisco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
F21 OPCO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 6
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Brown Suit Granted in Part
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Lacy Suit Granted in Part
FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Bishop Suit Has Final Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Perrone's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part
FAMILY DOLLAR: Rogers' Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in Robinson Suit Has Final Approval
FEDERATED SECURITY: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
FGNY LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almonte Alleges
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 9, 2025
GALAXY MILLWORK: Ramirez Sues Over Helpers' Unpaid Wages
GEICO: Reloj Seeks More Response Time on Bid to Strike Exhibits
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
GENERAL MOTORS: Parton Sues Over Driver Behavior Data Collection
GENPSYCH INC: McClure Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Completion of Discovery Extended to August 29
GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Sept. 18
GRAB HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 20
GREENSKY INC: Belyea Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits
GREENSKY INC: Belyea Suit Seeks Class Certification
GROUP US MANAGEMENT: Munoz Seeks Conditional Collective Status
HAEMONETICS CORP: Agreement Reached in Crumpton Suit
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ipaye Alleges
HOME DEPOT: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to File Reply
HOME DEPOT: Mathews Suit Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply
HSS SECURITY: Corralejo Suit Removed to C.D. California
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Antitrust Class Suit Dismissed
HYLAND'S CONSUMER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Jackson Says
I.C. SYSTEM: Retailers Excluded in Class Definition, Court Says
IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES: 2nd Amendment to Scarpino Deal Approved
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
ISABEL'S DAY: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum, OT Wages, Vidal Says
IVYREHAB PEAK: Barbara Sues Over Rehabilitation Act Violation
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Class Settlement in Roman Suit Gets Final Nod
JAY BRADSHAW: Garcia Sues Over ERISA Violation
KANSAS CITY: Roberson Gets More Time to File Class Cert Reply
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: All Deadlines Adjourned in McIntosh Class Suit
KIN INSURANCE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Fania Suit Granted
KNIFE RIVER: Seeks to Invalidate By-laws, Collins Suit Alleges
LANDSCAPES UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges
LEWIS BROTHERS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Woolsey Alleges
LGI HOMES: McAlister Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Reps
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 31, 2025
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Angus Class Suit
LOCUST MEDICAL: Court Tosses Jackson's Bid to Amend Complaint
LOOKS GREAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frazier Alleges
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
MARATHON DIGITAL: Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit Still Not Appointed
MARLBORO DIAMOND: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
MDL 2591: Bid to Enforce Final Order in MIR 162 Corn Suit Denied
META PLATFORMS: Consumer Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal
META PLATFORMS: Klein Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Wallenstein Seeks Class Certification
NEW YORK CITY: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Pappas Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Suit
NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bonewit Says
NIKE RETAIL: Cruz Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Seeks to Hold Lorusso Class Certification Bid
NOVOCURE LTD: Continues to Defend LUNAR Data Omission Class Suit
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Cullors Suit
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Suit
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss in Smith Suit
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss in Soto Suit
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Spencer Suit
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Strobel Suit
NURTURE LLC: Granted Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Altuve's FACC
NURTURE LLC: Granted Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Hampton's FACC
NURTURE LLC: Has Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Skibicki's FACC
NURTURE LLC: Has Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Stewart's FACC
NURTURE LLC: Has Leave to Seek Dismissal of FACC in Williams Suit
NURTURE LLC: Jain's Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due June 7
NURTURE LLC: Lawrence to File Objection to Dismissal Bid by June 7
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Albert Suit Due June 7
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Gothot Suit Due June 7
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Johnson Suit Due June 7
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Robbins Suit Due June 7
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Westin Suit Due June 7
NURTURE LLC: Philippe May Oppose Bid to Dismiss FACC by June 7
O'REILLY AUTO: Pipich Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lilien Securities Class Suit
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Jacobs Suit Moved to Alameda Super. Court
PALM BEACH: Discloses Private Info to Meta, Google, Prosky Alleges
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Lambert Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
PHOENIX LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman Bid for Class Certification Tossed
PREMIER DISABILITY: Wilkin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PROCTER AND GAMBLE: Request to Bifurcate Class Denied in Izzo Suit
RAPID PALLET: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Williams Suit
RB HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 21
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Sept. 20
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Tredo Class Suit
RESTAURANT LIFE: Partial Bid to Dismiss Surgento Complaint Denied
REVAIRA LLC: Zappavigna Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
REVLON CONSUMER: Jurdi Suit Removed to C.D. California
REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Disner
RIKENMIO INC: Trippett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Mattson Seeks More Time to File Response
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Caldwell Sues Over Unpaid Wages
SAINT THOMAS HEALTH: Wilkin Files Suit in Tenn. 20th Judicial Dist.
SAZERAC COMPANY: Bethea Sues Over Misleading Representations
SCRIBE MEDIA: Cormier Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
SEASON 4 LLC: Sunderland Suit Transferred to S.D. California
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Hardnett Suit Removed to D. Columbia
SELENE FINANCE: Bid to Extend Deadlines Tossed as Moot
SIKA AG: Faces Suit Over Concrete Mixture Price Monopoly
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 23
SONY INTERACTIVE: Loses Class Cert. Denial Bid
SOTERA HEALTH: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Ohio
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit
SUMMIT HEALTH: Class Settlement in Reyes Suit Has Final Approval
SUN COMMUNITIES: Continues to Defend Manufactured Home Class Suit
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
SWEDISH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Adan Class Action Denied
TRENTON CITY, NJ: Steals Surplus Value, Thompson Suit Alleges
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit
TWITTER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Schobinger Modified to July 2
TWITTER INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Bid Filing
TYRONE OLIVER: Gholston Class Status Bid Tossed
UNITED STATES: Popkova Action Remains Stayed
USAA CASUALTY: Class Cert Filing in Jennings Due Feb. 3, 2025
WALGREEN CO: Pizzo Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
WALKER BROTHERS: Bullock Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WEATHER GROUP: Discloses Data Without Consent, Marden Says
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Bielak Files Suit in N.D. Texas
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' Info, Reagan Alleges
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Heller Files Suit in N.D. Texas
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Durden Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
[] Daniel Lerman Joins Kramer Levin as Litigation Partner
*********
18TH AVE. FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ojeda Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ENRIQUE OLIVARES OJEDA, LUCERO FLORES ROSA, JOSE ABRAHAM SALAS
MORALES, GREGORIO ALEJANDRO YAC SULUGUI, and TERESA SALAS SALAZAR,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 18TH
AVE. FOOD MARKET, INC. (D/B/A PETER ROSITO FRUIT AND VEGETABLE) and
PETER ROSITO, Case No. 1:24-cv-03691 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.
From May 2018, until Sept. 3, 2023, the Plaintiff Olivares worked
from 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., 7 days a week (typically 63 hours
per week). However, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Olivares a fixed
salary of $80 per day, the suit claims.
From May 2018 until Aug. 21, 2023, the Plaintiff Flores worked from
8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., 3 days a week and from 10:00 a.m. until
7:00 p.m., 2 days a week (typically 45 hours per week). However,
the Defendants paid the Plaintiff Flores a fixed salary of $80 per
day from May 2018 until June 30, 2020. Furthermore, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Olivares was employed by the Defendants as a produce
worker at Peter Rosito Fruit and Vegetable from 1998 until Sept. 3,
2023.
Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as a cashier at
Peter Rosito Fruit and Vegetable from May 2008 until Aug. 21,
2023.
18th Ave. is a produce store, located at 1787 Bay Ridge Avenue,
Brooklyn.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
23ANDME INC: Roe Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Roe and John Q. Public, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 23ANDME, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-02319-EMC (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2024), is brought against
the Defendant's failure to protect their Personal Information.
The Plaintiffs and Class members bring this action because their
personally identifying information ("PII"), genetic information,
and ancestry information (collectively, "Personal Information") was
exfiltrated from Defendant's systems in a data breach discovered in
August 2023 (the "Data Breach").
Hackers specifically targeted Plaintiffs' and Class members'
genetic and ancestral information--which they provided in
confidence to 23andMe -and posted it for sale on the dark web
because of their Chinese and Ashkenazi Jewish genetic and ancestral
information. Unlike many other data breaches, the hackers do not
appear solely motivated to make money, but rather to target two
at-risk populations. The danger to the Class is particularly acute
given the antisemitism and anti-Asian ideology these groups face.
The Defendant's negligence, including leaving a fixable loophole
allowing hackers access into its systems, were the direct cause of
the Data Breach. 23andMe's negligence is exacerbated by its failure
to provide sufficient and timely notice to Class members, in
particular those of Chinese and Ashkenazi Jewish descent, that
their Personal Information is now available on the dark web to
individuals who intend to threaten and harm them--and family
members--as a result of their heritage and ancestry.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of
confidence and failure to protect their Personal Information,
Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured by facing ongoing,
imminent, impending threats of hate and identity theft crimes,
fraud, scams, and other misuses of their Personal Information;
ongoing monetary loss and economic harm; loss of value of privacy
and confidentiality of the stolen Personal Information; illegal
sales of the compromised Personal Information; loss of the benefit
of their bargain, mitigation expenses and other injuries.
Plaintiffs and Class members have a continuing interest in ensuring
that their information is and remains safe, and they should be
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was a user of the Defendant's services.
23andMe is a home-based genetics testing company that commenced
business around 2006.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Melissa A. Gardner, Esq.
Jalle Dafa, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.956.1000
Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
msobol@lchb.com
mgardner@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
- and -
Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Nicolle B. Brito, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561/750-3000
Fax 561/750-3364
Email: dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
ltaylor@rgrdlaw.com
nbrito@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Cross Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Edward Cross, Sr., and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.);
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02186-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 18, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
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 Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
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 regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Crowley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Joseph Crowley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02143-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 18, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
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 Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
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 regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
- and -
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-4063
3M COMPANY: Deane Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------
Rick William Deane, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO.,
INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS,
INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX
CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.;
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02169-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 18, 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 extremely
hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and
other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires").
AFFF 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, individually and collectively, designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on,
produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled,
used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or
TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with
knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained
highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
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 Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused
Plaintiff significant and devastating injury.
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 regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was
diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing
chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
- and -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
3M COMPANY: Edgar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Edgar, 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-01877-RMG (D.S.C., April 12, 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, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Emanuel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Emanuel, 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-01887-RMG (D.S.C., April 12, 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, Esq.
Marc S. Whitehead, Esq.
MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP
403 Heights Boulevard
Houston, TX 77007
Phone: 713-228-8888
Facsimile: 713-225-0940
3M COMPANY: Lawrence Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Elnora Lawrence, 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-01850-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 Thyroid Disease 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: Senft Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Senft, 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 2:24-cv-01842-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 Thyroid Disease 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: Thompson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
David Thompson, 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-01847-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 Thyroid Disease 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
A PLACE FOR MOM: Pineda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Place For Mom. The
case is styled as Hector Pineda, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. A Place For Mom, Case No. 24CV076933
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
A Place for Mom -- https://www.aplaceformom.com/ -- founded in
2000, is a privately held, for-profit senior care referral service
headquartered in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
535 Mission St., Fl. 14
San Francisco, CA 94105-3253
Phone: 917-566-2037
Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com
A2 RAILLA DEVELOPMENT: Cortez Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Valdez Cortez, an individual and others similarly situated
v. A2 RAILLA DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES
1 THROUGH 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12907 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 22, 2024), is brought against the Defendants
violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay proper
wages.
The Defendants wrongful terminated and retaliated to the Plaintiff
in violation of public policy and discriminated based on protected
status – disability. The Defendants failed to accommodate; failed
to engage in the interactive process; failed to take reasonable
steps to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation; nonpayment of
minimum wages; nonpayment of regular wages; nonpayment of overtime
compensation; failed to provide meal breaks; failed to provide rest
periods; failed to reimburse expenses; waiting time penalties;
negligence; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; and
unfair business practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Contractor on February
21, 2022.
The Defendant is California corporation organized, existing and
registered under the laws of the State of California and conducting
business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
BITTON & ASSOCIATES
7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Phone: (310) 356-1006
Fax: (818) 524-1224
ACUITY BRANDS: Jones Sues Over Invalidating Resignation Requirement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Jones, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of ACUITY BRANDS, INC. v. ACUITY BRANDS, INC., Case
No. 2024-0549- (Del. Chancery Ct., May 23, 2024), is brought
seeking declaratory relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation
Requirement, of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws,
effective January 25, 2024 (the "Bylaws").
The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board
of directors (the "Board") to usurp stockholders' exclusive right
to select the members of the Board.
The Company has a "proxy access" bylaw (the "Proxy Access Bylaw")
pursuant to which the Company will include the name of any person
nominated for election to director ("Stockholder Nominee") by a
stockholder or group of stockholders owning 3% or more of the
Company's outstanding stock ("Eligible Stockholder"), along with
certain required information, collectively referred to as the
"Notice of Proxy Access Nomination" (as defined in the Proxy Access
Bylaw for that Stockholder Nominee, in the Company's proxy
statement for any annual meeting of the Company's stockholders.
To comply with the Proxy Access Bylaw, a Stockholder Nominee is
required, pursuant to Section I.9(e)(xiv) of the Bylaws (the
"Irrevocable Resignation Requirement") to deliver to the Company an
irrevocable letter of resignation that only becomes effective if,
at a later unspecified date, the Board determines that either (a)
any information provided to the Company with respect to such
Stockholder Nominee pursuant to the Proxy Access Bylaw was untrue
in any material respect or omitted to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (b)
such Stockholder Nominee, or any stockholder or group of
stockholders who nominated such Stockholder Nominee, failed to
comply with any obligation owed to the Company or breached any
representation made pursuant to the Bylaws. Similar requirements do
not apply to the incumbent members of the Board or to their
nominees.
The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also impermissibly subverts
the stockholder franchise. Absent the relief requested herein, the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with
stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the
Company's directors. Adjudication of this matter is thus essential
to protect the stockholder franchise, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a Company stockholder
since at least October 2023.
The Defendant is a lighting and building management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
ADR RESTAURANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Uddin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAHIR UDDIN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. ADR RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a
THE DELANCEY, and ALEKSANDRA DROZD, Case No. 1:24-cv-03933-RA-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management.
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ranuKP at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joey Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
corporate; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. MCV091541 was
removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of Madera, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on May 23, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00616-SAB.
The Plaintiff's first cause of action is for the alleged failure to
pay overtime compensation pursuant to California Labor Code. The
Plaintiff's second cause of action is for the alleged failure to
pay minimum wages and wages for all hours worked pursuant to
California Labor Code. In the third cause of action, the Plaintiff
alleges that he and others were not provided legally compliant meal
periods. The Plaintiff's seventh cause of action is a derivative
claim for waiting time penalties for the failure to timely pay
wages earned and unpaid prior to termination, pursuant to
California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 526-7904
Facsimile: (949) 526-7904
Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Record Holder Class Wins Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germano v. Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc. et al. (RE AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-06733-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Maxine Chesney entered an order granting co-lead Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification defined as:
"All record holders and all beneficial holders of Aimmune
common
stock who held such stock at any time during the pendency of
the
tender offer involving Aimmune and Societe des Produits
Nestle
S.A. (from Sept. 14, 2020 through Oct. 9, 2020) and had their
shares exchanged for $34.50 per share in connection with the
closing of the merger (on Oct. 13, 2020) (the "Class").
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Nestle and its affiliates;
(ii)
the officers and directors of the Company and members of
their
immediate families; (iii) any entity in which Defendants have
or
had a controlling interest; and (iv) the legal
representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns of each officer and director of
the
Company.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs Bruce Svitak and Cecilia Pemberton are appointed
as class representatives, and Monteverde & Associates PC and Kahn,
Swick & Foti, LLC are ppointed as Class Counsel.
Class Counsel shall continue to have all the responsibilities and
duties set forth in the Court's order appointing them Co-Lead
Counsel for the named plaintiffs and shall also be responsible for
ensuring all work by counsel is in the best interests of the
plaintiffs and proposed class and is based on the qualifications
and expertise of the person assigned particular tasks or
responsibilities, counsel’s knowledge of the law, facts and
issues, efficiency, and
cost effectiveness.
On April 22, 2024, Aimmune and Jayson D.A. Dallas filed a response
stating they do not oppose such request. The Court, having read and
considered the moving papers, finds the requirements of Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied.
Aimmune operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6S7W7m at no extra
charge.[CC]
AK RESTAURANT: Lopez Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Inocencio Rodriguez Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. AK Restaurant Group LLC d/b/a Pita
Pan, Nicolas DOE, and Anthony DOE, Case No. (E.D.N.Y., May 20,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover "spread of hours" compensation, and
compensation for Defendants' illegal deductions from gratuities
under NYLL, and statutory damages for the Defendants' violation of
the Wage Theft Prevention Act. He asserts that he was typically
working 59 hours per week during his employment by Defendants. He
also had no days off and breaks. He was paid at the rate of $12.50
per hour, plus tips. As a result, the Plaintiff's effective rates
of pay were each below the statutory New York City minimum wage,
says the Plaintiff.
The Defendants allegedly suffered and permitted the Plaintiff, and
the Collective Class, to regularly work more than 40 hours per week
without appropriate overtime compensation.
Mr. Lopez was employed at Pita Pan from March 2020 until February
2023. During his employment with the Defendants, Mr. Lopez worked
as a cook, prep-cook, and delivery boy.
Pita Pan is a Greek restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
ALFA INSURANCE: Faces Moore Suit Over Vehicle Insurance Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALFA INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-CWR-LGI (S.D., Miss., May 20, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant unlawfully reduces the Plaintiff's insurance claim.
According to the complaint, the Defendant used valuation reports
prepared by Mitchell International, Inc. to determine the actual
cash value of the loss vehicles. Through Mitchell's valuation, the
Defendant systematically thumbs the scale when calculating the ACV
of claimants' loss vehicle by applying so-called "Projected Sold
Adjustments".
The Defendant took advantage of the valuation process that employs
improper and unreasonable adjustments to reduce the value of
comparable vehicles specified in the valuation reports, which in
turn reduces the valuation of the total loss vehicles and the
corresponding claim payment, says the suit.
ALFA INSURANCE CORPORATION operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers property and casualty insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel D. Ware, Esq.
WARE LAW FIRM, PLLC
103 3rd Street NW
Magee, MS 39111
Telephone: (601) 439-7079
Email: dware@warelawfirm.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliot, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 331132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, Fl 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberg.com
- and -
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr.
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 720-4057
Email: jacob@jacobphillips.com
joshua@jacobphillips.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Breached Duties to Service Members, Thompson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-00434-FL
(E.D.N.C., May 20, 2024) asserts that the Defendant knowingly
breached the duties it owes to service members when it refused to
permit the Plaintiff to terminate his motor vehicle lease, despite
his proper submission of the appropriate documentation, including
his deployment orders specifically stating that Plaintiff is
authorized to be released from any and all current contracts,
leases, payment plans, and court appearances.
The Plaintiff has been in active duty with the United States Marine
Corps since 2014 and deployed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Since December 2021, the Defendant has provided financial services
to the Plaintiff that are protected by the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act ("SCRA"); specifically, a motor vehicle lease.
On Dec. 18, 2021, the Plaintiff entered into a motor vehicle lease
agreement with the Defendant, with a total value of $26,879.95.
Upon entering into the Agreement, the Plaintiff made a payment of
$4,996.61 and thereafter has completed 24 timely monthly payments
of $565.43.
On Dec. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff received his first notice from the
United States Marine Corps stating that, on Jan. 15, 2024, the
Plaintiff's company would execute orders to deploy to an
undisclosed location in support of a military operation for
approximately six months.
On Dec. 28, 2023 the Plaintiff inquired as to the status of his
termination, and the Defendant responded that his request was not
approved due to the omission of a deployment location and a
typographical error in the Plaintiff's deployment orders.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested and obtained new orders that:
(a) stated Plaintiff would deploy on Jan. 7, 2024 for approximately
six months; and (b) included a generalized deployment location. The
Plaintiff submitted the new orders to the Defendant via email on
Jan. 2, 2024.
Nonetheless, on Jan. 17, 2024, the Defendant gave the Plaintiff
written notice stating that it was "unable to approve [his]
request" for SCRA protection, claiming that the "military service
date predates the contract date," and that it never received the
Plaintiff's orders.
As a result of the Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's proper
request for termination of his Lease as required by the SCRA, the
Plaintiff is still making monthly payments of $565.43 and at
present has paid three more months than what he should have paid
pursuant to the SCRA and has incurred additional interest and loss
of the benefit of use of these funds elsewhere, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff is a Staff Sergeant serving in the United States
Marine Corps for over ten (10) years. On Jan. 7, 2024, the
Plaintiff deployed to an undisclosed location within the Middle
East in support of military operation.
The Defendant is bank holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
Ian E. Vance, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com
ivance@carolinalaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Certification Bid in Floyd Due Jan. 13, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an amended case scheduling
order as follows:
Event Date
Next production of documents/data: June 21, 2024
Substantial completion of documents/data Sept. 13, 2024
Productions:
Fact discovery cutoff: Dec. 13, 2024
Class-certification motion and opening Jan. 13, 2025
Reports:
Class-certification opposition and Mar. 13, 2025
supporting reports:
Class-certification reply and reply reports: May 30, 2025
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 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iC4i01 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Grants Bid to Amend Complaint in Floyd Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the motion for
leave to amend complaint filed by the Plaintiff's class counsel in
the lawsuit entitled STEVEN FLOYD, Plaintiff(s) v. AMAZON.COM INC.,
et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiff Steven Floyd filed the putative class action in November
2022, alleging that the Global Tenets Agreement between Defendants
Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. violates Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2023, and
Floyd filed an amended complaint in response. The Defendants filed
another round of motions to dismiss in March 2023, which were
granted in part and denied in part in June 2023.
Since then, the parties have worked to resolve discovery-related
disputes, some of which have warranted Court intervention. In
February 2024, class counsel filed a motion to amend the complaint
to add class representatives because Floyd recently ceased
responding to inquiries from counsel for the proposed class.
The motion proposes amending the complaint to list Jolene Furdek
and Jonathan Ryan as new class representatives asserting the same
Sherman Act claim, on the same facts alleged in the first amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint also omits the
allegations that were dismissed in the order granting in part the
motions to dismiss, without waiving the right to challenge the
dismissal on appeal. The Defendants oppose the motion for leave to
amend on a variety of grounds.
The Court first addresses the Defendants' primary argument in
opposition, which is that Floyd is an inadequate named Plaintiff.
Specifically, the Defendants argue that because Floyd was never
qualified to represent the class in the first place, subjecting the
Defendants to the burdens of litigation for over a year with a
plaintiff, who is an inadequate representative of the putative
class, while simultaneously refusing to produce documents or offer
dates for deposition, is conduct that makes amendment
inappropriate. The Defendants add that the motion to amend is not
simply a motion to add or substitute a class representative, but
should be considered a "back-door attempt to begin the action
anew."
But whether Floyd is an adequate representative of the putative
class is not before the Court at this point in the litigation, and
the Defendants will have an opportunity to fully litigate this
issue in the context of a motion for class certification, Judge
Evanson opines. The Defendants have not shown that Floyd's
potential inadequacy as a class representative is an inherent
defect in his party status akin to a lack of standing or mootness,
such that there is no live case or controversy before the Court. In
the absence of an inherent defect in Floyd's claims, the Court will
allow amendment of the complaint to add additional named
plaintiffs.
In considering whether the motion for leave to amend should be
granted under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court must resolve the parties' dispute as to whether Rule 15
(addressing leave to amend pleadings) and/or Rule 16 (addressing
modifications to a case schedule) applies to the motion.
Here, the case schedule does not set out a deadline for either
amending pleadings or adding parties, but sets deadlines only as to
substantial completion of productions, fact discovery cutoff,
disclosure of expert reports, and the briefing of a
class-certification motion. While the motion for leave to amend was
pending, the parties filed a stipulated motion to suspend the April
3 deadline and indicated that they will confer regarding a new case
schedule after the Court has resolved all motions currently
pending.
Under the circumstances, where even the filing of a motion for
leave to amend has necessitated adjustment of the case schedule,
the Court finds that Rule 16 applies and good cause must be shown
to modify the case schedule, before the Court will consider whether
the motion for leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15.
Judge Evanson finds that the good cause standard has been easily
met here. Class counsel diligently moved to substitute the new
representatives after Floyd unexpectedly stopped communicating with
them. Counsel last communicated with Floyd on Jan. 16, 2024, and
moved to amend the complaint on Feb. 29, 2024. Judge Evanson points
out that that span of time reflects diligence.
The Court cannot find that the Defendants are prejudiced by having
to defend this case while its timeliness is still an open question.
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the motion for leave
to amend is supported by good cause and that the Defendants have
not shown that justice requires its denial. Because leave to amend
the complaint is granted, the motion to intervene in the
alternative is denied as moot.
Thus, at this time, the Court finds that the Defendants' concern in
their opposition regarding the case schedule has been mooted by the
subsequent stipulation. The Defendants will have an opportunity to
address any concerns about schedule revisions either when
conferring with class counsel or when briefing a contested motion
to modify the case schedule, if one is necessary.
For these reasons, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend.
A second amended complaint was due May 10, 2024. The parties will
confer regarding case schedule modification and whether the
statement of discovery disputes filed on March 26, 2024, should be
re-briefed in light of this order.
The parties will file either a stipulation on these issues or set
forth a briefing schedule on these issues. The Clerk is directed to
terminate the dispute at this time, subject to reactivation by the
Court after reviewing the parties' submission.
The Plaintiffs are also granted leave to file a motion to compel
with regard to the disputes outlined in the joint statement filed
on March 22, 2024. As discussed at the discovery conference, the
Court finds that the issues to be resolved in that statement of
disputes warrants full briefing. The Clerk is directed to terminate
the dispute as a motion at this time.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzz44htd from PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Milkes Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Milkes, Shari C. White, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com
Services LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02337 JHL was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May
22, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00728-BJR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Amazon.com Services LLC -- http://www.amazon.com/-- provides
e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry,
electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul Richard Kesselman, Esq.
LAW FIRM OF PAUL R KESSELMAN
1241 Central Avenue #934
Wilmette, IL 60091
Phone: (312) 283-4342
Email: paul@kesselmanlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alborz Hassani, Esq.
Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Phone: (312) 324-1711
Email: al.hassani@morganlewis.com
beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Wickham
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WICKHAM v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC. et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-04095-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley
entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
American is a major airline in the United States headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4grdTm at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FEDERATION: District of Columbia Dismisses Morgan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia dismisses, without prejudice, the lawsuit entitled EDWARD
LEE MORGAN, SR., et al., Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00688-UNA (D.D.C.).
The matter is before the Court on its initial review of the
Plaintiffs' letter and memorandum, generously construed as a
complaint, and the Plaintiffs' memorandum seeking a fee waiver,
generously construed as an application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis ("IFP").
For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court
denies the IFP application and dismisses the matter without
prejudice.
Plaintiff Edward Lee Morgan Sr., proceeding pro se, a former Vice
President of EMS Operations and Chairman of the Election Committee
of the American Federation of Government Employees' ("AFGE") Local
3721 Union, attempts to bring this matter on behalf of himself and
multiple other individuals, against the AFGE's national offices,
its President, and officials affiliated with Local 3721.
Mr. Morgan alleges that Local 3721 and its recent leadership have
engaged in myriad wrongdoing, including breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract, conflicts of interest, embezzlement, voting
fraud, tax fraud, hate crimes, and union busting, and that AFGE's
national executive board has failed to protect members of Local
3721 from these bad acts, or to properly represent them. He
contends that he has conveyed much of this information to multiple
federal agencies, and that he has been working cooperatively with
them, but he now demands that U.S. courts also conduct an
investigation into these allegations.
Judge Mehta notes that Morgan faces hurdles here that cannot be
overcome. To initiate this case, Morgan has filed a letter and
memorandum, which he may not do; he must file a civil complaint.
Even generously construing his submission as a complaint, Judge
Mehta points out that it cannot survive dismissal. The submission
is neither titled nor captioned for this Court, and it is only
signed by Morgan and none of the other intended plaintiffs.
Assuming arguendo that Morgan's submission satisfied the applicable
pleading rules, notably, he cannot bring this matter as a class
action, or otherwise, on behalf of the other plaintiffs, because a
pro se litigant can represent only himself in federal court, Judge
Mehta opines. Even if Morgan had filed this matter individually,
this matter still could not survive, because the Court is without
jurisdiction to "investigate" a criminal matter or to compel the
government to prosecute a criminal case.
Finally, Judge Mehta says, Morgan has filed a memorandum seeking a
fee waiver. His submission does not, however, contain any of the
required information about his financial circumstances. Without
properly detailed IFP applications, the Court lacks the information
by which it may assess whether the Plaintiff qualifies for IFP
status.
For all of these reasons, Judge Mehta holds that Morgan's
memorandum seeking a fee waiver is denied, and the case is
dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated May 6,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5eb96f5m from
PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Newman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Melanie Newman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC. d/b/a
AMC THEATERS, Case No. 2:23-cv-02358 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 22, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11359 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
American Multi-Cinema, Inc. -- https://www.amctheatres.com/ --
provides entertainment services. The Company owns and operates
movie theatres.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anna A. Gadberry, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64120
Phone: (816) 474-6550
Email: agadberry@shb.com
- and -
Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
Tara Danielle Kennedy, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7777
Email: mwolfe@shb.com
tkennedy@shb.com
AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC: Macklin Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Syeed Macklin, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC HOSPITAL d/b/a/ FOX
CHASE CANCER CENTER, Case No. 240300103 was removed from the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 23,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02215.
The Plaintiff alleges that AOH violated the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, ("PMWA") and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law ("PWPCL") by "failing to pay Named Plaintiff and those
similarly situated all overtime wages earned."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 499-6700
Facsimile: (312) 279-6780
Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
- and -
Adam D. Brown, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 979-1000
ANGELCARE USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davis Due Feb. 7, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSI DAVIS, ALLYSON
HALPERIN, EMILY PAGE, BRIANNA AARON, LEANNA ROSE, and ASHLEY
FRANCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ANGELCARE USA, LLC and PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, LLC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00119-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor Bolden entered
a scheduling order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' initial disclosures due by May 31, 2024.
-- The parties shall submit an ESI protocol for the Court's
approval
by June 14, 2024.
-- Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification and
supporting class expert disclosures and reports by Feb. 7,
2025.
-- Defendants shall complete depositions of Plaintiffs' class
experts
and file any opposition to the motion for class certification
and
supporting class expert disclosures and reports by May 2,
2025.
-- Plaintiffs shall complete depositions of Defendants' class
experts
and file any reply regarding the motion for class
certification
and supporting class rebuttal expert disclosures and reports by
July 25, 2025.
-- Class expert discovery closes Aug. 22, 2025.
-- Rule 702/Daubert motions shall be due by Sept. 5, 2025. Any
oppositions to any such motions shall be due by Oct. 3, 2025.
Any
replies to any such objections shall be due by Oct. 24, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PT8vY9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Aguiar Sues Over Monopolization of the Market
--------------------------------------------------------
Eraldo Aguiar, individually and in a representative capacity on
behalf of those similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-06341 (D.N.J., May 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant,
under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust
Act for relief from Defendant's attempted and actual monopolization
of the market for the sale of Smartphones in the United States from
at least as early as March 21, 2020, through the date by which the
anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased,
but in any case no earlier than the present (the "Class Period").
Apple's U.S. market share by revenue is over 70 percent in the
Performance Smartphone market--a more expensive segment of the
broader Smartphone market where Apple's own executives recognize
the company competes--and over 65 percent for all Smartphones, each
as further defined herein. Over the last decade, Apple increased
its share of Smartphones sold in the United States most years.
Through the same period, Apple collected more than half the revenue
for all Smartphones sold in the United States. Apple has abused and
continues to abuse its monopoly through the overarching scheme
revealed by the DOJ, with the purpose and the effect of charging
and receiving artificially high prices and fees from consumers in
the United States.
Apple's conduct also stifles new paradigms that threaten Apple's
Smartphone dominance, including the cloud, which could make it
easier for users to enjoy high-end functionality on a lower priced
Smartphone--or make users device--agnostic altogether. Apple feared
the disintermediation of its iPhone platform and undertook a course
of conduct that locked in users and developers while protecting its
profits.
Apple's anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the
Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries
affected by these restrictions, including financial services,
fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more.
Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped,
it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other
markets and parts of the economy.
The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the substantial
injuries he and members of the Class have suffered by reason of
Defendant's continuing violations of law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone directly from Apple.
Apple Inc. is a California corporation and is one of the world's
most valuable public companies with a market capitalization over
$2.5 trillion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
23 Forest St.
Medford, MA 02155
Phone: (781) 350-0000
Fax: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
APPLE INC: Faces Filter Suit Over Smartphone Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------
MARISA FILTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-06342 (D.N.J., May 22, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in monopolization of the market for the sale of Smartphones
in the United States. Apple reduces competition in the markets for
Performance Smartphones and Smartphones generally. It does this by
delaying, degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would
increase competition in the Smartphone markets by decreasing
barriers to switching to another Smartphone, among other things.
Apple's anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the
Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries
affected by these restrictions, including financial services,
fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more.
Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped,
it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other
markets and parts of the economy. As a result of its
anticompetitive conduct, Apple sells iPhone brand Smartphones at
supracompetitive monopoly prices to consumers, says the suit.
APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
23 Forest St.
Medford, MA 02155
Telephone: (781) 350-0000
Facsimile: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
APPLE INC: Hernandez Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Hernandez, individually and in a representative capacity
on behalf of those similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-06380 (D.N.J., May 23, 2024), is brought against Defendant,
under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Sections 4
and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, for relief from Defendant's
attempted and actual monopolization of the market for the sale of
Smartphones in the United States from at least as early as March
21, 2020, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of
its violations of law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier
than the present (the "Class Period").
Apple has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly through the
overarching scheme revealed by the DOJ, with the purpose and the
effect of charging and receiving artificially high prices and fees
from consumers in the United States
For many years, Apple has built a dominant iPhone platform and
ecosystem, driving the company's astronomical valuation. At the
same time, it has long understood that disruptive technologies and
innovative apps, products, and services threatened that dominance
by making users less reliant on the iPhone or making it easier to
switch to a non-Apple Smartphone. Rather than respond to
competitive threats by offering lower Smartphone prices to
consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet
competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and
restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements
that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation,
offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle
competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook across many
technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text
messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others.
Apple's anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the
Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries
affected by these restrictions, including financial services,
fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more.
Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped,
it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other
markets and parts of the economy.
Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer
preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it
spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the
self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers'
privacy and security interests. Yet Apple selectively compromises
privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple's own
financial interest—such as degrading the security of text
messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to
access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting
billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default
search engine when more private options are available. In the end,
Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic
shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and
business interests.
The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the substantial
injuries he and members of the Class have suffered by reason of
Defendant's continuing violations of law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone directly from Apple.
Apple is one of the world's most valuable public companies with a
market capitalization over $2.5 trillion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
Melanie Porter, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
23 Forest St.
Medford, MA 02155
Phone: (781) 350-0000
Fax: (702) 983-8673
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
melanie@classactions.us
APPLE INC: Seeks to Extend Deadline to Oppose Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through
next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN
LEBLOND, PATRICIA ORRIS, and ANGELA STEVENS on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order extending Apple's deadline to
disclose experts and to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification to June 17, 2024.
Apple agreed to that extension of time and worked collaboratively
with the Plaintiffs to establish workable expert disclosure
deadlines. Apple requests a modest extension of its deadlines that
are no greater than what Plaintiffs requested. The extension of
time requested herein is not expected to impact other deadlines in
this action.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Court entered the Fifth Amended Scheduling
Order, under which Plaintiffs' motion class certification was to be
filed by March 15, 2024, and briefing on the motion to be closed by
June 7, 2024.
On March 7, 2024, the parties jointly moved to modify the briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Apple requires additional time to complete its expert disclosures
and file its class certification opposition and seeks a modest
extension to do so. Without an extension, Apple will be prejudiced
by the lack of time to complete Dr. Sinnreich's deposition
regarding his class certification opinions, finalize its expert
disclosures, and incorporate Dr. Sinnreich's testimony into its
class certification opposition and anticipated Daubert motion.
Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BOmVgY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Raj N. Shah, Esq.
Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Dale Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aramark Campus, LLC.
The case is styled as Julia Dale, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Aramark Campus, LLC, Case No.
24CV076940 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
ARAMARK Campus, LLC -- https://www.aramark.com/home -- provides
food and facilities management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210
Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
Phone: 760-942-9433
Fax: 760-452-4421
Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com
ASAP SOLAR PROS: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASAP Solar Pros Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Winters, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ASAP Solar Pros Inc. doing
business as: Systematic Solar, Case No. 1:24-cv-01457-MEH (D.
Colo., May 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
ASAP Solar -- https://www.asapsolar.com/ -- provides professional
solar services throughout all of East Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522
Phone: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
ASCENSION GENESYS: Buford FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chevon Buford, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ascension Genesys Hospital, Case No.
2:24-cv-10480 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on May 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00713-CDP to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Ascension -- https://healthcare.ascension.org/ -- offer
compassionate, personalized care within a wide range of specialties
and programs to serve our communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Blanchard & Walker, PLLC
221 North Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (734) 929-4313
Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Phone: (214) 489-7653
Fax: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
Southfield, MI 48075
Phone: (248) 936-1900
Fax: (248) 936-1901
Email: Allan.Rubin@jacksonlewis.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Brown Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascension Health. The
case is styled as Daniel Brown, Iman Ayuk, Kerry Lovell, Richard
Meade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Ascension Health, Case No. 4:24-cv-00724-SPM (E.D. Mo., May 23,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Ascension -- https://healthcare.ascension.org/ -- is a faith-based
healthcare organization that delivers personalized, compassionate
care to all, especially to those who need it the most.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Fax: (972) 387-4041
ASR GROUP: City Wok Sues Over Unlawful Agreement to Fix Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hu-Yu, Inc. d/b/a City Wok, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS f/k/a UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD
WISTISEN, Case No. 0:24-cv-01903 (D. Minn., May 22, 2024), is
brought arising from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix
prices for Granulated Sugar in the United States in violation of
the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection
laws by Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that Producing Defendants, among the largest
producers and sellers of Granulated Sugar in the United States and
direct competitors, violated the Sherman Act, by conspiring to
artificially inflate the price of Granulated Sugar from at least
January 1, 2019 to the present (the "Class Period").
In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants, inter alia,
exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information
about Granulated Sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and
demand. This exchange of information was intended to facilitate
Producing Defendants charging higher prices for Granulated Sugar in
the United States throughout the Class Period.
As a result of Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy, Granulated
Sugar prices were inflated throughout the Class Period in the
United States, forcing Plaintiff and the other class members to pay
supra-competitive prices for Granulated Sugar. Plaintiff, an
indirect commercial purchaser of Granulated Sugar, and the other
class members (collectively, the "Commercial Indirect Purchasers")
suffered antitrust injury as a direct result of Defendants'
unlawful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Los Angeles, California.
ASR Group is "the world's largest refiner and marketer of cane
sugar, with an annual production capacity of 6 million metric tons
of sugar" and produces "a full line of grocery and e-commerce,
industrial, foodservice and specialty sweetener products, with a
strong focus on innovation and product development.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
Daniel J. Herrera, Esq.
Mohammed Rathur, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 782-4880
Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
ASR GROUP: Faces Suit Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
2ND PIT LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS &
REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION; MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY; CARGILL, INC.; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and
RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01859 (D. Minn., May
20, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in an unlawful agreement to fix prices for Granulated Sugar
in the United States.
As a result of Defendants' unlawful agreement, commercial indirect
purchasers of Granulated Sugar in the United States and its
territories, including Plaintiff and the Class members, paid
supra-competitive prices for Granulated Sugar sold by Defendants in
the United States and its territories beginning no later than
January 1, 2019, and running through the present, says the suit.
ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. is a global producer and seller of
Granulated Sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON KING LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651)312-6518
Email: sraiter@larsonking.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two City Place Drive Second Floor
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Cody McCracken, Esq.
Lissa Morgans, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202)589-1813
Email: cmccracken@cuneolaw.com
lmorgans@cuneolaw.com
ATLAS MEDICAL: Katz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Medical
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffery Katz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlas Medical
Management, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03141 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Atlas Medical Management, LLC -- https://www.atlasmedicalmgmt.com/
-- is a medical billing services company that provides efficient
and accurate billing services to healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
AUTO SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Stephens Due August 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE STEPHENS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. AUTO SYSTEMS CENTERS,
INC. d/b/a MIDAS, Case No. 2:21-cv-05131-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Chelsey Vascura entered an order granting the Parties' joint
motion to extend case deadlines as follows:
1. Class Certification Motion due by Aug. 20, 2024;
2. Discovery due by July 24, 2024;
3. Dispositive Motions due by Aug. 20, 2024.
Auto Systems is an Employee owned company (ESOP) and is also the
worlds largest Midas Franchisee in the Midas chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tOfbYd at no extra
charge.[CC]
AZ TORRES LLC: Conde Files FLSA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AZ Torres LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Leticia Conde, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AZ Torres LLC, Adolfo Torres,
Zindy Torres, Case No. 2:24-cv-01179-JJT (D. Ariz., May 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Jacob Bendau, Esq.
Clifford Phillip Bendau, II, Esq.
BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Phone: (480) 382-5176
Fax: (480) 304-3805
Email: chris@bendaulaw.com
cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
BAI BRANDS: Kouyate Sues Over False Claims and Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moussa Kouyate, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. BAI BRANDS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03993-AS (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant's false claims and deceptively marketing with regard to
their flavored waters.
Bai markets and sells sweetened, flavored waters that it labels as
containing "No Artificial Sweeteners" (the "Bai Waters"). That
claim is false, however, because Bai Waters are sweetened with
Stevia Leaf Extract, Monk Fruit Extract, and Erythritol, each one
an artificial, man-made sweetener.
When purchasing the Bai Waters, Plaintiff was exposed to, read, and
relied upon Bai's labeling claim, "No Artificial Sweeteners," which
was intended to appeal to consumers, like him, who are interested
in foods that contain natural sweeteners. Plaintiff believed this
claim, which was and is deceptive because the Bai Waters contain
artificial sweeteners. The Plaintiff acted reasonably in relying on
the challenged labeling claim, which Bai intentionally placed on
the products' labeling with the intent to induce average consumers
into purchasing the Bai Waters.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Bai Waters, or would not
have been willing to pay the price he paid, if he knew that the "No
Artificial Sweeteners" labeling claim was false and misleading in
that the product contains artificial sweeteners. The Bai Waters
cost more than similar products without misleading labeling and
would have cost less absent Bai's false and misleading statements
and Through the misleading labeling claims and omissions, Bai was
able to gain a greater share of the market than it would have
otherwise and also increase the size of the market, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly purchased Bai Puna Coconut Pineapple and
Pilavo Pineapple Mango beverages for the last several years.
Bai has manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Bai
Waters in single bottles and multi-packs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 215-1741
Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Revised to Jan. 15, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order, based on the parties'
stipulation, setting the following revised schedule:
-- Completion of ADR: June 10, 2024
-- Joinder and Other Amendments: Sept. 13, 2024
-- Designation of Experts: Sept. 13, 2024
-- Filing of Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 15, 2025
-- Opposition: Feb. 14, 2025
-- Reply: March 7, 2025
-- Hearing on Class Certification: March 20, 2025
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 2, 2025
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: June 2, 2025
-- Filing of Dispositive/Daubert Motion(s): June 16, 2025
-- Opposition: July 16, 2025
-- Reply: Aug. 6, 2025
-- Hearing on Dispositive Motion(s): Aug. 21, 2025
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=165kAi at no extra
charge.[CC]
BAY AREA REAL: Court Grants Bid to Stay Proceedings in Grace Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, grants the
unopposed motion to stay proceedings in the lawsuit titled
Christina Grace, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Area Real Estate Information Services,
Inc.; Marin Association of Realtors; North Bay Association of
Realtors; Northern Solano County Association of Realtors, Inc.;
Solano Association of Realtors, Inc.; RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.;
Anywhere Real Estate Inc.; Vanguard Properties, Inc.; Twin Oaks
Real Estate Inc.; Windermere Real Estate Services Company Inc.;
Rapisarda & Fox, Inc.; Realty ONE Group, Inc.; Keller Williams
Realty, Inc.; Compass, Inc.; eXp World Holdings, Inc.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. Case No.
4:23-cv-06352-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Defendants Compass, Inc., Realty ONE Group, Inc., and Rapisarda &
Fox, Inc., filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings as to
Compass, Realty ONE, and Rapisarda on May 3, 2024. As this is an
unopposed motion, the Court has determined that it may be decided
without oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
Good cause appearing, the Court grants the unopposed motion, and
the case is stayed as to Defendants Compass, Realty ONE, and
Rapisarda pending a decision on final approval of the settlements
in Gibson v. National Association of Realtors, Case No.
4:23-cv-00788 (W.D. Mo.), and Umpa v. National Association of
Realtors, Case No. 4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.).
The parties will jointly provide an update to the Court within
thirty (30) days following a decision on final approval of the
settlements or by Dec. 17, 2024, whichever date comes first.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58ad8272 from PacerMonitor.com.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Cumalander Suit Transferred to E.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Mark Cumalander, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. BlueCross BlueShield of
Tennessee, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-01174 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on
May 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits.
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee -- https://www.bcbst.com/ -- is
the largest health benefit plan company in Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth K. Green, Esq.
Green Health Law, APC
201 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 200
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 722-1164
- and -
Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 476-7400
Fax: (305) 476-7444
- and -
Timothy James Rozelle, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
9301 Corbin Ave., Suite 1400
Northridge, CA 91324
Phone: (818) 886-2525
Fax: (818) 350-6253
- and -
Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
ESSEX RICHARDS, PA
1701 South Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203-4727
Phone: (704) 377-4300
Fax: (704) 372-1357
The Defendant is represented by:
Chad D. Hansen, Esq.
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
1001 West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Phone: (336) 607-7352
Fax: (336) 734-2780
BOCA POWERLINE: Building Inaccessible to Mobility-Impaired Person
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOCA POWERLINE FEE LLC, Defendant Case No.
9:24-cv-80647 (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
commercial buildings located at 21077 Powerline Road, Boca Raton,
Florida, is not accessible to mobility-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
BYRON UDELL: Bice Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Byron Udell &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Kathy Ann Burr Bice,
Priscilla Guidry, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Byron Udell & Associates, Inc. d/b/a AccuQuote, Inc.,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00940-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla., May 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Byron Udell & Associates, Inc. doing business as AccuQuote --
https://www.accuquote.com/ -- is an independent life insurance
broker.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
- and -
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: mike@kazlg.com
C2 EDUCATIONAL: Deploys TikTok Software on Website, Moody Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DINO MOODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C2 EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS INC., a Georgia corporation; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-04249 (C.D. Cal.,
May 22, 2024) alleges that the Defendant installs TikTok tracing
process, in violation of the California's Trap and Trace Law.
According to the complaint, TikTok Software acts via a process
known as "fingerprinting." The TikTok Software gathers device and
browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and
url tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send
user details to TikTok.
Additionally, since C2 Education has decided to use TikTok's
"AutoAdvanced Matching" technology, TikTok scans every website for
information. Thus, when the website asks for information, such as
name, date of birth, and address, the information is sent
simultaneously to TikTok, so that TikTok can isolate with certainty
the individual to be targeted, the Plaintiff asserts.
Accordingly, the TikTok Software runs on virtually every page of C2
Education's website, sending to TikTok images of website user's
interests. The C2 Education website instantly sends communications
to TikTok when a user lands, and every time a user clicks on a
page. Furthermore, the Defendant did not obtain Class Members'
express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with
TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization.
Plaintiff Moody visited the Defendant's website on Feb. 28, 2024.
Without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant
deployed a de-anonymization process to identify the Plaintiff using
electronic impulses generated from the Plaintiff's device.
C2 Education is a provider of online tutoring programs intended for
K-12 students.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com
matthew@taulersmith.com
CALIFORNIA: Wilson v. Castro Transferred From N.D. to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California transfers the lawsuit styled GERALD
J. WILSON, Plaintiff v. J. CASTRO, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-02050-HSG (N.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.
The Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility in San Diego, California, has filed a pro se action,
alleging that prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP")
retaliated and discriminated against him, in violation of the
federal Constitution, and violated his rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Judge Gilliam explains that venue generally is proper in a judicial
district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject
to the court's personal jurisdiction, if there is no district in
which the action may otherwise be brought, citing 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b).
The named Defendants likely reside in Kern County, where KVSP is
located, and the events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiff's
claim(s) also occurred at KVSP in Kern County, Judge Gilliam notes.
Kern County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of
California. Venue, therefore, properly lies in the Eastern
District, Judge Gilliam holds.
Judge Gilliam notes that it appears that the Plaintiff filed this
action in this district because he is a member of the Armstrong
class action, and because he alleges that the Defendants' actions
or inactions violated the injunctions or decrees set forth in
Armstrong v. Newsom, C No. 94-cv-2307 CW.
To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief related to Armstrong,
Judge Gilliam says he should seek help from class counsel in
Armstrong in the Armstrong action, not file a separate action. The
Plaintiff may contact the Armstrong Plaintiffs' class counsel at
one of these two addresses: Donald Specter, Esq., Prison Law
Office, 1917 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, or Michael William
Bien, Esq., Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, 101 Mission Street,
6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-1738.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1406(a), the Court orders that this action be transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/28zc3ray from PacerMonitor.com.
CASPER SLEEP: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CASPER SLEEP, INC., Case No.
24STCV09846 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester
County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on May 22, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02195.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Casper's website,
http://www.casper.com,is inaccessible to individuals who are blind
or have visual impairments and that Casper discriminated against
Plaintiff based on his disability. Plaintiff seeks relief for these
allegations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carolyn O. Boucek, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
227 West Monroe St., Suite 3250
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 499-1486
Email: boucek@ebglaw.com
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Shutler Seeks July 15 Class Cert Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Shutler, v.
Citizens Disability LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-14337-KMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting a class
certification deadline of July 15, 2024, in the operative
scheduling order and to stay or extend the pretrial conference date
and trial date as follows:
-- Expert disclosure deadline: May 30, 2024
-- Discovery deadline: July 1, 2024
-- Class certification motions deadline: July 15, 2024
-- Pretrial motions deadline: July 19, 2024
-- Mediation deadline: July 19, 2024
-- Final pretrial conference: Sept. 24,
2024
Citizens Disability gives a voice to the millions of Americans who
are disabled and unable to work- helping them receive the Social
Security Disability benefits to which they may be entitled.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aXnlGN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Kauffman, Esq.
Brittany Clark, Esq.
LAWHQ, P.C.
299 S. Main St. 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (385) 285-1090
E-mail: John.kauffman@lawhq.com
Brittany.Clark@lawhq.com
COTERIE BABY: Diapers Contain PFAS, Saedi Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ROZ SAEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COTERIE BABY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03893 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 20, 2024) is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of all consumers who purchased diapers from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant differentiates itself in
the highly competitive diaper market by advertising and labeling
its products as "free from harmful chemicals." The Defendant tells
consumers that "[i]f any chemical may be considered toxic, or is
associated with health risks, you won't find it in our diapers."
Through its uniform, widespread, nationwide advertising and
labeling, the Defendant has led consumers to believe that Coterie
Diapers are entirely free of harmful chemicals, the suit alleges.
In addition to making these broad per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS")-free assertions, the Defendant's marketing
specifically states that Coterie Diapers were tested and proven to
be "free of" or "below detectable" for "nearly 200 chemicals that
may be considered toxic or harmful for use, including:
Perfluorinated compounds" (i.e. PFAS), the suit says.
The Defendant's marketing and labeling statements are false,
deceptive, misleading, unfair and unlawful. Accordingly, consumers,
including the Plaintiff, did not receive the benefit of their
bargain and overpaid for Coterie Diapers. The Plaintiff seeks
damages and equitable remedies for herself and for the proposed
Class.
Plaintiff Roz Saedi has a subscription under which the Defendant
delivers Coterie Diapers to the Plaintiff every four weeks. The
Plaintiff received a packaged in March 2024 direct from Coterie.
The Defendant designs, formulates, manufactures, markets,
advertises, distributes, and sells Coterie Diapers to consumers
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annie Friedman, Esq.
AVORN LLC
88 Lefferts Place, #3A
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Telephone: (631) 525-1981
E-mail: annie@avornlaw.com
- and -
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 849-8060
E-mail: edwoskin@dwowas.com
COVIA HOLDINGS: $6-Mil. Settlement in Plagens Suit Has Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order
granting final approval of class action settlement and associated
relief in the lawsuit styled WILLIAM PLAGENS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
JENNIFER D. DECKARD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02744-JPC
(N.D. Ohio).
The Plaintiffs are former shareholders of Covia Holdings
Corporation and/or its predecessor, Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc.
On Dec. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging that violations of federal securities law caused a
significant drop in the share price of Covia stock and substantial
losses to the Plaintiffs.
Following private mediation and negotiations, the parties reached a
settlement, which the Court previously approved preliminarily. The
Plaintiffs move for final approval of the settlement and other
associated relief.
Following notice, no person filed any objection. On April 11, 2024,
the Court held a hearing to determine the fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy of the settlement and took the motion under
advisement.
Covia and its predecessor, Fairmont Santrol, sold sand-based
proppants for use in fracking operations. The market for proppants
is exceedingly competitive, and the company marketed its products
as premium products that would improve performance. The Plaintiffs
allege that company officers made false and misleading statements
concerning the company's products, and that the company's own data
contradicted the statements.
In March 2019, Covia received a subpoena from the Securities and
Exchange Commission investigating Covia's value-added proppants.
Jennifer Deckard resigned as the company's chief executive officer
soon after, and on June 29, 2020, Covia declared bankruptcy. After
these events, the share price declined substantially, to $0.04 per
share.
In December 2020, Plaintiff William Plagens filed a complaint
against Jennifer D. Deckard, Mark E. Barrus, Michael F. Biehl,
Andrew D. Eich, and Richard A. Navarre, former officers of Covia
and/or Fairmont Santrol. The complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and of Rule 10b-5. On Jan. 29, 2021, Plaintiff Sergio Baron
filed a nearly identical complaint against the same Defendants.
In an Order dated Aug. 2, 2021, and pursuant to Rule 42(a), the
Court consolidated Baron v. Deckard, No. 1:21-cv-238, into Plagens
v. Deckard, No. 1:20-cv-2744. The settlement and this Order apply
to both cases.
Following a hearing, the Court appointed Dr. Thomas Phelps as lead
Plaintiff. Mr. Sergio Baron and Mr. Neville Arjani are also named
Plaintiffs. In their corrected consolidated amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable for false or
misleading statements that artificially inflated the value of their
securities, in violation of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim. On March 30, 2023, the Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motion. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the claims for violations of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5, allowing them to proceed to discovery. Also, the
Court dismissed Mr. Barrus, Mr. Biehl, Mr. Navarre, and Mr. Eich,
leaving Ms. Deckard as the sole remaining Defendant.
The parties exchanged initial disclosures and engaged in extensive
discovery, including responding to written discovery requests,
review of the more than 22,000 pages of documents that Covia
produced in response to a subpoena, depositions of confidential
witnesses, and review of key documents from the SEC's
investigation, such as its depositions of Ms. Deckard and other
Covia employees and executives.
The parties undertook extensive settlement negotiations. They
engaged Robert A. Meyer of JAMS as a mediator. A full-day mediation
before Mr. Meyer did not result in a resolution, but the mediator
continued to facilitate negotiations between the parties,
culminating in the acceptance of a mediator's proposal on Sept. 11,
2023. The settlement was memorialized by the execution of the
Stipulation of Settlement, finalized on Oct. 25, 2023.
On Oct. 27, 2023, without opposition, the Plaintiffs moved for
preliminary approval of the settlement. Under the settlement, the
Defendant agreed to pay a total sum of $6 million, consisting of
several separate payments, in exchange for a release. First, each
Covia shareholder, who is a member of the class and submits the
proper forms to substantiate his or her claim, will receive a pro
rata share of the net settlement funds--the balance of the
consideration for the settlement less the fees and expenses. Up to
10,195 class members will receive from the settlement fund.
Second, Strategic Claims Services will receive compensation up to
$500,000 for its services in administering the settlement. As the
settlement administrator, SCS processed, printed, and mailed more
than 37,000 copies of the notice of the settlement to potential
class members and other relevant parties. SCS continues to process
claims, allowing claimants to cure any deficiencies in their
claims, and will pay authorized claimants their pro rata share of
the net settlement.
Third, the settlement seeks to reimburse the Plaintiffs for their
time and any expenses incurred in the representation of the class.
Pursuant to the settlement, Lead Plaintiff Dr. Thomas Phelps seeks
an award of $10,000, as does Sergio Baron, and Neville Arjani seeks
a $5,000 award, as compensation for their time and efforts in
prosecuting this action.
Finally, the settlement provides for attorneys' fees, litigation
costs, taxes, and other miscellaneous administration expenses.
Class counsel, which includes lead counsel, co-counsel, and liaison
counsel, seek a total award of $2 million, one-third of the total
settlement amount. They also request reimbursement for litigation
expenses, totaling $82,181.60.
The Court finds that the class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
therefore, the Court certifies the following class for purposes of
settlement:
All persons and entities who purchased Covia and/or
Fairmount Santrol common stock, or purchased call options or
sold put options on Covia and/or Fairmount Santrol common
stock, between March 10, 2016 and June 29, 2020, both dates
inclusive, and were damaged thereby, except for those
excluded in the Settlement as set forth above.
In this record, and because counsel has vigorously represented the
Plaintiffs, the Court finds that The Rosen Law Firm as lead
counsel, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as additional counsel, and
Karon LLC as liaison counsel have and will fairly and adequately
represent the class. Accordingly, the Court appoints The Rosen Law
Firm as class counsel.
Judge Calabrese finds that the factors listed in Rule 23(e)(2)
favor final approval. Therefore, the Court approves the settlement
as fair, reasonable, and adequate. In accepting these terms, the
Court approves the release of the Plaintiffs' claims as provided in
the settlement agreement, including the waiver by the Plaintiffs
and each member of the settlement class (as defined in Section 1.36
of the Settlement Agreement) of the provisions, rights, and
benefits of California Civil Code Section 1542, and any comparable
provision of any law.
Accordingly, the Court approves the payment of $82,181.50 in
litigation expenses and up to $500,000.00 in costs for
administration of the settlement.
Finally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court approve awards to
individual Plaintiffs. With respect to these awards, which would
extend beyond the Plaintiffs' pro rata shares, and are variously
called incentive awards, compensatory awards, or service awards,
there is a split of authority, Judge Calabrese notes.
Here, Judge Calabrese finds that no Plaintiff's declaration attests
to lost wages or out-of-pocket expenses or costs, such as travel,
copying costs, or the like. Indeed, none represents that he missed
work or that the time accounted for occurred during work
hours--just that he could have used the time on other activities,
something that goes without saying. Nor does any Plaintiff make an
effort to justify reimbursement at an unsubstantiated rate between
$142.86 and $200.00 per hour (in the case of Mr. Baron).
Because the Plaintiffs make no showing of lost wages or expenses
compensable under the Reform Act, the Court denies the request for
service awards (under whatever name) to the named Plaintiffs.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, final approval of the settlement, and
associated relief, except to the extent the motion seeks awards to
the named Plaintiffs beyond their pro rata shares of the
settlement.
The Court orders that the settlement agreement be implemented
according to its terms and conditions except where stated. The
Court also:
* certifies the Rule 23 class for purposes of settlement;
* appoints The Rosen Law Firm as class counsel;
* appoints the Plaintiffs as class representatives;
* approves settlement of the securities class action,
including the plan of allocation and notice procedure;
* approves the release of the Plaintiffs' claims;
* awards The Rosen Law Firm $2,000,000 in attorney's fees;
* approves the payment of $82,181.60 in litigation expenses
and up to $500,000 in settlement administration costs; and
* denies the $10,000 service award to Dr. Phelps, the $10,000
service award to Mr. Baron, and the $5,000 service award to
Mr. Arjani.
Pursuant to Paragraph 8.1 of the settlement, the Court orders Class
Counsel to apply for distribution of the settlement fund. Further,
the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. The Court retains
jurisdiction over the implementation, administration,
interpretation, and enforcement of this settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/47d7s6pd from PacerMonitor.com.
CRYSTAL CLINIC ORTHOPAEDIC: Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Crystal Clinic Orthopaedic Center, LLC
doing business as: Crystal Clinic Orthopaedic Center, Case No.
CV-24-00004-1722 was removed from the Summit County Common Pleas
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
on May 22, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00907 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Crystal Clinic Orthopaedic Center -- https://www.crystalclinic.com/
-- is a medical group practice located in Canton, OH that
specializes in Orthopedic Surgery and Orthopedic Hand Surgery.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa S. DelGrosso, Esq.
BROUSE MCDOWELL - AKRON
388 South Main Street, Ste. 500
Akron, OH 44311
Phone: (330) 535-5711
Fax: (330) 253-8601
Email: ldelgrosso@brouse.com
CSC PRODUCTIONS: Braddock Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Productions, LLC.
The case is styled as Cody Braddock, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CSC Productions, LLC d/b/a Nutrition
Solutions, Case No. 8:24-cv-01240 (M.D. Fla., May 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
CSC Productions, LLC doing business as Nutrition Solutions is a
specialist nutrition and dietetic clinic for digestive health and
gastrointestinal disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
BLC LAW CENTER, APC
1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 894-8831
Fax: (866) 444-7026
Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com
DEL FRISCOS: Faces Wright Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DEL FRISCOS OF NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03890
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2024) seeks damages to redress the injuries the
Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated against
on the basis of their sex and gender, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law.
Shortly after hiring, the Plaintiff informed their supervisor Chef
Robertson and their other coworkers that they were non-binary and
preferred to use they/them pronouns in the workplace. Within a
month of being hired, the Plaintiff was referred to as a "bitch" by
a co-worker. When the Plaintiff complained about this treatment to
Chef Robertson and asked for the offending employees to be
disciplined, Chef Robertson refused to engage in any meaningful
discipline, the suit says.
Following this failure, co-workers began routinely referring to
Plaintiff as a bitch, including in Chef Robertson's presence, and
no meaningful discipline occurred nor was the Plaintiff permitted
to engage in any disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Defendant
acquiesced to the discriminatory environment, the Plaintiff
alleges.
The Plaintiff also brings this action to recover unpaid overtime
wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
New York Labor Law.
Although the Plaintiff was hired as a sous chef and received a
salary as an alleged exempt employee, upon being hired the
Plaintiff discovered they were not permitted to exercise discretion
and independent judgment in their job. The Plaintiff worked hours
over 40 hours, but the Defendant did not properly pay the Plaintiff
overtime. Instead, the Defendant willfully and improperly paid the
Plaintiff a salary of $75,000.00 which did not include any overtime
premium, the suit claims.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a
collective action on behalf of themselves, individually, and of all
other similarly situated employees and former employees of the
Defendant pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
MS. Wright was employed by Defendant as a "Sous Chef" on March of
2022.
Del Frisco's is an upscale bar & grill featuring modern American
cuisine with handcrafted cocktails.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Vo, Esq.
PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES
45 Broadway, Suite 430
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 248-7431
Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
E-mail: mvo@tpglaws.com
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNE SYPNIEWSKI, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., DOMINO'S PIZZA
FRANCHISING, LLC, and DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-11330-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to herself and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants allegedly require their delivery drivers to maintain
and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when
delivering pizza and other food items. These delivery drivers incur
costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and
maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses
while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit
of the Defendants. The Defendants' delivery driver reimbursement
policy reimburses drivers on a per-mile basis, but the per-mile
reimbursement equates to below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate or any other reasonable approximation of the
cost to own and operate a motor vehicle. This policy applies to all
of Defendants' delivery drivers. The result of the Defendants'
delivery driver reimbursement policy is a reimbursement of much
less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile
expenses, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 2021 to
March 2023 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store.
Domino's operates numerous Domino's Pizza corporate stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
DUN & BRADSTREET: Petition on Batis Class Suit Rehearing Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings 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's petition for the Batis class suit rehearing is still
pending.
On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Odette R. Batis filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the
purported class members' names and personas to promote paid
subscriptions to the Company's Hoovers product website without
consent, in violation of the California right of publicity statute,
California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute.
On February 10, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to
dismiss.
The decision was subject to an automatic right of appeal, and the
Company has appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit.
On January 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply.
On February 1, 2024, D&B filed a petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc seeking to vacate the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an
order stating that the petition will be held in abeyance pending
the resolution of en banc rehearing of another similar case pending
before the Ninth Circuit, Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc.
("Martinez").
On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated the en banc rehearing
in the Martinez case.
On March 7, 2024, the parties wrote a joint letter requesting that
the pending petition for rehearing be determined.
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.
EAD ENTERTAINMENT: Lucente Seeks Initial Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS LUCENTE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, and ALVIN SUMIGCAY,
individually, v. EAD ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03560-SIL
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of the settlement on the terms
set forth in the Agreement, attached as Exhibit A to the
Kessler Declaration;
(2) conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, the
proposed settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
23(b)(3);
(3) appointing Kessler Matura P.C. and Stevenson Marino LLP as
Class Counsel;
(4) approving the proposed Notice, attached as Exhibit A-2 to
the
Kessler Declaration, and directing its distribution;
(5) appointing Xpand Legal Consulting LLC as the Settlement
Administrator; and
(6) scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement, to be held after the close of the Opt-Out
Period,
approximately 160 days after the issuance of the Order
Granting Preliminary Approval.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UadXpX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
Benjamin A. Goldstein, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com
Justin R. Marino, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO L.L.P.
445 Hamilton Ave., Ste. 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212)-939-7227
E-mail: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com
jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa M. Koblin, Esq.
Carolyn A. Pellegrin, Esq.i
SAUL EWING LLP
Centre Square West
15000 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 972-7896
E-mail: lisa.koblin@saul.com
carolyn.pellegrini@saul.com
Erik P. Pramschufer, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 980-7216
E-mail: Erik.pramschufer@saul.com
EGGLAND'S BEST: Roye Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chanya Roye, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. EGGLAND'S BEST, INC. and EGGLAND'S BEST, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02083 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on May 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04261 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Eggland's Best -- https://www.egglandsbest.com/ -- is the world's
leading healthy egg brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Petra Renee Wicklund, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW AND POLICY
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (914)693-2018
Email: rwicklund@richmanlawpolicy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brett Nicole Taylor, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 South Figueroa Street Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 892-7900
Email: btaylor@cozen.com
EQUIFAX INFO: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Bristol Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bristol v. Equifax
Information Services LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01039-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), he Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9z6qF at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Grants Patrick Leave to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, grants the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint in the lawsuit styled
RANDEL J. PATRICK, JR., Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04092-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.).
The Defendants oppose the Motion. The Plaintiff filed a reply
brief. The Court has considered the parties' submissions and
decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 78(b).
On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff Randel J. Patrick, Jr., filed this
putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
15 U.S.C. Sections 1681–1681x, alleging that the Defendant
Consumer Reporting Agencies ("CRAs") Equifax Information Services,
LLC ("Equifax") and Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union") (collectively
"the CRA Defendants") falsely reported that the Plaintiff was
deceased to unidentified third-party creditors.
In his initial Complaint, the Plaintiff also asserted claims
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), as the furnisher of
the incorrect death data. On Feb. 15, 2024, the parties filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal as to Wells Fargo. Accordingly, the Court
includes the factual allegations against Wells Fargo only to the
extent they are relevant to the Plaintiff's claims against the
remaining CRA Defendants.
The CRA Defendants are both businesses, who compile and maintain
files on consumers on a nationwide basis and are regularly engaged
in the business of assembling, evaluating, and distributing
information concerning consumers to third parties for the purposes
of furnishing consumer reports, as defined under 15 U.S.C. Section
1681a(p).
The Plaintiff brings claims under two provisions of the FCRA.
First, he alleges that the CRA Defendants violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681e(b) by failing to institute or follow reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the
information in his credit report.
Second, the Plaintiff claims that the CRA Defendants violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1681i(a) as follows: (1) failing to conduct
reasonable investigations in response to his letters disputing the
accuracy of the information in his credit report; and (2) failing
to provide notice of his dispute letters to the appropriate
furnishers or alternatively, failing to provide him all relevant
data the CRAs received from the furnisher in response to the
disputes.
Judge Pascal notes that the timeline of events undergirding the
Complaint in this matter is unclear. The Plaintiff, however,
suspects that the inaccurate reporting began sometime in or around
August 2022, when the CRA Defendants prepared and issued consumer
reports concerning the Plaintiff's bank account with Wells Fargo.
According to the Complaint, the CRA Defendants would usually
receive updated death statistics via a data exchange agreement with
the Social Security Administration ("SSA") and the Department of
Commerce's National Technical Information Services ("NTIS"). The
Plaintiff alleges, however, that the CRA Defendants marked him as
deceased because of information from Wells Fargo--not the SSA or
NTIS data integrations. Further, the CRA Defendants allegedly
failed to cross-check the information they received from Wells
Fargo with data from the SSA or NTIS and did not otherwise attempt
to timely verify if he was deceased.
Regardless of where they obtained the information, the CRA
Defendants began producing reports stating that the Plaintiff was
deceased and, therefore, no credit score was associated with his
name. When the Defendants provided these reports to unidentified
third-party creditors, a chilling effect on applications for credit
followed, which prevented him from obtaining certain necessities,
such as auto financing, a home mortgage, a personal loan, and a
renewed driver's license.
After he learned of the false reporting, the Plaintiff attempted to
resolve the issue by sending letters to each CRA Defendant on May
1, 2023. The Complaint alleges that the respective responses from
the CRA Defendants were legally deficient. For example, the
Plaintiff claims that Equifax did not remove the deceased notation
from his report and instead confirmed that his name, date of birth,
social security, and other similar personal information were
correct.
For its part, Trans Union allegedly updated the Plaintiff's payment
and financial data for his Wells Fargo account and then confirmed
that Trans Union was still reporting him as deceased.
Notwithstanding, Trans Union mailed a response to the Plaintiff,
anyway.
Against this background, the Plaintiff asserts on behalf of himself
and two putative classes, that the CRA Defendants willfully and
negligently violated Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i(a) in several
respects, including failure to follow reasonable procedures to
assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported,
and failure to remove and/or correct the inaccuracy and derogatory
credit information after a reasonable request by the Plaintiff.
In the proposed amended complaint, the two putative classes are
identified as the "CRA Dispute Class" and the "CRA Payment Class."
Each class is limited to New Jersey residents whose credit reports
contained a deceased notation between Aug. 1, 2021, and Oct. 25,
2023.
The CRA Dispute Class consists of individuals, who disputed the
deceased notation with the CRA Defendants and allegedly received an
insufficient response. The CRA Payment Class consists of consumers,
who the CRA Defendants reported as deceased while the consumers
continued to make payments on one or more of the accounts listed on
the report.
As relief, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages;
attorneys' fees; and costs and expenses. After the CRA Defendants
answered, the case proceeded into discovery.
On Oct. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion seeking
leave to file an amended complaint. According to the Plaintiff, the
purpose of the amendment is to amend the factual allegations to
address the new facts that come to light. Specifically, the
proposed amendment accounts for the fact that the Plaintiff
appeared on the SSA Death Master List during the period in which
the Defendants falsely reported that he was deceased.
On Nov. 6, 2023, Trans Union filed its brief opposing the Motion.
Trans Union contends that the proposed amendment is improper
because it is an impermissible shotgun pleading and because it is
futile under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On
Nov. 14, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a reply brief. On Feb. 15, 2024,
Equifax joined in Trans Union's opposition.
The Court finds that the proposed amendment is not a shotgun
pleading. Although each count of the proposed amendment
incorporates all of the preceding factual allegations by reference,
Judge Pascal opines that the resulting document still provides the
CRA Defendants adequate notice of the challenged conduct.
In addition, the Court finds that two aspects of the CRA
Defendants' litigation conduct undermine their assertion that the
proposed amendment is a shotgun pleading. Here, the Defendants have
responded to the initial Complaint by answering it, rather than
moving for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e), Judge
Pascal says. Further, the Defendants have substantively opposed the
present motion by challenging the merits of the claims set forth in
the proposed amendment.
Having found that the proposed amendment is not a shotgun pleading,
the Court turns to the Defendants' second argument that the
proposed amendment is futile under Rule 15.
The Court finds that the proposed amendment plausibly pleads
failure to maintain reasonable procedures under Section 1681e(b)
for the purposes of the Rule 15 analysis. Viewing these allegations
in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that
the proposed amendment complaint sufficiently describes reasonable
alternative procedures.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied that standard by
describing his inability to obtain credit after the CRA Defendants
began reporting him as deceased. For these reasons, the Court will
grant the Plaintiff's Motion as to the Section 1681e(b) claims.
The Court also finds that the proposed amendment plausibly pleads a
dispute triggering the Plaintiff's right to reinvestigation. The
Court finds that the correction made by Wells Fargo does not render
his claims futile. The crux of the Defendants' argument is that he
suffered no harm under Section 1681i(a) because the information was
corrected by the furnisher--not the CRA Defendants--within 30 days
of his dispute. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's
Section 1681i(a) claim is not futile and leave to amend the
Complaint should be granted.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32n5ncv2 from PacerMonitor.com.
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Continues to Defend California Law-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Residential 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 California law-related class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The Company is named as a defendant in a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California filed
in 2016 which alleges that the amount of late fees charged by the
Company were improperly determined under California law.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief.
On April 8, 2024, the Court issued certain findings of facts and
conclusions of law that are adverse to the Company's legal
position.
At this time, the Company is continuing to defend the action.
Equity Residential owns more than 1,000 properties in 33 states and
has 225,000 apartments, 33,000 of them throughout Florida. For more
information and a complete listing of properties by area, see
http://www.equityapartments.com.
EVOLENT HEALTH: Seeks to Invalidate By-laws, Kelly Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KELLY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLENT HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2024-0540 (Del. Ch., May 22, 2024) seeks declaratory relief
invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement, of the
Defendant's Third Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective December
10, 2020 (the "Bylaws").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement allows the Defendant's board of directors
(the "Board") to usurp stockholders' exclusive right to select the
members of the Board.
The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere
with stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the
Defendant's directors, says the suit.
EVOLENT HEALTH, INC. distributes health care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robby Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Francisco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herlinda Francisco and Javier Bravo, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT
SOLUTION GROUP, INC., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1 – 50, and DMITRIY
BEREZOVSKY a/k/a DMITRY BEREZOVSKIY, Case No. 1:24-cv-03928
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that
they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from
Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving
and improper rounding, unpaid overtime, due to improper issuance of
multiple paychecks per pay period, unpaid spread of hours premiums,
unpaid call-in pay, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully subjected Plaintiffs, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members to a policy of time
shaving and rounding, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and Class Members for all hours worked according to their punch
records, and instead paid employees for scheduled shifts recorded
on timesheets in hours that were rounded to the whole or half hour.
The Defendants also time shaved FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
Class Members, by compensating employees on different checks
associated with different Laundromats operated by Defendants,
thereby avoiding paying overtime at a rate of 1.5 times their
regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were hired to work at the Defendants' Laundromat.
The Defendants own and operate a laundromat chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
F21 OPCO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. F21 OPCO, LLC.,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-03027-TLN-DB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an amended pretrial
scheduling order as follows:
-- All discovery in Phase I shall be limited Aug. 7, 2024
to facts that are relevant to whether this
action should be certified as a class action
and shall be completed by:
-- All counsel are to designate in writing, file Sept. 6,
2024
with the Court, and serve upon all other
parties the name, address, and area of expertise
of each expert that they propose to tender at
class certification not later than:
-- The Motion for Class Certification shall be Dec. 6, 2024
filed by:
F21 is a multinational fast-fashion retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WcZAZT at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Brown Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Brown v. Family Dollar Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:22-cv-02374 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H.
Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and
(b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.
The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.
In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.
On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.
After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.
By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.
Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.
In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.
A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.
On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.
On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.
On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.
Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.
In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.
Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.
The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.
For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.
There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.
Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.
Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.
Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.
Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.
The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.
Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
an Affected Family Dollar Store.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).
All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.
For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.
The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4f77utt9 from PacerMonitor.com.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Lacy Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Lacy, et al. v. Family Dollar, Inc., A North
Carolina Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02379 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief
District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and
(b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.
The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.
In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.
On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.
After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.
By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.
Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.
In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.
A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.
On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.
On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.
On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.
Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.
In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.
Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.
The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.
For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.
There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.
Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.
Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.
Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.
Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.
The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.
Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
an Affected Family Dollar Store.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).
All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.
For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.
The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32jfhkfn from PacerMonitor.com.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Bishop Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Bishop v. Family Dollar, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02408 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, issued an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and
(b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.
The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.
In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.
On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.
After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.
By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.
Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.
In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.
A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.
On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.
On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.
On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.
Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.
In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.
Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.
The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.
For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.
There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.
Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.
Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.
Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.
Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.
The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.
Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
an Affected Family Dollar Store.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).
All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.
For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.
The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yv7vtayn from PacerMonitor.com.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Perrone's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Perrone, et al. v. Family Dollar, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02383 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H.
Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and
(b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.
The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.
In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.
On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.
After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.
By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.
Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.
In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.
A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.
On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.
On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.
On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.
Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.
In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.
Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.
The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.
For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.
There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.
Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.
Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.
Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.
Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.
The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.
Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
an Affected Family Dollar Store.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).
All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.
For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.
The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ta59ekk from PacerMonitor.com.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Rogers' Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Rogers v. Family Dollar, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02159 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, issued an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and
(b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.
The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.
In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.
On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.
After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.
By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.
Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.
In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.
A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.
On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.
On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.
On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.
Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.
In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.
Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.
The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.
For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.
There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.
Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.
Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.
Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.
Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.
The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.
Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
an Affected Family Dollar Store.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).
All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.
For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.
The Action, and all claims asserted, are settled and is dismissed
on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bddzuabt from PacerMonitor.com.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in Robinson Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Robinson, et al. v. Family Dollar, Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-02182 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H.
Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:
(a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and
(b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.
The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.
Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.
Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.
In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.
On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.
After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.
By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.
Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.
In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.
On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.
On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.
A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.
On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.
On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.
On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.
Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.
In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.
Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.
The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.
For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.
There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards
Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.
Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.
The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.
Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.
Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses such
meals, hotels, and transportation; as well as filing fees, service,
and court fees.
Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.
The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.
Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
an Affected Family Dollar Store.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).
All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.
The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.
For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.
The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3uddfn4e from PacerMonitor.com.
FEDERATED SECURITY: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marterrio Harris and Lacasta Brooks, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. FEDERATED SECURITY
SOLUTIONS, LLC., d/b/a SIGNAL 88 SECURITY, HUSTON S. AKINS,
individually, and BEN TEAFORD, individually, Case No.
2:24-cv-02339-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 21, 2024), is brought for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") seeking damages
for unpaid overtime compensation.
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated typically worked 40 or
more hours per week for Defendants during all times material to
this action. The Defendants had a common plan and practice of
denying Plaintiffs one and one-half times their regular hourly rate
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week within weekly pay
periods. Specifically, the Defendants would only pay Plaintiffs for
40 hours and then "edit-out/shave" the hours worked over 40. The
Defendants were aware it was "editing-out/shaving" earned overtime
compensation of the Plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs within
weekly pay periods during all times material Defendants failed to
record and/or "edited-out/shaved" overtime hours worked by
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and thus failed to keep
proper time and payroll records as required by the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid, non-exempt security
guards, dispatchers, and supervisors.
Federated Security Solutions LLC d/b/a Signal 88 Security is
located in Memphis, Tennessee and provides protection of assets,
security, and safety services for its customers in Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
FGNY LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almonte Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
JARLYN ALMONTE; and NODGER RIVOLI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FGNY, LLC; and FIVE
GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03889
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiffs Almonte and Rivoli were employed by the Defendant as a
cashier and as a general worker, respectively.
FGNY, LLC owns, operates, or controls a chain of fast food
restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 457-1699
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 9, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Curry v. Fidelity National
Financial, Inc. et al. (LOANCARE DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION),
Case No. 3:23-cv-01508-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia
Morales Howard entered a case management and scheduling order:
Deadline for moving to join a party or amend Aug. 1, 2024
the pleadings:
Deadline for disclosing expert reports.
Plaintiff: Apr. 18, 2025
Defendant: May 19, 2025
Rebuttal: June 20, 2025
Deadline for moving for class certification: May 9, 2025
Deadline for completing discovery and filing
motions to compel: Sept. 19, 2025
Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Oct. 17, 2025
motions (responses due 21 days after service):
Mediation Deadline: Oct. 23, 2025
Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial March 16,
2026
Statement:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3gtL4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GALAXY MILLWORK: Ramirez Sues Over Helpers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
VENUSTIANO DUARTE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GALAXY MILLWORK LLC and GRAVITY CONSTRUCTION
US INC. and BO LIN and QIN LIU, as individuals, Case No.
1:24-cv-03722 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay the minimum and overtime wages, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Ramirez was regularly required to work 46 to 55 hours per
week from May 2018 until December 2020 and 46 hours per week from
January 2021 until October 2022, with the exception of the weeks
that Plaintiff did not perform work for the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over 40. The
Plaintiff was paid only a flat daily rate of $125.00 per day for
all hours worked from May 2018 until December 2020 and $165.00 per
day for all hours worked from April 2021 until October 2022. During
Plaintiff's hire in June 2017, the agreement was that the Plaintiff
will receive his wages on a weekly basis. However, in January 2021,
the Defendants started making late payments to the Plaintiff
without explanation or notice. As such, the Plaintiff was paid by
Defendants on a bi-weekly basis from January 2021 until October
2022. Due to Defendant's bi-weekly payments, the Plaintiff
experienced a myriad of financial difficulties specifically in
covering his regular expenses such as bills, food, transportation,
and other expenses, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Galaxy Millwork and
Gravity Construction US Inc. as a construction helper while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from
June 2017 until October 2022.
GALAXY MILLWORK LLC provides millwork services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
GEICO: Reloj Seeks More Response Time on Bid to Strike Exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD RELOJ, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court granting their request for extension
of time to respond to Geico's ex parte application to strike
exhibits 4, 23-24, 26, 35-47, 49- 72, 74-75, and 78-79 from their
motion for class certification for violating the court's orders.
The Plaintiff is currently ordered to file his opposition by May
28, 2024 for the Court's consideration. However, due to the
upcoming Memorial Day Holiday and previously scheduled travel, and
conflicting deadlines set in various matters in which the
Plaintiff's Counsel is lead counsel, the Plaintiff respectfully
requests a three (3) day extension to respond, up to and including
May 31, 2024.
The Plaintiff has not previously requested an extension of time to
respond to this motion and the extension is not sought for purposes
of delay. Whereas if this Court were to deny this request, the
Plaintiff would be significantly prejudiced. Therefore, for these
reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant his
extension to file his Response in Opposition until May 31, 2024.
GEICO provides motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat, snowmobile, travel, pet,
event, homeowner, renter, and jewelry insurance options.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6kb21i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
sgordon@schneiderwallace.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEILL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY v. GENERAL MOTORS
COMPANY, Case No. 2024-0539 (Del. Ch., May 22, 2024) is a verified
class action complaint seeking declaratory relief invalidating the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and
Restated Bylaws, effective April 20, 2023 (the "Bylaws").
According to the complaint, Irrevocable Resignation Requirement
allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders'
exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C. section 141(k),
211 and 141(b). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also
impermissibly subverts the stockholder Franchise. The Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement unduly restricts the stockholder franchise,
is inequitable, and violates Delaware law, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a Company stockholder
since at least Feb. 1, 2023.
The Defendant designs, builds, and sells trucks, crossovers, cars,
and automobile parts and provides software-enabled services and
subscriptions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
GENERAL MOTORS: Parton Sues Over Driver Behavior Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD PARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; ONSTAR, LLC; LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00648-CLM (N.D. Ala., May 22, 2024) sues the Defendants for
covert collection of consumers' driver behavior data through
computer software installed in automobile vehicles or via linked
application, and the sharing, use, and sale of that data without
consumers' notice, knowledge, or consent.
Defendants GM and OnStar install these types of driver tracking
features on numerous GM vehicles. These features are misleadingly
marketed as a user experience enhancement when, in actuality, the
features are used by GM and OnStar to surreptitiously document and
store driver-behavior metrics. Unbeknownst to consumer drivers, the
Defendants GM and OnStar sell the recorded driver data to credit
agencies and data aggregation companies, including the Defendants
LexisNexis and Verisk.
Defendants LexisNexis and Verisk then sell consumer drivers' data
to companies, including auto insurance companies who then use the
ill-gotten data to increase quotes and premiums for drivers'
automobile insurance. The result of this for-profit scheme is often
an increase in consumers' insurance quotes and premiums, the
lawsuit claims.
Mr. Parton is one of many drivers whose data has been sold without
his consent as part of this deceitful scheme. His GM vehicle,
equipped with OnStar tracking software, collected his driver
behavior data without his knowledge and consent and sold that data
to Defendants LexisNexis and Verisk. As a result, the Plaintiff
suffered economic injury, including increased insurance premiums.
The Plaintiff was never informed by GM or OnStar that his driver
data would be collected and sold to third parties. The Plaintiff
did not authorize GM or OnStar to collect and sell his personal
driver data, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff brings this action for economic damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of all persons whose driver behavior
data were captured, collected, stored, and/or transferred or sold
without full notice or consent.
The Defendants' wrongful conduct constitutes a violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), a violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with drivers'
relations with their automobile insurers, common law invasion of
privacy, and unjust enrichment.
In 2017, the Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Chevy Silverado, equipped
with OnStar. In 2021, the Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Chevy
Silverado, equipped with OnStar. In February 2024, the Plaintiff
purchased a 2024 Chevy Silverado equipped with OnStar.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
The Kress Building
301 Nineteenth Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0557
Facsimile: (205) 314-0757
E-mail: dgp@wigginschilds.com
dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
- and -
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
Bret K. Pufahl, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL, LLC
1541 East Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101
Geneva, IL 60143
Telephone: (630) 232-7450
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com
rmf@fmcolaw.com
ecc@fmcolaw.com
bkp@fmcolaw.com
GENPSYCH INC: McClure Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTELLE MCCLURE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENPSYCH, INC.; HENRY ODUNLAMI;
and GENPSYCH, INC. 401(K) PLAN, Defendants, Case 2:24-cv-06307
(D.N.J., May 21, 2024) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants breach
their fiduciary duties, and engaged in prohibited transactions,
regarding the GenPsych Inc. 401(K) Plan ("the Plan"), an
ERISA-regulated pension plan.
By failing to segregate employee contributions withheld from
employees' pay in 2023 from Defendant GenPsych's general assets and
by failing to remitting such contributions to the Plan at all, the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to those
contributions in 2023.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
the Class have been harmed with respect to losing the opportunity
to earn investment income or interest on the funds that were not
timely remitted, or remitted at all, to the Plan during the Class
Period, says the suit.
GENPSYCH, INC. is a mental health and substance abuse treatment
provider with locations in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq.
McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 985-9800
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Completion of Discovery Extended to August 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeCostanzo v.
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04869 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Aug. 29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered
an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery:
(1) deadline to complete individual fact Sept. 3, 2024
discovery, including depositions,
relevant and proportional to named
Plaintiffs claims and class certification:
(2) deadline for dispositive motions and motion Oct. 17, 2024
for class certification, with any supporting
expert reports:
(3) Deadline to complete depositions of experts Nov. 19, 2024
in connection with deadline above:
(4) deadline for oppositions to dispositive Dec. 16, 2024
motions and motion for class certification,
and with any supporting, opposing, or
rebuttal expert reports:
(5) deadline to complete depositions of experts Jan. 7, 2025
in connection with deadline above:
(6) deadline for reply(ies) in support of Jan. 15, 2024
dispositive motions and motion for
class certification, and any supporting
rebuttal expert reports:
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
GlaxoSmithKline is a British multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Sept. 18
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLE HUBBARD, et al.,
v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-07016-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order setting case schedule
and granting motion for leave to file fifth amended complaint as
follows:
-- Plaintiffs shall file their amended pleading by May 28, 2024.
-- Plaintiffs may add or remove allegations only to the extent
proposed in the Motion;
-- Plaintiffs may not add new claims.
-- Any newly added Plaintiffs shall file magistrate-judge-consent
forms by May 31, 2024.
-- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to designate the subject areas of
expected testimony for all experts in support of motion for
class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2)(A): June 5, 2024.
-- Deadline to substantially complete document discovery related
to
class certification: June 19, 2024.
-- Deadline for Defendants to designate the subject areas of
expected
testimony for all experts in opposition to motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2)(A) and/or rebuttal experts: July 3, 2024.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to designate the subject areas of
expected
testimony for all rebuttal in connection with class
certification
(if necessary): July 24, 2024.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification
and
all supporting declarations, expert reports, evidence and other
papers: September 18, 2024.
-- Deadline for Defendants to file opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion
for class certification and all supporting declarations,
evidence
and other papers, including expert reports and rebuttal expert
reports: October 30, 2024.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file reply in support of motion for
class certification and rebuttal expert reports: December 11,
2024.
-- Hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Jan.
21, 2025.
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PI4Bw1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAB HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE GRAB HOLDINGS LIMITED SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-02189-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer Rochon entered a civil case management plan and scheduling
order as follows:
-- Defendants shall commence rolling production June 28,
2024
of documents by:
-- Depositions shall commence no earlier than: Dec. 1, 2024
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no June 27,
2025
later than:
-- Class Certification Motion (including expert Dec. 20,
2024
reports, if any) shall be served by:
-- Class Certification Opposition (including March 15,
2025
expert reports, if any) shall be served by:
-- Class Certification Reply shall be served by: April 21,
2025
-- All expert discovery, including expert reports Oct. 14,
2025
and depositions, shall be completed no later
than:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fhNVcc at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREENSKY INC: Belyea Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al.
v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials
should be sealed.
Exhibit to Document Provisionally Evidence
Offered
Stein Decl. Sealed in Support of
Portion(s) Sealing
1-A GS-ESI-0601916 Entire document Defendants to
(2018 GreenSky, provide
evidence
Inc. Form 10-K) per L.R.
79-5(f)
2 GS-ESI-0234069 Entire document Defendants to
provide evidence
per L.R.
79-5(f)
3 2022 30(b)(6) Entire document Defendants to
Depo. Transcript provide evidence
per L.R.
79-5(f)
4 GS-ESI-0191132 Entire document Defendants to
provide evidence
per L.R.
79-5(f)
5-B GS-WRIGHT01586 Entire document Defendants to
provide evidence
per L.R.
79-5(f)
5-D GS-ESI-0649546 Entire document Defendants to
provide evidence
per L.R.
79-5(f)
6 GS-ESI-0002443 Entire document Defendants to
provide evidence
per L.R.
79-5(f)
GreenSky operates as a technology company in the payment, credit,
and commerce space.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BMWZsi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
Brian Johnson, Esq.
Delaney Brooks, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Ste 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
amk@classlawgroup.com
bej@classlawgroup.com
db@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Madelyn Petersen, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Bryce Bell, Esq.
Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
BELL LAW, LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 886-8206
Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
E-mail: bryce@belllawkc.com
at@belllawkc.com
- and -
Daniel T. LeBel, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 513-1414
Facsimile: (877) 563-7848
E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com
GREENSKY INC: Belyea Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al.,
v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs, will move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) for an order certifying a
proposed class defined as follows:
"All persons who secured in California, between Jan. 9, 2016,
and
the present, a GreenSky Consumer Program loan for which the
loan
principal amount was $500 or higher and the associated
transaction fee was at least 1% of the loan principal
amount."
The Plaintiffs further move, under Rule 23(g), to appoint Gibbs Law
Group LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Bell Law, LLC,
as Class Counsel.
Finally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to direct notice to the class
under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), and order that: (1) the parties shall meet
and confer regarding the form and manner of that notice within 14
days of the Court’s certification order, and (2) class counsel
shall submit a proposed notice plan within 30 days of the Court's
order.
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion; the accompanying
memorandum in support; the Declarations of David Stein, Geoffrey
Graber, and Bryce Bell; the evidence submitted in support of the
motion; and any other evidence and argument as may be presented to
the Court.
The suit alleges that GreenSky collects two types of fees:
"transaction fees" and "performance fees." GreenSky operates
without the license required by the California Financing Law (CFL).
And GreenSky operates without registering with the California DOJ,
or maintaining a minimum surety bond, as the Credit Services Act
(CSA) requires.
The Plaintiffs Heidi Barnes and David Ferguson are two of the many
thousands of Californians who borrowed money through the GreenSky
Consumer Program.
GreenSky operates as a technology company in the payment, credit,
and commerce space.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AFk4OY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
Brian Johnson, Esq.
Delaney Brooks, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Ste 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
amk@classlawgroup.com
bej@classlawgroup.com
db@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Madelyn Petersen, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Bryce Bell, Esq.
Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
BELL LAW, LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 886-8206
Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
E-mail: bryce@belllawkc.com
at@belllawkc.com
- and -
Daniel T. LeBel, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 513-1414
Facsimile: (877) 563-7848
E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com
GROUP US MANAGEMENT: Munoz Seeks Conditional Collective Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSVALDO MUNOZ and
CRISTOBAL RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. THE GROUP US MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a THE
GROUP NYC, LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE LLC d/b/a LA GRAND BOUCHERIE, d/b/a
KAISEKI ROOM, OLIO RESTAURANTS LLC d/b/a OLIO E PIU, and EMIL
STEFKOV, Case No. 1:22-cv-04038-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of
notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
The Group is a collection of restaurants based in New York City.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D1fvPF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
HAEMONETICS CORP: Agreement Reached in Crumpton Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Haemonetics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal
year ended March 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 20, 2024, that during the second quarter of
fiscal 2024, the company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
providing terms that would resolve the litigation and recorded an
additional loss contingency related to a putative class action
complaint filed against the company in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois by Mary Crumpton, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated individuals.
The case is captioned "Mary Crumpton v. Haemonetics Corporation"
(Case No. 1:21-cv-1402). In the third quarter of fiscal 2024, the
parties requested preliminary court approval of a final settlement
agreement, which was granted in February 2024.
Suit asserts that between June 2017 and August 2018 she donated
plasma at a center operated by one of the company's customers, that
the center required her to scan her finger print in a scanner that
stored her finger print to identify her prior to plasma donation,
and that the company’s "eQue" donor management software sent her
biometric information to a company-owned server to be collected and
stored in a manner that violated her rights under the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The plaintiff seeks
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and equitable
relief.
In March 2021, the company moved to dismiss the complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction and concurrently filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim and a motion to stay. In March 2022,
the court denied the company’s motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction but did not address the merits of its other
positions.
In March 2023, the company filed a second motion to dismiss the
complaint. In March 2024, notice of the settlement was mailed to
class members and the parties are now awaiting the complete
administration of the settlement through the third-party
administrator.
Haemonetics Corporation is a global healthcare company into blood
and plasma component collection, the surgical suite and hospital
transfusion services.
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hayward Holdings 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 consolidated securities class suit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
On August 2, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and certain of its current directors and
officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) and MSD Partners and
CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between March 2, 2022 and July 27, 2022. That action is captioned
City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement System vs. Hayward
Holdings, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK (D.N.J.) ("City of
Southfield").
On September 28, 2023, a second, related securities class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its
current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones)
and MSD Partners and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's
common stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022. That
action is captioned Erie County Employees' Retirement System vs.
Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK (D.N.J.)
("Erie County").
On December 19, 2023, the Court issued a ruling consolidating the
two securities class actions (City of Southfield and Erie County)
under the City of Southfield docket (the "Securities Class Action")
and appointing a lead plaintiff.
In a consolidated class action complaint filed March 4, 2024, the
Securities Class Action alleges on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders who acquired shares of our common stock between
October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022, among other things, that the
Company and certain of its current directors and officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, making materially false or misleading
statements regarding inventory, growth, and demand trends and the
Company's financial projections for 2022.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative classes and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing in the
Securities Class Action and intends to vigorously defend ourselves
in these matters.
Hayward Holdings, Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of
pool and outdoor living technology with seven manufacturing
facilities worldwide, which are located in North Carolina,
Tennessee, Rhode Island, Spain (three) and China, and other
facilities in the United States, Canada, France and Australia.
HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ipaye Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MAJID IPAYE; ADEYINKA ADEOGUN; and PRINCILLAR AGYAPONG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.; CERECORE STAFFING SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00635 (M.D. Tenn., May 21,
2024).
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as healthcare
staff.
HCA HEALTHCARE, INC. is a Tennessee corporation which provides
services and solutions for the healthcare industry across the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
2901 Dobbs Ave
Nashville, TN 37211
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
Email: mel@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
- and -
Olena Savytska, Esq.
Harold Lichten, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: osavytska@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darin Mathews and Ronald
Reeves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02605-ELR (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor Ross entered an order granting leave
to file Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification and all
exhibits thereto under seal by the clerk.
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oGU1pL at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: Mathews Suit Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIN MATHEWS and RONALD
REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02605-ELR (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
leave to file plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification
and all exhibits thereto under seal.
On June 20, 2023, this Court entered an Amended Stipulated
Confidentiality and Protective Order governing discovery in this
case that permitted the parties to designate discovery material, or
information compiled from discovery material, as either
"Confidential" or "Confidential—Attorney's Eyes Only".
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNdbK0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
BAYUK PRATT, LLC
4401 Northside Pkwy, Suite 390
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 500-2669
E-mail: bradley@bayukpratt.com
- and -
John A. Lockett III, Esq.
Alexander M. Heideman, Esq.
THE LOCKETT LAW FIRM LLC
1397 Carroll Drive
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 806-7448
E-mail: john@lockettlawfirm.com
- and -
Meredith C. Kincaid, Esq.
CROSS KINCAID LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave, Suite 715
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 948-3022
E-mail: meredith@crosskincaid.com
HSS SECURITY: Corralejo Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Justin Corralejo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HSS SECURITY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; HSS CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
HSS, LLC, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401726 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01104.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts putative class claims for:
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wage; failure
to provide meal periods; failure to pay all wages upon termination;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; and violation of the
Unfair Competition Law under Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew M. Sonne, 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: msonne@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Phone: 213.620.1780
Facsimile: 213.620.1398
Email: blewis@sheppardmullin.com
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Antitrust Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls 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
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
dismissed an antitrust class suit in April 2024.
On October 6, 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed
against the Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The lawsuit names several HII companies, among other companies, as
defendants.
The named plaintiffs generally allege that the defendant companies
have adhered to a "gentlemen's agreement" that prohibits any
defendant from actively recruiting naval engineers from other
defendants.
The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, and any
other relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled.
The District Court dismissed the lawsuit against all defendants in
April 2024.
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is a global, all-domain
defense
partner, building and delivering survivable naval ships and
technologies. Its Ingalls Shipbuilding segment in Mississippi and
Newport News Shipbuilding segment in Virginia have built more
ships
in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder, making
it the largest shipbuilder in US.
HYLAND'S CONSUMER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Jackson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYLAND'S CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03919 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://hylands.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.
HYLAND'S CONSUMER HEALTH, INC. develops and manufactures
homeopathic medicines. The Company offers stress and sleep, pain
relief, women's health, digestion, cough and cold, first aid, and
skin ailments, as well as teething tablets, topicals, and household
kits. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
I.C. SYSTEM: Retailers Excluded in Class Definition, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEZARK v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403 (W.D. Pa., Filed March 20, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that for
purposes of identifying to whom the questionnaire shall be sent,
medical provider in the class definition shall exclude retailers
who sell band aids, cough syrup, and the like but shall include
pharmacies and veterinary clinics.
The Court further entered an order that Mr. Lezark shall promptly
retain a vendor to assist with the distribution of the
questionnaire and shall file a status report regarding the timeline
for retention of a vendor and distribution of the questionnaire, on
or before June 6, 2024.
The parties have advised that they are unable to reach agreement as
to who will receive the questionnaire, in particular, how the
definition of medical provider in Plaintiff Jeffrey Lezarks
proposed class definition should be interpreted.
In light of Huber v. Simons Agency, Inc., 84 F. 4th 132 (3d Cir.
2023), which requires the Court to consider evidence of the
standing of putative class members at the class certification
stage, and because Mr. Lezark bears the burden on the issues of
standing and class certification, together with the lack of legal
authority on this issue, the Court finds it appropriate to permit
Mr. Lezark, at this stage, to define who should receive the
questionnaire.
Mr. Lezark has articulated a basis for his proposed class
definition and for his interpretation of the term medical provider,
and, while Defendant I.C. System, Inc. has objected to the
definition, it has not alleged that it would be unduly burdensome
to determine who falls within that definition for purposes of
sending the questionnaire.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA).
IC System is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency.[CC]
IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES: 2nd Amendment to Scarpino Deal Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Memorandum and Order
approving the renewed Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement
in the lawsuit titled KRISTEENA SCARPINO, individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. IMAGINATION
INDUSTRIES, INC., and CASEY ROWE, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00449-RFR-JMD (D. Neb.).
On Oct. 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kristeena Scarpino brought this action,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
Defendants Imagination Industries, Inc., and Casey Rowe alleging
they misclassified her and other workers as independent contractors
rather than employees, failed to pay them minimum wage
compensation, and required dancers to pay fees and tip-outs, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act ("NWHA"),
Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 48-1201, et seq.
The Court later conditionally certified Scarpino's federal claim as
an FLSA collective action upon accepting the magistrate judge's
unobjected-to Findings and Recommendation that her Motion for
Conditional Certification be granted.
The parties successfully negotiated Scarpino's FLSA claims and
moved the Court to approve their settlement agreement on Sept. 3,
2021. The Court approved that agreement, as well as a subsequent
amendment. Now, over three years after the parties reached their
original agreement, Scarpino reports the Defendants have fallen
behind on their payment obligations.
On Jan. 5, 2024, Scarpino filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement,
stating the Defendants failed to pay their agreed-upon installments
in full and on time throughout 2023. As of that time, the
Defendants reportedly still owed $13,800 of the original $45,000
settlement.
In light of this breach, Scarpino asked the Court to enforce the
parties' amended agreement and order that the Defendants pay the
$13,800 balance.
The Court held a hearing with the parties to address these issues,
as well as defense counsel's motions to withdraw. With the help of
the Defendants' new counsel, the parties informed the Court that
they had agreed to a second amendment to their settlement
agreement, which they asked the Court to approve. The Defendants
also paid another $1,000 of the outstanding settlement amount.
On April 24, 2024, the Court held another hearing to discuss
deficiencies and ambiguities it noticed in the parties' new
amendment. There, the parties agreed to renegotiate and clarify the
terms of that agreement. As requested, the Court denied as moot
Scarpino's Motion to Enforce Settlement.
The parties have now presented the Court with a renewed Second
Amendment to the Settlement Agreement (the "Second Amendment"). The
Second Amendment sets a schedule requiring the Defendants "to pay
off the remaining balance of $12,800" in $1,000 monthly increments.
It also waives the original "interest provisions of the Settlement
Agreement" and first amendment and, in their place, provides for
liquidated damages of $25 per day for a late payment. Scarpino's
counsel further reports that the opt-in plaintiffs were notified of
the Second Amendment and did not object.
The Court has been informed the Defendants have already timely paid
the first $1,000 payment under the Second Amendment, which was due
April 30, 2024. That leaves an $11,800 balance.
The Court is satisfied the Second Amendment is fair and reasonable
and approves it to the extent necessary. The parties' prior motion
seeking approval of their now-supplanted amendment is denied as
moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated May 9,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yp36ntuu from
PacerMonitor.com.
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL WILLIAMS, and JONN
GIBSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
Situated Plaintiffs, v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC d/b/a Insomnia
Cookies; SERVE U BRANDS, INC.; and SETH BERKOWITZ, Case No.
4:23-cv-00669-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask 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 of ALL current and former General
Managers
employed at any time from April 23, 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 the
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 publication of a short form of the notice
may
also be published to social media groups;
(6) 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;
(7) 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
(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.
Insomnia Cookies is a chain of bakeries primarily in the United
States that specializes in delivering warm cookies, baked goods,
and ice cream.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1hkCO3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
ISABEL'S DAY: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum, OT Wages, Vidal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH VIDAL, ELIZABETH CARIAS and MARIA MORFIN v. ISABEL'S DAY CARE,
INC., and ISABEL NINO RODRIGUEZ, in her capacity as an officer
and/or owner of ISABEL'S DAY CARE, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-03901
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants, with willful disregard
for the law, only compensated the Plaintiffs at a rate of (I) $10,
$9, $8, $7, and $6 per hour and failed to pay the Plaintiffs their
lawful overtime pay for the period from Sept. 15, 2022, until Feb.
15, 2023, and again from April 11, 2023, until Oct. 26, 2023, March
2022 until Sept. 2023, and July 2017 until Nov. 28, 2023, where
they worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The unlawful
conduct of the Defendants was not limited to the Plaintiffs but
also affected all other employees at Isabel's Day Care, Inc. who
were employed as teachers and childcare workers, the lawsuit
claims.
The Plaintiffs also bring this action, including injury in fact
claims, under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for the Defendants'
willful and deliberate failure to provide written notice of wage
rates and maintain accurate record keeping.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
spread of hours pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.
Ms. Vidal was hired by the Defendant as a childcare worker on Sept.
15, 2022, and remained employed until Feb. 15, 2023. She was then
rehired on April 11, 2023, and remained in employment until Oct.
26, 2023.
Isabel's is a Child Care center in New Rochelle, NY.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
IVYREHAB PEAK: Barbara Sues Over Rehabilitation Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Barbara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IVYREHAB PEAK PERFORMANCE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03775
(E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendant's
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter
"ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"),
Affordable Care Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York
State Civil Rights Law.
In violation of well-settled, 33-year-old law, the Defendant has
chosen to follow a policy to exclude Plaintiff and all other
disabled persons, who require the use of wheelchairs and scooters,
from having access to, and use of, their place of public
accommodation. The Defendant has established a policy and practice
to exclude all mobility-impaired persons who need assistance
transferring out of their wheelchair or scooter from receiving
physical therapy at their office, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has a neurological disability and cannot walk
independently.
Ivyrehab Peak Performance, LLC leases the commercial property which
houses the public accommodation named Ivyrehab Peak
Performance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
Phone: (646) 290-8258
Fax: (646) 435-4376
Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Class Settlement in Roman Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORA ROMAN, GERARDO
VASQUEZ, JUAN AGUILAR, and all other similarly situated, v. JAN-PRO
FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of settlement and attorney's
fees, costs, and
Expenses.
-- The order awards plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees of
$9,000,000
and $73,324 in litigation costs and expenses, to be paid from
the
settlement fund.
-- The Plaintiffs' counsel shall be awarded the $73,324 as well as
50
percent of the attorney's fees now; the remaining 50 percent
may
be recovered only after counsel certifies that the fund is
completely wound up. If problems do arise, and if management of
this fund so necessitates, any shortfall in funds to pay
class members may be deducted from the unpaid attorney's fees.
-- Lastly, named plaintiff Gerardo Vazquez is to be awarded $2000,
named plaintiff Gloria Roman is to be awarded $1500, and named
plaintiff Juan Aguilar is to be awarded $1000.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had misclassified them as
independent contractors instead of employees and violated
California minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursement, and
unlawful deduction laws, and sought compensation on behalf of the
class.
The Defendant is an international janitorial cleaning business
which developed a three-tier franchise model to avoid classifying
its janitors as employees and misclassifying them as independent
contractors.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xpHAfa at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAY BRADSHAW: Garcia Sues Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Juan Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JAY BRADSHAW, DANIEL GREGG, EDDY LUNA, JACOB ADIARTE,
SEAN HEBARD, DANIEL NUNCIO, EDWARD GABLE, ROBERT ALTEN, NANCY
BRINKERHOFF, DON DOLLY, RANDY JENCO, MIKE MENCARINI, SCOTT SMITH,
AND KATHRYN CAHILL THOMPSON, CARPENTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST
FUND FOR CALIFORNIA, CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, CARPENTERS ANNUITY TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CARPENTERS 401(K) TRUST FUND, CARPENTERS
VACATION, HOLIDAY AND SICK LEAVE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:24-cv-03068-LB (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2024), is
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), against the Plans (the Health Care Plan; the Pension
Plan; the Annuity Plan; the 401(k) Plan; and the Vacation, Holiday
and Sick Leave Plan) and its fiduciaries--the Individual
Defendants.
The Plaintiff is employed by Accurate Firestop, Inc. ("AFI") as an
insulator carpenter and is represented by the Carpenters 46
Northern California Counties Conference Board (the "Union").
To date, Defendants have continued to fail and refuse to accept
AFI's contributions to the Plans on behalf of Plaintiff and the
Class Members, who continue to work under the CBAs. On August 2023,
the Individual Defendants, through the Union, informed The
Plaintiff and the Class Members that they were losing critical,
employer-paid health insurance coverage under the Health Care Plan.
The loss of the critical, employer-paid health insurance coverage
under the Health Care Plan is because of fiduciary duty breaches by
the Individual Defendants.
The Carpenters Union represents The Plaintiff and all of the
carpenters in the bargaining unit, all of whom perform work within
the jurisdiction of the Union. Plaintiff and the carpenter
employees are continuing to perform work described in the expired
CBA and continue to perform work within the jurisdiction of the
Union.
AFI has agreed to be bound by and comply with each Trust Agreement
and any amendments thereto, all related agreements, rules,
regulations and reporting forms and other requirements lawfully
established by the trustees of each Plan, not in conflict with the
terms of the expired CBA, including without limitation the Plans'
policy and payment of employee contributions, and AFI has fully
performed all obligations required of it under these instruments
and policies.
Carpenters Union is refusing to negotiate a successor CBA with AFI
and has unlawfully instructed The Plaintiff and other carpenters
employed by AFI not to work for AFI, and to resign their employment
with AFI to accept employment with other contractors who have
existing CBAs with Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties
Conference, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Participant in the Health Care Plan, Pension
Plan, Annuity Plan, "401(k) Plan, and Vacation, Holiday, Sick Leave
Plan.
AFI is a firestop and insulation contractor which has had a series
of contracts with the Carpenters Union, the last one expiring on
June 30, 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Kathy Huynh, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison St., Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510.768.0650
Facsimile: 510.768.0651
Email: tyler.paetkau@huschblackwell.com
kathy.huynh@huschblackwell.com
KANSAS CITY: Roberson Gets More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberson, et al., v. The
Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358 (W.D. Mo.,
Filed May 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an
order granting the plaintiff's second unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class.
-- Reply suggestions due by June 14, 2024, unless otherwise
directed
by the court.
-- Further extensions will be viewed with caution.
The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave
Act.[CC]
Kansas City Southern offers railway services for shipping and
mobility of people and cargo.
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: All Deadlines Adjourned in McIntosh Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA McINTOSH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KATAPULT HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07251-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order that
in light of the parties' settlement, all existing deadlines in this
case are adjourned sine die pending the submission of the filings.
-- Court approval is required for settlement of claims on a
classwide
basis pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
-- No later than June 25, 2024, the parties shall file a motion
for
class certification and preliminary approval of the class-wide
settlement.
Katapult operates a lease-to-own platform for nonprime consumers 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=ZLQyxV at no extra
charge.[CC]
KIN INSURANCE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Fania Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY FANIA, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. KIN INSURANCE, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-12354-GAD-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Gershwin Drain entered an order granting defendant's motion to
bifurcate discovery.
-- Discovery as to the merits of Plaintiff's individual TCPA claim
against Defendant shall proceed for 30 days after entry of this
order, subject to any extensions granted by the court.
-- Opening summary judgment motions as to the merits of
Plaintiff's
individual TCPA claim shall be due 30 days after the close of
the
initial phase of individual discovery.
-- Oppositions to summary judgment due 30 days after service of
opening motions.
The Plaintiff Anthony Fania filed this lawsuit in Oct. 2022 on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The class action
complaint accuses Defendant Kin insurance of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff's claim
is based on an alleged "pre-recorded" call to his cell phone on
Aug. 29, 2022.
Kin sells insurance products in multiple states.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4lnEz9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KNIFE RIVER: Seeks to Invalidate By-laws, Collins Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated stockholders of KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff v. KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2024-0538
(Del. Ch., May 22, 2024) seeks declaratory relief invalidating the
Irrevocable Resignation Requirement, of the Defendant's Amended and
Restated Bylaws, effective June 1, 2023 (the "Bylaws").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Irrevocable
Resignation Requirement allows the Defendant's board of directors
(the "Board") to usurp stockholders' exclusive right to select the
members of the Board.
The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere
with stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the
Defendant's directors, says the suit.
KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION provides construction materials and
contracting services in the western, central, and southern U.S.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Robby Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Nathan Abelman, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 333-0674
LANDSCAPES UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL LOPEZ RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDSCAPES UNLIMITED, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV12695
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 21, 2024) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.
Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a machine
operator.
LANDSCAPES UNLIMITED, LLC provides golf and recreational services.
The Company offers services such as golf course construction,
irrigation installation, sports field construction, and club
operations management and consulting services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
Artur Tunyan, Esq.
TUNYAN LAW, APC
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 285
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 410-5050
Email: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
atunyan@tunyanlaw.com
LEWIS BROTHERS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Woolsey Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIAN WOOLSEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-00084-RLY-CSW (S.D. Ind., May 20, 2024) sues the Defendant
for failing to protect its current and former employees' highly
sensitive personal identifiable information when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach.
The suit says that the Defendant admitted that there was
unauthorized access to its network between March 25, 2024, and
April 1, 2024. Notably, the Defendant was unable to detect its Data
Breach until April 1, 2024 -- thereby giving the cybercriminals
seven uninterrupted days to steal PII. Because of the Defendant's
Data Breach, at least the following types of PII were compromised:
names and Social Security numbers, the Plaintiff asserts.
In total, the Defendant injured at least 13,501 persons -- via the
exposure of their PII -- in the Data Breach. Yet, the Defendant
waited over until May 9, 2024, before it began notifying the class
-- a full 45 days after the Data Breach began, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants Data Breach, the Plaintiff has
suffered -- and will continue to suffer from -- anxiety, sleep
disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. The Plaintiff has
already suffered from identity theft and fraud. Specifically, in
May 2024, a potential employer ran a background check on him.
However, the background check revealed that his Social Security
number was now associated with a different individual (whom
Plaintiff is unfamiliar with), the suit further alleges.
Mr. Woolsey is a former employee of the Defendant -- having worked
for the Defendant for six months in 2022. Thus, the Defendant
obtained and maintained Plaintiff's PII.
The Defendant is a commercial bakery which sells its products in 17
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J Gerard Stranch, Esq.
Andrew Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
LGI HOMES: McAlister Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKKI MCALISTER,
individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, v.
LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088-NYW-KAS (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a Class consisting of:
"all individuals who worked for the Defendant as Sales
Representatives in Colorado from May 23, 2017 to the
present;"
2. Certifying a CWA Subclass consisting of:
"all Class Members who worked for the Defendant in Colorado
between May 23, 2020 to the present;"
3. Certifying a CMWA Subclass consisting of:
"all Class Members who worked for the Defendant in Colorado
from
May 23, 2017 to the present;"
4. Approving the Notices attached as Exhibit 16 to be sent to
all
Class Members;
5. Appointing Rust Consulting, Inc., or another competent
third-
party administrator chosen by the Court, as the Class
Administrator;
6. Directing that within 14 days of the Court's order granting
class certification, the Defendant must produce a Class List
containing the following information for all of the Class
Members: full names, dates of employment, addresses, e-mail
addresses (where possible), and mobile phone numbers (where
possible);
7. Directing that within 14 days of receiving the Class List,
the
Administrator shall send the Notices approved by the Court to
all of the Class Members utilizing the information in the
Class
List; for any Notices returned undeliverable, the
Administrator
shall engage in reasonable efforts in conformity with the
standards of the class administration industry to re-send the
Notices;
8. Directing that Class Members shall have 60 days from the
initial
mailing of the Notices to exclude themselves from the Class,
if
they wish to do so; and
9. Granting all other and further relief as the Court finds to
be
appropriate and just.
The suit alleges that the Defendant maintained uniform policies and
practices of: (A) not paying overtime compensation to Class
Members; (B) not providing rest periods to Class Members; and (C)
and making improper deductions from Class Members' wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Sales Representative in
Colorado from January 2016 to February 2023.
The Defendant is a home builder.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4SISt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
Cynthia Sánchez, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
518 17th Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 255-0370
Facsimile: (720) 668-8989
E-mail: chunter@hkm.com
aharrison@hkm.com
csanchez@hkm.com
- and -
Jennifer A. Wadhwa, Esq.
3I LAW LLC
2000 S. Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80206
Telephone: (303) 245-2100
E-mail: jwadhwa@3ilawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Vance O. Knapp, Esq.
Patrick J. Collopy, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1125 17th Street, Suite 2400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 218-3650
E-mail: vknapp@fisherphillips.com
pcollopy@fisherphillips.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 31, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fassina v. Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466 (D. Mass., Filed
Sept. 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper 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.
Liberty renders commercial, renters, farm owners, life, mobile
home, and seasonal property insurance services.[CC]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Angus Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 Angus class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13,
2022.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf.
Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.
On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter.
Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]
LOCUST MEDICAL: Court Tosses Jackson's Bid to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARD JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LOCUST MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00424-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew Brann entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion to amend complaint and motion to certify class.
Jackson contends that he was unaware of Locust Medical's apparent
lack of assets until Feb. 28, 2024. In reality, he "possessed, or
through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have possessed,
the knowledge necessary" to seek leave to amend the complaint far
earlier. As Locust Medical correctly notes, Jackson has been aware
of Spadaro's existence since at least January 19, 2022, but chose
not to name him in this suit.
Further, Spadaro's deposition testimony revealed, at least from the
Court's point of view, that Locust Medical is a very small
operation. Failing to conduct the appropriate follow-up does not
excuse Jackson's purported lack of knowledge. It is not this
Court's job to rescue Plaintiff from his own strategic choices and
lack of diligence.
Despite likely meeting the requirements of 23(a), Jackson cannot
certify his proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiff contends that there are at least 647 class member
victims and that this "list actually underestimates the size of the
class because it identifies only those customers" that were sold
medical products.
On March 21, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a one-count complaint
alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") against the Defendant, on behalf of himself and a putative
class. The Court then issued a Case Management Order on Nov. 30,
2022, to govern this case.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ev48xs at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOOKS GREAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frazier Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN FRAZIER; ARIEL ALVAREZ; and KENNETH HOYTE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOOKS
GREAT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03701 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 22, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as machine
operators.
LOOKS GREAT SERVICES, INC. provides commercial support solutions.
The Company offers disaster recovery, utilities, and maintenance
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
Benjamin A. Goldstein, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA PC
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Malibu Boats 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 faces a
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
On April 29, 2024, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against MBI and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Case 1:24-cv-03254:24-cv-03254).
The class action complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by MBI related to its business, operations and prospects during the
period from November 4, 2022 through April 11, 2024.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that MBI violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to its
inventory and relationship with Tommy's dealerships, and that MBI
stock price dropped when such information was made public.
The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the
likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate
of the range of possible loss.
Malibu Boats -- https://www.malibuboats.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of recreational boats, founded in Merced, California
in 1982, and currently headquartered in Loudon, Tennessee with
additional production facilities in New South Wales, Australia.
[BN]
MARATHON DIGITAL: Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit Still Not Appointed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Digital Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report
for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2024, that the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada has not yet
appointed lead plaintiff for the Exchange Act class suit.
On March 30, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
against the Company and present and former senior management,
alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
arising out of the Company's announcement of accounting
restatements on February 28, 2023.
The defendants' time to respond has been extended until after the
appointment of a lead plaintiff.
To date, no lead plaintiff has been appointed.
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries is a digital asset
technology company that produces or "mines" digital assets with a
focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the generation of digital
assets.
MARLBORO DIAMOND: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Gaspa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Marlboro Diamond Castle, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06302
(D.N.J., May 21, 2024), is brought arises from Defendant's failure
to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's website, https://www.castlecouturenj.com/, (the
"Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
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. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar
location. Accessibility is all or nothing. A website is either
accessible or inaccessible. This lawsuit is aimed at providing
legally blind users like Plaintiff a full and equal experience.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, the Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for herself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The access barriers make it impossible
for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the
goods and services at https://www.castlecouturenj.com/ prior to
entering Defendant's physical location, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person.
Marlboro Diamond Castle, LLC, operates the Castlecouturenj.com
online showroom across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
MDL 2591: Bid to Enforce Final Order in MIR 162 Corn Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denies Kansas Co-Lead Counsel's motion to enforce the
Final Order and Judgment in the lawsuit styled IN RE: SYNGENTA AG
MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, Case No. 2:14-md-02591-JWL (D. Kan.).
In this matter arising from multidistrict litigation (MDL), Kansas
Co-Lead Counsel (hereinafter "Movants") filed a motion to enforce
the Court's Final Order and Judgment of Dec. 7, 2018. Specifically,
the Movants sought to enjoin certain settlement class members from
pursuing a particular lawsuit, Niekamp, et al. v. Watts Guerra LLP,
et al., No. 23-2289 (N.D. Ohio), that has since been dismissed.
The Movants also sought an award of attorney fees and costs
incurred as a result of the alleged violation of the terms of the
Final Order and Judgment.
By Memorandum and Order of Dec. 7, 2018, the Court approved a
global class settlement of the cases against Syngenta involved in
this MDL (see In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 357 F. Supp.
3d 1094 (Lungstrum, J.)). In that same order, the Court awarded as
attorney fees one third of the settlement fund, in the approximate
amount of $503 million. By Memorandum and Order of Dec. 31, 2018,
the Court allocated the attorney fee award to various pools, see In
re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 2018 WL 6839380 (D. Kan. Dec.
31, 2018) (Lungstrum, J.), from which pools the Court by subsequent
orders awarded attorney fees and expenses to specific law firms.
The Court has also ordered the distribution of the awarded amounts
to the recipient firms. In its last disbursement order, the Court
noted that a little over $2 million would remain in escrow because
firms had not yet executed certain required agreements; and that it
had not yet determined how or to whom over $10 million in interest
would be distributed.
The Tenth Circuit has affirmed this Court's orders concerning the
awards of attorney fees; see In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig.,
61 F.4th 1126 (10th Cir. 2023); Shields Law Group, LLC v. Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, 95 F.4th 1251 (10th Cir. 2024). At the time of
the final settlement approval, on Dec. 7, 2018, the Court also
issued a Final Order and Judgment, which included the following
provision at paragraph 19: "In addition, all Settlement Class
members are forever enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting,
continuing to prosecute, supporting, intervening in, or
participating as plaintiffs, claimants, or class members in any
other lawsuit or proceeding in any jurisdiction against the
Released Parties any Released Claims...."
In 2018, after the Court's preliminary approval of the global
settlement but prior to final approval, certain settlement class
members (who had been producer plaintiffs asserting claims against
Syngenta) brought a putative class action, Kellogg, et al. v. Watts
Guerra, LLP, et al., Nos. 14-2591, 18-2408 (D. Kan.), against their
attorneys in the underlying Syngenta litigation and other
plaintiffs' attorneys in the MDL, which case was transferred into
the MDL from the District of Minnesota.
In Kellogg, the Court dismissed at the pleading stage all claims
other than a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
plaintiffs' own former attorneys; the Court dismissed that
fiduciary duty claim as a sanction for repeated violations of the
Court's orders by counsel for the Kellogg plaintiffs; and the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the Court's orders of dismissal (see Kellogg v.
Watts Guerra LLP, 41 F.4th 1246 (10th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143
S. Ct. 1022 (2023)).
On Nov. 28, 2023, the Kellogg plaintiffs' counsel and additional
Ohio counsel filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio a new lawsuit, Niekamp, et al. v. Watts
Guerra LLP, et al., No. 23-2289 (N.D. Ohio), on behalf of two
former Syngenta producer plaintiffs, who were not among the named
plaintiffs in Kellogg, but who had been putative class members in
that case. The claims asserted in Niekamp largely mirrored those
that had been asserted in Kellogg. The Niekamp plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Dec. 21, 2023.
On Jan. 26, 2024, the Movants, who had been named as defendants in
Niekamp, filed the instant motion to enforce. The Movants argue by
that motion that the Niekamp plaintiffs (who were members of the
MDL settlement class) and their counsel violated paragraph 19 of
the Final Order of Judgment of Dec. 7, 2018, because the Ohio
action interfered with settlement or attorney fee orders issued in
the MDL.
The Movants requested that the Court enforce paragraph 19's
injunction by ordering the Niekamp plaintiffs and their counsel to
dismiss that action in Ohio, and the Movants further requested an
award of attorney fees and costs incurred because of the alleged
violation.
After the response deadline passed, the Court ordered the Niekamp
plaintiffs and their counsel to show cause why the motion to
enforce should not be granted as uncontested. The Niekamp
plaintiffs and their counsel then filed a substantive response to
the motion, and the Movants filed a reply brief.
After Niekamp was filed in Ohio, the defendants filed a notice with
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
that Niekamp was a potential tag-along action for the MDL. The JPML
initially declined to transfer the case into the MDL, but the
Niekamp defendants filed a motion for transfer, and the matter was
briefed and argued to the Panel.
On April 12, 2024, the JPML ordered that Niekamp be transferred to
this Court and into the Syngenta MDL. On the same day, seemingly in
response to the transfer order, the Niekamp plaintiffs filed in the
Ohio court a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); and they then
filed a notice of that dismissal with the JPML, in which they
stated that the dismissal rendered both the motion for transfer and
the JMPL's transfer order moot. On April 15, 2024, the JMPL's
transfer order was filed in this Court.
On April 15, 2024, the Movants gave notice to this Court of the
transfer order and the voluntary dismissal. In that notice, the
Movants argued that the motion to enforce should not be deemed moot
because they had also requested an award of fees and costs. The
Court proceeded to order briefs from the parties concerning the
issue of mootness, and both the Movants and the Niekamp plaintiffs
and counsel filed briefs.
In addition, on April 24, 2024, the firm of Gustafson Gluek PLLC
("Gustafson"), who had been named as a defendant in Niekamp, filed
a document in this Court in which it purported to join the instant
motion to enforce.
The Court first addresses the argument by the Niekamp plaintiffs
and their counsel (hereinafter "the plaintiffs") that because they
dismissed Niekamp, the JPML's transfer order has no effect. Judge
Lungstrum notes that this argument appears to relate to the
mootness issue, as the Movants have argued that a court retains
jurisdiction to address collateral matters, such as attorney fees
even after a voluntary dismissal.
The Movants note that the plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and the Movants have argued, in addressing the mootness
issue, that the Court should grant them relief on the motion by
ordering that any dismissal be with prejudice. The applicable rule,
however, allowed the plaintiffs to dismiss their action by notice
of dismissal without a court order, as the defendants had not filed
an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
Judge Lungstrum opines that the Movants have not cited any
authority that would allow a court to revive the case simply so
that it could then be dismissed with prejudice. More importantly,
although in their motion the Movants requested an order requiring
the plaintiffs to dismiss their action, they did not request an
order specifically requiring a dismissal with prejudice, and the
Court declines to allow the Movants to amend their motion in that
way at this time.
Judge Lungstrum holds that the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal
renders moot the pending motion to enforce to the extent that it
seeks an order requiring such dismissal. The Court agrees with the
Movants, however, that the motion has not been rendered moot in its
entirety. As the Movants note, they have requested an award of fees
and costs incurred as a result of the alleged violation of
paragraph 19's injunction, and while the dismissal may effectively
cap any such award, it does not eliminate the prejudice allegedly
suffered by the Movants.
Accordingly, the Court denies the pending motion as moot with
respect to the request for an order requiring dismissal; but it
will address the motion's request for fees and expenses based on
the alleged violation.
The Court next addresses the document filed in this Court (through
ECF) by Gustafson. The caption of the document indicates that it is
being filed in the JPML, but it was in fact filed in this Court
(and was not also filed in the JPML, according to that proceeding's
ECF docket). The title of the document states that it is a response
and joinder to the motion to enforce and a notice to the court.
Judge Lungstrum observes that Gustafson appears to seek joinder in
the instant motion to enforce. Accordingly, the Court will consider
Gustafson to be among the Movants with respect to this motion.
In their briefs, the plaintiffs state explicitly that by their
appearance here they are not consenting to the jurisdiction of this
Court. By such statements, the plaintiffs seem to be renewing their
objection to any transfer of Niekamp into the MDL; and they also
seem to argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to act in the
Niekamp case because that case was dismissed before the transfer
order took effect.
As noted, however, the present motion does not arise in the Niekamp
case itself; rather, the Movants have filed their motion in the
main MDL case, over which this Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction.
Judge Lungstrum notes that the plaintiffs have not offered any
reason why the Court would not have jurisdiction to enforce a
provision in its own Final Order and Judgment in the MDL case.
After the Movants filed the present motion, the deadline for a
response expired with no response from the plaintiffs. The Court,
then, ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the motion should
not be granted as uncontested under D. Kan. Rule 7.1(c); and it
further stated that if the plaintiffs wished to respond
substantively to the motion to enforce, they should file such a
brief along with their response to the order to show cause.
Judge Lungstrum notes that the plaintiffs filed a document titled
as a response to the show-cause order. In that response, however,
the plaintiffs did not address their failure to respond to the
motion by the applicable deadline; rather, they simply responded to
the motion substantively. The Movants argue that because the
plaintiffs failed to show excusable neglect in failing to file a
timely response to the motion, the Court should indeed grant the
motion as uncontested.
The Court confesses that it is dismayed by the plaintiffs' failure
to follow its orders (a) to show cause why the motion should not be
granted as uncontested under the local rule, and (b) to file any
substantive response brief separate from the response to the
show-cause order -- particularly given counsel's history of
flouting the Court's orders in Kellogg and being sanctioned
therefor.
Nevertheless, Judge Lungstrum says the Movants did not suffer any
prejudice from the plaintiffs' delay in filing a substantive
response, and the Court concludes in its discretion that the
present motion should be decided on its merits. The Court,
therefore, considers the plaintiffs' untimely response to the
motion (along with the parties' supplemental briefs).
The Court turns to the merits of the motion to enforce. The Movants
ask the Court to exercise its inherent authority to award them fees
and costs incurred because of the plaintiffs' alleged violation of
the injunction in paragraph 19 of the Court's Final Order and
Judgment in the MDL case. Specifically, the Movants argue that the
plaintiffs' filing of the Niekamp action "interfered" with the
Court's orders in the MDL case relating to the settlement or
attorney fee awards, in violation of the injunction.
The Court is not persuaded, however, that the Niekamp claims, if
litigated, actually would have interfered with any such order. The
primary basis for the claims asserted in the Niekamp complaint is
the plaintiffs' allegation that their attorneys improperly filed
individual suits on their behalf without sufficiently considering
and disclosing to them the benefits of pursuing a class action
instead.
Similarly, the Court rejects the Movants' argument based on their
contention that the plaintiffs sought by their claims in Niekamp to
"litigate the value of the individual lawsuits to the achievement
of the Settlement." The Movants rely on the fact that the Court, in
allocating the attorney fee awards among the common benefit and
IRPA pools, considered (in a holistic sense) the value that the
individual actions against Syngenta contributed to the realization
of the settlement.
The Court does not agree with the Movants that the necessary
interference with settlement or fee orders may be shown merely by
the plaintiffs' allegations suggesting disagreement or unhappiness
with prior decisions of the Court in the MDL without any real
potential for an adverse effect on the Court's actual orders
pertaining to the settlement or the fee awards.
By their lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought forfeiture of all fees
awarded to the defendants and damages in the amount of any such
fees (trebled); but as the plaintiffs point out, that claim would
have remained the same whatever the amounts of fees awarded to
those defendants, and thus, there could be no effect on the Court's
actual allocations. Moreover, the fact that a fee award recipient
faces a claim for some portion (or all) of that award does not mean
that the award itself is being challenged -- in the same way that a
garnishment claim against an attorney would not constitute
interference with the Court's order awarding fees to that attorney
for the purpose of enforcing the injunction in paragraph 19.
Judge Lungstrum says the Movants' best argument -- because it
claims an actual effect on the Court's orders relating to attorney
fees -- is that the plaintiffs' claims in Niekamp for the
forfeiture of attorney fees interfere with the Court's orders
requiring the Movants (as settlement class counsel) to distribute
awards among law firms (including the Niekamp defendants).
The Court does not discern any potential for interference with the
Court's orders that its attorney fees awards be distributed to the
rightful recipients.
The Movants insist that counsel for the plaintiffs must be stopped
from filing such suits as Kellogg and Niekamp. Judge Lungstrum
points out that the Court has no power to enjoin the litigation of
any similar suit in the future, however, unless that suit would
interfere with the Court's settlement or fee orders in the MDL in
violation of the terms of the injunction in paragraph 19. The Court
further notes that if a suit is truly without legal or factual
basis, the defendants may seek a remedy within that particular
suit, for instance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
In this case, the Court is not persuaded that the plaintiffs, in
filing the Niekamp action, violated the injunction in the Final
Order and Judgment as alleged by the Movants.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Movants' request for an award of
fees and costs based on the alleged violation, and it, therefore,
denies the motion to enforce in its entirety. Therefore, the Court
denies Kansas Co-Lead Counsel's motion to enforce the Final Order
and Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated May 9,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4be76nzv from
PacerMonitor.com.
META PLATFORMS: Consumer Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Consumer
Plaintiffs' interim administrative motion to provisionally file
under seal the unredacted versions of Consumers' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification, certain exhibits submitted as attachments to
the declaration of Shana E. Scarlett in support thereof, and the
Abridged Expert Declaration of Nicholas Economides, Ph.D. in
Support of Renewed Motion to Certify Consumer Class.
Consumer plaintiffs do not seek to seal these materials on any
grounds, other than that the materials have been designated as
"confidential" or "highly confidential" by Facebook and other
non-parties.
Consistent with the Court's September 20, 2023 and March 25, 2024
Orders, Consumers will coordinate with Facebook and non-parties to
file an omnibus sealing motion after the filing of the reply
memoranda in support of the motion for class certification. In the
interim, Consumers respectfully request that the Court
provisionally maintain under seal the requested materials.
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=Iki6Cu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
Claire D. Hausman, Esq.
Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq.
Michelle Schmit, Esq.
Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com
brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com
manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Arielle S. Wagner
Kyle Pozan, Esq.
Laura M. Matson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
kjpozan@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Klein Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed
motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
The case is an antitrust case alleging Facebook illegally
monopolized and attempted to monopolize the personal social network
services (PSNS or PSN) market.
The Plaintiffs thus bring this challenge to Facebook's
deception-based monopoly maintenance scheme under Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, and seek to certify a class consisting of all persons
in the United States who maintained and used a Facebook profile
between Dec. 3, 2016 and Dec. 3, 2020 (the "Consumer Class").
All of the elements of the Plaintiffs' claim turn on common
evidence. Liability, including whether Facebook engaged in a
deceptive course of conduct by misrepresenting and failing to
disclose relevant facts to the market, focuses entirely on
Facebook’s acts, as Facebook made its misleading disclosures and
omissions market wide. Antitrust impact and damages are also both
common issues turning on common evidence. Consumers seek the
difference between what Facebook paid them for their data in the
monopolized, real world ($0) and what they would have received in
compensation in the competitive, but-for world (approximately
$5/month).
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=GjDunT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
Scott L. Watson, Esq.
Claire D. Hausman, Esq.
Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq.
Michelle Schmit, Esq.
Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
scottwatson@quinnemanuel.com
clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com
brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com
manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Kyle Pozan, Esq.
Laura M. Matson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
kjpozan@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Wallenstein Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALLENSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia corporation, MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AND NABISCO,
INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that this
case proceed to the merits as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on Count Nos. 1-2 as set forth in the
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for Damages against the
Defendants on behalf of the following Class:
The Class:
"All persons that reside in California who purchased Wheat
Thins
products bearing the representation "100% WHOLE GRAIN" for
personal use, when in fact those products contained
cornstarch,
from Oct. 13, 2018 until the date the notice is
disseminated."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns,
successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in
which
the Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state,
and/or local governments, including their departments,
agencies,
divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or
subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer presiding over
this
matter and person within the third degree of consanguinity to
such judicial officer.
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify the Class and
appoint Plaintiff David Wallenstein as Class Representative, and
appoint Fox Law, APC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g).
The case is a consumer class action concerning the prominent
representation that Wheat Thins crackers are "100% WHOLE GRAIN."
The Defendants make this representation on every box of Wheat
Thins. The bold representation appears on the front, back and side
of the Wheat Thins box in colorful, capitalized, large font second
only to the name of the product itself. The Plaintiff filed this
action on Oct. 13, 2022.
The Plaintiff filed this action on Oct. 13, 2022. The Class Action
Complaint asserted two counts for (i) violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and (ii) breach of express warranty.
The Complaint sought relief for purchasers of Wheat Thins crackers
based on the Defendants' misrepresentation that Wheat Thins are
"100% WHOLE GRAIN" when in fact an ingredient in Wheat Thins is
cornstarch, which is a refined grain. Thus, not all grains in Wheat
Thins are whole grains.
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding,
beverage and snack food company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YbnRcy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Fox, Esq.
Joanna Fox, Esq.
Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
201 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 420
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (858) 256-7616
Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
E-mail: Dave@FoxLawAPC.com
Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com
Courtney@FoxLawAPC.com
NEW YORK CITY: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Pappas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled JOHN PAPPAS, et
al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-06010-LJL (S.D.N.Y.).
Defendant the City of New York ("Defendant" or the "City") moves to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, to
compel arbitration.
The Plaintiffs are 11 current and former Lieutenants and Sergeants
of the New York City Transit Police ("Transit Police") of the New
York Police Department ("NYPD"). The Plaintiffs are Lieutenant John
Pappas, Sergeant Randy Brenner, Sergeant Christopher Tabing,
Sergeant Marc Richardson, Sergeant Kristopher Jezsek, Sergeant
Carmen Mateo, Sergeant Brenda Graham, Sergeant Lisa Velez,
Lieutenant Brian Corrigan, Sergeant Edwin Rodriguez, and Sergeant
Michael Goggins.
Each of the Plaintiffs is considered a "Dog Handler" by the NYPD.
They are assigned a police dog owned by the NYPD to train and care
for. The police dogs live in each respective Dog Handler's home. As
a matter of policy, the City requires the Dog Handlers to train,
exercise and feed their assigned dogs seven days a week, 365 days a
year.
The Dog Handlers' duties include teaching the dogs basic commands,
obedience, walking, feeding, scent-work training, and exercising.
The Plaintiffs bathe, brush, exercise, feed, and groom the dogs,
clean the dogs' kennels and transport vehicles, and engage in
related activities at home on workdays, as well as on days off and
during vacation periods. The Plaintiffs also take their assigned
police dogs for veterinary care as necessary and are not
compensated for emergency veterinary visits that occur during
non-official work hours.
The Plaintiffs allege that virtually all other departments within
New York City and in New York State provide Dog Handlers with
additional pay regardless of title. Those departments include the
New York City Department of Corrections and the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, as well as the Metro
Transit Authority police and the polices departments of Nassau,
Suffolk, Orange, Westchester, and Rockland counties. Indeed, the
City previously provided a retired police Lieutenant with
compensation for his handler-related responsibilities prior to his
retirement.
On days when Dog Handlers are at work, they perform a minimum of
approximately two hours of unpaid overtime work with respect to
their assigned police dog. On days when Dog Handlers are not at
work, they perform a minimum of approximately one and a half hours
of unpaid overtime work with respect to their assigned police
dogs.
The City is required to pay all police officers overtime if they
work more than 171 hours in a 28-day cycle. The Plaintiffs allege,
however, that the Defendant failed to pay them the appropriate
overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 171 hours in a
28-day cycle.
The Plaintiffs initiated this case by complaint filed on July 13,
2023. They alleged that the Defendant failed to pay them overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). They also alleged that the
Defendant violated the NYLL by failing to provide them with
accurate wage notices and wage statements and failing to pay them
earned wages.
The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on Aug. 21, 2023,
and, with the consent of the Defendant and upon order of the Court,
filed a Second Amended Complaint on Nov. 16, 2023, adding two
Plaintiffs, seeking to bring the actions as a FLSA collective, and
eliminating all claims under the NYLL.
On Dec. 1, 2023, with the consent of the Defendant and upon order
of the Court, the Plaintiffs filed the TAC, operative here. The TAC
alleges two causes of action: (1) the failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the FLSA; and (2) the failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action
as a FLSA collective on behalf of themselves and "other similarly
situated persons who are current and former sergeants and
lieutenants and assigned a police dog by the City since the date
three years prior to the filing of the Complaint."
The Plaintiffs allege that there are approximately twenty-five
similarly-situated current and former Lieutenants and Sergeants of
NYPD, who are potential members of the FLSA collective.
On Dec. 15, 2023, the Defendant filed this motion to dismiss the
TAC or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration. The motion was
accompanied by a declaration of counsel and a memorandum of law. On
Feb. 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to the motion along with the Declaration of named
Plaintiff John Pappas. On Feb. 21, 2024, the Defendant filed a
reply memorandum of law in further support of the motion.
The Court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 27,
2024. At argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from
the parties regarding arbitration of the claims. On April 25, 2024,
after the parties submitted supplemental briefing, the Court held
additional oral argument regarding the arbitrability of the claims
brought by Sergeants.
The two agreements relevant to the Court's analysis are: the
collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Sergeants'
Benevolent Association, the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative for employees of the NYPD in the role of sergeant,
and the 2011–2018 Memorandum of Agreement ("2011–2018 MOA")
that modifies but otherwise extends the terms of the CBA once the
CBA expired on Aug. 11, 2011.
The Defendant makes several arguments in support of its motion. The
Defendant argues that the TAC must be dismissed with respect to the
nine Sergeants, who are Plaintiffs on the grounds that they are
parties to arbitration provisions in collective bargaining
agreements ("CBAs") that require arbitration of this dispute. The
Defendant also argues, among other things, that the TAC must be
dismissed in its entirety because the Plaintiffs fall within the
FLSA exemption for persons employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative or professional capacity.
Judge Liman finds that the Defendant has failed here to show that
the language of the 2011–2018 MOA is sufficiently clear to
require arbitration. In the absence of any showing by the Defendant
that there is clear and unmistakable language in the 2011–2018
MOA addressing the Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Liman points out that
the Defendant is not entitled to an order subjecting the Plaintiff
to mandatory arbitration.
For purposes of completeness, the Court notes that the Plaintiffs'
argument that the Defendant has waived its right to arbitrate
because of the work that has transpired in this case is without
merit. The Plaintiffs focus on the fact that the City did not
invoke its right to arbitration at any time after they filed a
notice of claim against the City in March 2023 until some
Plaintiffs had already been deposed, and the Plaintiffs had moved
for conditional certification of a class, and the Plaintiffs had
served document demands and requests for admission. But this does
not show that the Defendant resisted arbitration or expressed a
preference for litigation before the suit was initiated, or
knowingly abandoned that right. When the lawsuit was filed, the
Defendant raised its arguments regarding arbitration in its first
dispositive motion.
The Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the action for three
reasons: (1) that all the Plaintiffs, by virtue of being
Lieutenants and Sergeants, are exempt from FLSA's protections as
bona fide executives; (2) that the claims of two of the named
Plaintiffs are time-barred; and (3) that the TAC fails to state a
claim under the FLSA.
The Defendant relies on the Plaintiffs' pleading that they are
Lieutenants and Sergeants, as well as their corresponding job
definitions contained in Notices of Examination from 2022, in
support of its argument. However, Judge Liman points out, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. Section 541.2, a job title is not determinative of
whether an employee is exempt under the FLSA, citing Pippins v.
KPMG LLP, 921 F. Supp. 2d 26, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Kadden v.
VisuaLex, LLC, 910 F. Supp. 2d 523, 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to dismiss on the grounds
that the Plaintiffs are exempt from FLSA's protections as bona fide
executives.
The Defendant also seeks to dismiss the claims of two individual
Plaintiffs on the grounds that their claims are untimely.
Specifically, the Defendant contends that the claims of Lieutenant
Corrigan and Sergeant Velez must be dismissed as time-barred by
FLSA's two-year statute of limitations.
Judge Liman finds that Sergeant Velez's FLSA claims are
time-barred. The TAC alleges that Sergeant Velez was employed by
the NYPD as a Dog Handler from Jan. 23, 2013, through May 28, 2020.
As noted, a cause of action for unpaid and overtime wages under the
FLSA accrues on the regular payday immediately following the work
period for which services were rendered and not properly
compensated.
Accordingly, assuming Sergeant Velez could allege a willful
violation, the latest date that she could have filed a FLSA claim
was three years from the regular payday immediately following her
uncompensated workweek, in late May or early June 2023. However,
the complaint naming Sergeant Velez as a Plaintiff was not filed
until July 13, 2023. Accordingly, the statute of limitations
applies and her claims must be dismissed as time-barred.
The timeliness of any part of Lieutenant Corrigan's claim depends
on whether he has adequately alleged a willful violation. The
Plaintiffs allege that Lieutenant Corrigan was employed by the NYPD
as a Dog Handler from Oct. 7, 2017, through Aug. 25, 2020.
Lieutenant Corrigan was added as a Plaintiff in the Amended
Complaint, filed on Aug. 21, 2023. Assuming he has adequately
alleged willfulness, Judge Liman says he would have a FLSA claim
for the period Aug. 21, 2020, to Aug. 25, 2020.
Although the Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations that the
Defendant's violations of the FLSA were "willful" are on their own
insufficient to adequately plead willfulness, the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged facts that permit a plausible inference that
the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, Judge Liman holds.
The Court may consider the Dog Handler pay practices of City
departments to support the Plaintiffs' claim of willfulness.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged willfulness, and that Lieutenant Corrigan's claim is,
therefore, timely.
Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded
facts to establish that they worked uncompensated overtime or were
not paid a minimum wage.
Judge Liman finds that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts
establishing that any of them worked in excess of 171 hours in a
28-day work period. The Plaintiffs allege that upon information and
belief, for the work described, on days when Handlers are at work,
Handlers perform a minimum of approximately two hours of unpaid
overtime work with respect to their assigned police dog.
The Plaintiffs cannot base their information and belief allegation
on the assertion that information regarding the number of hours
they worked were peculiarly within the possession of their
employer, the NYPD, Judge Liman opines. By the very nature of the
Plaintiffs' allegations--that they were working uncompensated hours
at home--the information would be peculiarly within the possession
of the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs also cannot rely upon a presumption that because
they were handling police dogs, it is plausible that they were
working more than 171 hours in a 28-day work period, Judge Liman
holds. Tellingly, none of the Plaintiffs allege the hours that they
were on tour and not at home handling the police dogs. Thus, while
the Plaintiffs' allegations raise the possibility that they were
undercompensated in violation of the FLSA, absent any allegation
that they were scheduled to work more than 171 hours in a 28-day
period, these allegations do not state a plausible claim for such
relief.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, with the exception of Sergeant Velez,
are granted leave to amend the TAC to remedy the deficiencies
identified in this opinion.
For these reasons, the Court denies the motion to compel the
Sergeant-Plaintiffs to arbitration, as the Court construed it. The
Defendant's motion to dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim
is granted without prejudice to amendment by the Plaintiffs within
thirty days of the date of this Opinion and Order, with the
exception of the Defendant's motion to dismiss Sergeant Velez's
claims as time-barred, which is granted with prejudice. The Clerk
of Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 44.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 9,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2cdc5b from
PacerMonitor.com.
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON
ORTEGA, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW
YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Denise Cote entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties shall comply with their June 7, 2024
Rule 26(a) (1), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
initial disclosure obligations by:
2. No additional parties may be joined June 21, 2024
or pleadings amended after:
3. All fact discovery must be completed Nov. 15, 2024
by:
4. Plaintiffs' expert reports and Dec. 13, 2024
disclosure of expert testimony
conforming to the requirements of
Rule 26 (a) (2) (B), Fed. R. Civ.
P., must be served by:
5. Identification of rebuttal experts Jan. 24, 2025
and disclosure of their expert
testimony must occur by:
6. All expert discovery must be Feb. 21, 2025
completed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e0m02U at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bonewit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK BONEWIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-11338-DJC (D. Mass., May 21, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information of potentially
thousands of current and former employees and their beneficiaries,
including, but not limited to, name, Social Security number and
driver's license number.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the
unencrypted PII that was accessed and/or acquired by an
unauthorized actor included name and Social Security number or
driver's license number.
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
the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to
take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data,
and failing to follow applicable.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff's sensitive
information was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized actor. The
confidentiality of Plaintiff's sensitive information has been
irreparably harmed. For the rest of his life, Plaintiff will have
to worry about when and how his sensitive information may be shared
or used to his detriment, says the suit.
NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD LLC manufactures recycled containerboard.
The Company supplies recycled containerboard to the corrugated box
industry. New-Indy Containerboard operates in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garret D. Lee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
155 Federal Street, Suite 1502
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 383-4906
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: glee@forthepeople.com
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 448-1125
Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
NIKE RETAIL: Cruz Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANA CRUZ, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00874-L-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 13, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., will
move pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an
order as follows:
1. Certification of the "Class" defined as
"all individuals employed by the Defendant Nike Retail
Services,
Inc. in California and classified as non-exempt employees
during
the period March 24, 2019, to the date of the order granting
Class Certification."
2. Certification of the "Missed Meal Period Subclass" defined
as
"all individuals employed by the Defendant Nike Retail
Services,
Inc. in California and classified as non-exempt employees
during
the period March 24, 2019, to the date of the order granting
Class Certification for whom missed meal periods are
evidenced
in Defendant's timekeeping system."
3. Certification of the "Late Meal Period Subclass" defined as
"all individuals employed by Defendant in California and
classified as non-exempt employees during the period March
24,
2019 to the date of the order granting Class Certification
for
whom meal periods are evidenced in the Defendant's
timekeeping
system as starting after the end of the fifth hour worked."
4. Certification of the "Regular Rate Subclass" defined as
"all individuals employed by Defendant in California and
classified as non-exempt employees during the period March
24,
2019 to the date of the order granting Class Certification
shown
in Defendant's payroll records to have been paid a Milestone
Bonus and overtime wages."
5. Appointment of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP as
Class Counsel; and
6. Approving the designation of Adriana Cruz as the Class
Representative.
The Plaintiff brings the first cause of action under the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) for restitution for the Defendant's
unlawful and unfair practices for failing to provide meal periods
and failing to pay meal period premiums payments.
The Plaintiff also brings the first cause of action under the UCL
for restitution for the Defendant's unlawful and unfair practice
for failing to pay the Regular Rate Subclass for overtime worked
based on The Defendant's failure to include Milestone Bonus
compensation in the calculation of the regular rate of pay during
the Class Period.
The third cause of action is for damages under Labor Code sections
510, et seq. for unpaid overtime wage damages on behalf of the
Regular Rate Subclass during the time period of March 24, 2019,
until the present.
Nike is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and children's
footwear.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wjywEw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq.
Christine T. LeVu, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Seeks to Hold Lorusso Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lorusso et al., v.
Northwell Health Pension Plan et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02785-JS-AYS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
their request that Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be
held in abeyance and a briefing schedule be set on the motion, if
necessary, following a decision on the Defendants' forthcoming
motion to dismiss and completion of class discovery.
The Plaintiffs' claims concern alleged events that took place over
25 years ago, in 1998 and 1999.
Despite an extensive (quarter-century) delay in filing this action,
the Plaintiffs seek to rush this case towards a certification
decision. Indeed, because the Plaintiffs will not agree to hold the
Motion for Class Certification in abeyance, the Plaintiffs
apparently purport to require a response to the Motion before the
Defendants' July 22, 2024 deadline to respond to the Complaint. The
Plaintiffs position is illogical and unsupported on its face.
Northwell is a healthcare provider that owns an integrated health
care delivery system in the New York metropolitan area.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kekG5n at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa D. Hill, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Telephone: (212) 309-6318
E-mail: melissa.hill@morganlewis.com
NOVOCURE LTD: Continues to Defend LUNAR Data Omission Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovoCure Ltd. 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 LUNAR data omission class suit.
In June 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, its Executive Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer.
The complaint, later amended to add our Chief Financial Officer as
a defendant, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
ordinary shares of the Company from January 5, 2023 through June 5,
2023, alleges material misstatements and/or omissions in the
Company's public statements with respect to the results from its
phase 3 LUNAR clinical trial.
The Company believes that the action is without merit and plans to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.
NovoCure Limited is a global oncology company with a proprietary
platform technology called Tumor Treating Fields, which are
electric fields that exert physical forces to kill cancer cells via
a variety of mechanisms. Its key priorities are to drive commercial
adoption of "Optune Gio(R)" and "Optune Lua(R)," its commercial
therapy devices.
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Cullors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit captioned Stacia Cullors, et al. v.
Nurture Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05402 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY
FOOD LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4um5pcyn from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit styled Gutierrez v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03499 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/27ks78cy from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss in Smith Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit styled Smith v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01534 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3h6x7z4c from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss in Soto Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit captioned Soto v Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01271 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/msw76sb2 from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Spencer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit entitled Spencer v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06861 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ahmpkzy7 from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Court Allows Filing of Bid to Dismiss Strobel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit styled Strobel v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02129 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58ehtuha from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Granted Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Altuve's FACC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit captioned Altuve, et al. v. Nurture Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06678 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24f9hhh4 from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Granted Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Hampton's FACC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit styled Hampton, et al. v Nurture Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01882 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42mtsrpf from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Has Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Skibicki's FACC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit titled Skibicki v. Nurture Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02553 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2t49bdt4 from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Has Leave to File Bid to Dismiss Stewart's FACC
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit entitled Stewart, et al. v Nurture Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01217 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3h5y7j9v from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Has Leave to Seek Dismissal of FACC in Williams Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant leave to file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit titled Williams v. Nurture Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06918 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ym6j6z5m from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Jain's Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jain v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01473 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3y5shtf4 from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Lawrence to File Objection to Dismissal Bid by June 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Lawrence, et al. v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05748 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyjk7ds from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Albert Suit Due June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Albert, et al. v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08030 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3jheet5c from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Gothot Suit Due June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Gothot v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04997 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/e79xexrb from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Johnson Suit Due June 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Johnson v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07283 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3n4ecbty from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Robbins Suit Due June 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Charles Robbins v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05344 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ht449k7 from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Opposition to Bid to Dismiss Westin Suit Due June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Westin v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02101 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yn36fhzc from PacerMonitor.com.
NURTURE LLC: Philippe May Oppose Bid to Dismiss FACC by June 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Philippe, et al. v. Nurture Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06632 (S.D.N.Y.). In re NURTURE BABY FOOD LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules
that the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
due on June 7, 2024.
On May 7, 2024, pursuant to an Order of the Court, Defendant
Nurture, LLC, filed a letter informing the Court of its intent to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACC") and to file new briefing in support of
such motion, rather than rest on or supplement its briefing
submitted in connection with its prior motion to dismiss.
The Defendant further requests that the Court waive its requirement
that the Defendant file a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
as to its motion to dismiss.
Based in White Plains, New York, Nurture manufactures, markets,
advertises, packages, distributes, and sells baby food products
under the brand name Happy Family Organics, including premium
products for infants and young children marketed as Happy Baby
Organics ("HappyBABY") and Happy Tot Organics ("HappyTOT"),
throughout the United States, including in this District.
The consolidated class action lawsuit is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional, knowing, and/or reckless
practice of failing to disclose the presence (or material risk) of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "heavy metals"),
perchlorate, and/or other contaminants in its baby food. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's baby food sold throughout
the United States does not conform to its packaging and fails to
disclose information material to consumers.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances in its packaging and restoring monies to the
members of the proposed Classes.
Judge Vyskocil says that the Defendant is not required to file a
pre-motion letter to request leave to file a motion to dismiss the
FACC. The Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to dismiss
the FACC and to file new briefing in connection therewith. The
briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion is as follows: motion
due May 24, 2024; opposition due June 7, 2024; reply due June 14,
2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd98kh6h from PacerMonitor.com.
O'REILLY AUTO: Pipich Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY PIPICH, EVE STORM,
GARY CULL, MELISSA KOLAKOWSKI, and DANIEL LOPEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and as "aggrieved
employees" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Express
Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation dba Express Employment
Professionals; and DOES 2–50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-01120-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) granting class certification of the Settlement Class solely
for
settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure section 23;
The "Settlement Class" or "Class Members" consists of all
individuals employed by one or both Defendants as
non-exempt,
hourly employees, either directly or indirectly through
staffing agencies, and who worked at one of Defendant
O'Reilly
Auto Enterprises, LLC's distribution centers in California
at
any time during the Class Period.
"Class Period" means the period from July 5, 2018 to May 22,
2024.
(2) preliminarily approving the Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Agreement and Class Notice (the "Settlement" or "Settlement
Agreement") between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants,
(3) appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm, Alexandra K.
Piazza of Berger Montague PC, and Walter L. Haines of United
Employees Law Group as Class Counsel;
(4) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
(5) approving the use of the proposed notice procedures;
(6) directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement
Class; and
(7) scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of
class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and
costs.
O'Reilly provides private-label and generic automotive products for
domestic and imported cars.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4XLyVK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
8605 Santa Monica Blvd., PMB 42554
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 725-9094
Facsimile: (213) 634-2485
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
caroline@spivaklaw.com
- and -
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: apiazza@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
Walter L. Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
8605 Santa Monica Blvd., PMB 63354
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Peterson, Esq.
Edwin M. Boniske, Esq.
Derek W. Paradis, Esq.
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-7913
Telephone: (619) 236-1551
Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com
boniske@higgslaw.com
paradisd@higgslaw.com
- and -
Morgan Forsey, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 443-7538
Facsimile: (213) 629-7401
E-mail: morgan.forsey@afslaw.com
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lilien Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olaplex Holdings 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 Lilien securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On November 17, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned Lilien v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc.
et al., No. 2:22-cv-08395.
A consolidated complaint was filed on April 28, 2023, which names
as additional defendants the underwriters for the Company's IPO and
various stockholders that sold shares of common stock of the
Company in the IPO.
The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO
and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
The action seeks certification of the putative class, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief that the
court determines is appropriate.
The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July
19, 2023.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss on
October 16, 2023, and a decision has yet to be issued.
The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their
intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO
underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted in this
action.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the pending lawsuit.
Olaplex Holdings, Inc. operates indirectly through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Penelope and Olaplex, Inc., which conducts business
under the name "Olaplex." Olaplex develops, manufactures and
distributes a line of hair care products developed to address three
key uses: treatment, maintenance and protection.
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opendoor Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from consolidated securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
On October 7, 2022 and November 22, 2022, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor
Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM) ("Alich")
and Oakland County Voluntary Employee's Beneficiary Association, et
al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No.
2:22-cv-01987-GMS) ("Oakland County"), respectively.
The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, captioned In
re Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:22-CV-01717-MTL).
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II ("SCH"), certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of a securities offering the Company made in February
2021.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and
that the Company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the
underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each
case by making materially false or misleading statements related to
the effectiveness of the Company's pricing algorithm.
The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
respectively, which provide for control person liability.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Company common stock between
December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering
documents issued in connection with our business combination with
SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in
February 2021.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023, which the
court granted on February 27, 2024 without prejudice.
On March 13, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of certain portions of the court's order dismissing
the complaint, which is pending before the court.
The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
in the matter.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for
residential real estate that enables sellers and buyers of
residential real estate to experience a simple and certain
transactions.
PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Jacobs Suit Moved to Alameda Super. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion and
remands the lawsuit titled TOM JACOBS, Plaintiff v. PALAMERICAN
SECURITY (CALIFORNIA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01079-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda.
Plaintiff Tom Jacobs brings the putative class action against
Defendant Palamerican Security (California) Inc. for failure to
timely pay minimum wage and overtime wages, permit meal and rest
periods, reimburse employees for employment-related costs, and
provide accurate wage statements. Before the Court is the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and request for attorneys' fees.
Having considered the briefing, the Court concludes oral argument
is unnecessary, and grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand but
denies his request for attorneys' fees. Judge Corley opines that
the Defendant has failed to establish the Plaintiff's claims are
preempted by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, so the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action
Judge Corley notes that the Defendant removed this action based on
federal question jurisdiction on the grounds this action is
preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The Plaintiff
moves to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's claims substantially
depend on the Collective Bargaining Agreement on the grounds the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (1) contains a class action waiver,
(2) provides that the dispute resolution process is the exclusive
means of resolving wage and hour disputes, (3) requires and
describes contract-specific procedures for employees, who allegedly
do not receive meal and/or rest breaks, and (4) defines which calls
are reimbursable and provides a procedure for obtaining
reimbursement for such expenses.
Judge Corley opines that the class action waiver is a defense, and
the preemption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act is not mandated simply because the Defendant refers to the
Collective Bargaining Agreement in mounting a defense. Judge Corley
holds that the Defendant fails to show the Plaintiff's claims
require interpretation of the class action waiver.
Because the class action waiver presents a Section 301 issue only
because of the Defendant's defense, and not from the face of the
complaint, Judge Corley points out, among other things, that the
exception does not apply.
The Plaintiff insists he is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs
incurred as a result of the Defendant's removal and requests an
award of $7,200.
Judge Corley notes that neither party advances any argument as to
whether the Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
removal. Though the Defendant's removal lacked merit, it was not
objectively unreasonable because the Plaintiff's employment with
the Defendant was governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So, Judge Corley denies the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees
and costs.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's motion for remand
is granted, but his motion for attorneys' fees is denied. This
action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Alameda. This Order disposes of Docket No. 13.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vm654sz from PacerMonitor.com.
PALM BEACH: Discloses Private Info to Meta, Google, Prosky Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RON PROSKY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PALM BEACH HEALTH NETWORK PHYSICIAN GROUP D/B/A PALM
BEACH HEALTH NETWORK, and PALM BEACH GARDENS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
INC. D/B/A PALM BEACH GARDENS MEDICAL CENTER, Case No.
9:24-cv-80656-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants systematically violate the medical privacy rights of its
patients by exposing their highly sensitive personal information
without their patient' knowledge or consent, through the use of the
Meta Platform Inc. d/b/a Facebook tracking and collection tools.
According to the complaint, the Defendants installed Facebook's
Meta Pixel and other invisible third-party tracking technology, on
its Websites in order to intercept Users' PII and PHI with the
express purpose of disclosing that Private Information to third
parties such as Meta and/or Google LLC in violation of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Privacy Rule
and 42 U.S.C. section 1320d-6 as well as state, federal and common
law. Meta then associates the Private Information received with the
individual User whose information was disclosed and creates
targeted advertising that it sends to that User's personal Facebook
accounts, the suit says.
The Defendants (or any third parties) did not obtain the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior consent before sharing their
sensitive, confidential communications with third parties such as
Facebook. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including lack of
trust in communicating with doctors online; emotional distress and
heightened concerns related to the release of Private Information
to third parties; loss of the benefit of the bargain; diminution of
value of the Private Information; and continued and ongoing risk to
their Private Information, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, to remedy these harms and therefore asserts the
following claims against Defendants: (i) Violation of the Florida
Security of Communications Act, (ii) Violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (iii) Violation of
Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (iv) Invasion of Privacy;
(v) Breach of Implied Contract; (vi) Negligence; (vii) Breach of
Confidence; (viii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (ix) Unjust
Enrichment.
Plaintiff Prosky began receiving healthcare services from PBGMC in
2019 and continued until mid-2021. The Plaintiff utilized Defendant
Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center Website and Patient Portal
("PBGMC Web Properties") in connection with said services.
PBHN includes a large multi-specialty physician group, ambulatory
surgery centers, outpatient diagnostic facilities and six hospitals
and care centers throughout Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avanes, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (231) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Lambert Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Lambert, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Does 1
through 10, Case No. 24SL-CC01851 was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on May 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00732-NCC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Pepperidge Farm -- https://www.pepperidgefarm.com/ -- is an
American commercial bakery founded in 1937 by Margaret Rudkin, who
named the brand after her family's 123-acre farm property in
Fairfield, Connecticut, which had been named for the pepperidge
tree.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
St. Louis, MO 63119
Phone: (314) 550-3717
Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian A. Lamping, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Fax: (314) 552-7055
Email: blamping@thompsoncoburn.com
PHOENIX LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Liz Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Phoenix Leather Goods, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03954 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website "Beltoutlet.com" to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Phoenix Leather Goods provides to
their non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff
browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a leather belt
on Beltoutlet.com. Unfortunately, he encountered numerous
accessibility errors that prevented him from effectively browsing
the site's pages. As a result, he was unable to fully explore the
range of products offered by the company, and could not complete
the purchase or access customer service for assistance.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Phoenix Leather Goods' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Liz is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Phoenix is an online fashion retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN M.D.
P.A., v. PRECISION IMAGING ST. AUGUSTINE LLC and HALO DX, INC.,
Case No. 6:22-cv-00642-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Jr udge Daniel
Irick entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On Feb. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a one-count Amended Class
Action Complaint alleging that Defendants violated the TCPA by
sending four unsolicited fax advertisements to the Plaintiff and
other recipients without the required opt-out language and without
first receiving the Recipients' express invitation or permission.
According to the Motion, the Defendants successfully sent 14,303
unsolicited fax advertisements (the Faxes) to 4,922 unique fax
numbers in broadcasts conducted on February 9, 2022, February 15,
2022, and February 17, 2022, advertising the commercial
availability and quality of their imaging services.
The Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court certifying the
following class:
-- Class A
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax by
Defendants (1) on or about Feb. 9, 2022, offering reduced
pricing
for heart scans, (2) on or about Feb. 15, 2022, that states
"Join
Us for Mammos and Mimosas this Weekend," or (iii) [sic] on or
about February 17, 2022, that announces new members of
Precision
Imaging Centers, and which advises of Saturday hours."
Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the following
alternative class in the event the Court finds there are
individual issues as to 970 recipients1 from whom Precision
claims
it obtained permission to send promotional/informational
communications during "in person visits":
-- Class B
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax (1)
on
or about Feb. 9, 2022, offering reduced pricing for heart
scans,
(2) on or about Feb. 15, 2022, that states "Join Us for Mammos
and
Mimosas this Weekend," or (iii) [sic] on or about Feb. 17,
2022,
that announces new members of Precision Imaging Centers, and
which
advises of Saturday hours."
Excluded from Class B are the 970 "referral sources" listed in
Exhibit A to Precision's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses
whom
Defendants claim provided permission to send "promotional and
information communications" during "in person visits" by
Precision.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated May 23, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y8S3tn
at no extra charge.[CC]
PREMIER DISABILITY: Wilkin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Disability
Services LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Wilkin, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Premier Disability
Services LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00482 (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Premier Disability Services, LLC -- https://premierdisability.com/
-- is a nationwide Social Security Disability firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
PROCTER AND GAMBLE: Request to Bifurcate Class Denied in Izzo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Izzo v. The Procter and
Gamble Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-02125 (D.S.C., Filed May 18,
2023), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order
declining the Defendant's request to bifurcate class and merits
discovery in this case.
The Court finds bifurcating discovery in this case would not
further judicial economy.
Separating merits and class discovery 'raise[s] a slew of issues as
to what discovery relates to the class, as opposed to the named
plaintiffs, thereby causing additional litigation regarding the
distinction between the two.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.
Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation.[CC]
RAPID PALLET: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAPID PALLET, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00177-JKM (M.D. Pa.), Judge Julia K.
Munley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania grants, without prejudice, the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Williams, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, filed an
amended class action/collective action complaint against the
Defendant involving allegations that it violated federal and state
law in paying its employees. The Honorable Robert D. Mariani
transferred this case to Judge Munley on Nov. 7, 2023.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff from December 2018 through
November 2021 as a manual laborer, who manufactured, produced,
constructed, and assembled pallets and skids for use in shipping.
The Defendant permitted the Plaintiff and class members to
regularly work greater than forty (40) hours in a workweek. The
Plaintiff's ordinary payroll check paid him for forty (40) hours at
his hourly rate of pay. For hours worked in excess of forty (40)
hours, the Defendant paid him in cash at his usual hourly rate, not
the legally mandated overtime rate of 1.5 times the regular rate.
Additionally, the Plaintiff received a "production bonus," which
was not tied to the number of hours he worked. The Defendant failed
to compensate him and the class members in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.,
and/or the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The Plaintiff
and the class members were all subject to the Defendant's uniform
policy regarding the improper payment of overtime wages.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging
violations of the FLSA and the PMWA on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated. The Plaintiff's amended complaint
contains three counts: Count I, a claim for overtime wages under
the FLSA; Count II, a claim for overtime wages under the PMWA; and
Count III, a claim for unjust enrichment.
The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended
complaint, bringing the case to its present posture. The motion
raises several issues. The Court will address only one of these
issues -- that is the timeliness of the Plaintiff's amended
complaint, as the Court finds it to be dispositive.
The Plaintiff originally filed a complaint on Feb. 4, 2022. The
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. In
response, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, purportedly
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1 )(B).
On March 31, 2022, the Defendant filed and served a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to Rules
12(b)(6), 8(a), and 9(b). Under Rule 15, the Plaintiff had until
twenty-one (21) days later, April 21, 2022, to properly file an
amended complaint as a matter of course. The instant amended
complaint was filed after the deadline; specifically, it was filed
on April 26, 2022. Therefore, Judge Munley opines, it is untimely
with regard to filing as a matter of course, and the Plaintiff
needs the consent of opposing counsel or the Court's leave to file
the amended complaint.
The Defendant argues that the amended complaint should be dismissed
without prejudice as untimely. The Defendant argues that the Court
should dismiss the amended complaint subject to the Plaintiff
obtaining consent or leave of court (by motion) to file an amended
complaint.
After a careful review, the Court agrees. The Court finds that
dismissal of the amended complaint, without prejudice, is
appropriate. The Court finds that directing the Plaintiff to
proceed through the proper process would be useful for both the
parties and the Court. The requirement of a motion or consent of
opposing counsel before filing an amended complaint is important to
test the adequacy of the proposed amendment before requiring the
Defendant to answer or move to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the Plaintiff filed the amended complaint after the
expiration of the deadline for filing it as a matter of course. The
Plaintiff needs either concurrence of the opposing party or leave
of court to file the amended complaint.
If the Plaintiff does not obtain the Defendant's concurrence in
filing the amended complaint, and instead files a motion for leave
to file the complaint, Judge Munley points out that all procedural
rules should be followed including Local Rule 15.1, which directs
that a copy of the proposed amended complaint should accompany the
motion, as well as a copy of the original pleading with stricken
material lined through and added material underlined.
For these reasons, Judge Munley rules that the Defendant's motion
to dismiss will be granted, and the Plaintiff's amended complaint
will be dismissed without prejudice to obtain concurrence to file
an amended complaint or to file a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint in compliance with all relevant procedural
rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybfp4taj from PacerMonitor.com.
RB HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 21
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DIGIACINTO, an
individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. RB HEALTH (US), LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 4:22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Donna Ryu entered an order granting the Parties' Joint
Stipulated Request to Extend Case Deadlines by 60 days.
The deadlines in this case shall be as follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Expert Reports on Class Certification: July 22, 2024
Expert Rebuttal Reports on Class Aug. 26, 2024
Certification:
Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 21, 2024
Opposition to Motion for Class Nov. 18, 2024
Certification:
Reply in Support of Motion for Class Dec. 16, 2024
Certification:
Hearing for Motion for Class Jan. 23, 2025 at
1:00
Certification: p.m. by Zoom
videoconference
Last day for hearing on dispositive May 8, 2025
Motion:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WgqHp6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Sept. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamez v. Redbox Automated
Retail, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-01497 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia M. Hernandez Cov entered an order granting the joint
motion to continue certain deadlines and reset the mediation
conference.
-- The deadline to file a motion for class Sept. 20, 2024
certification is now:
-- The discovery deadline is now: Oct. 15, 2024
-- The dispositive motions deadline is now: Nov. 8, 2024
-- All other motions are now due by: Feb. 13, 2025
-- The joint meeting to prepare the Feb. 24, 2025
pretrial statement must now occur by:
-- The pretrial statement is now due: March 6, 2025
-- The pretrial conference is now: March 13, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Redbox is an American video on-demand streaming and video rental
company.[CC]
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Tredo Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Tredo class suit in the San
Diego County Superior Court.
On June 28, 2023, Lisset Tredo, a Company employee, filed a
putative class action complaint in the San Diego County Superior
Court on behalf of all non-exempt employees in California, in which
she alleges violations by the Company of the California Labor Code
related to sick leave pay, accurate wage statements, recordkeeping,
and pay timing, and on August 28, 2023 she filed a first amended
complaint adding a claim under the California Private Attorneys
General Act (the "Tredo Lawsuit").
In the Tredo Lawsuit, Tredo seeks alleged unpaid wages,
restitution, interest, statutory penalties, civil penalties,
attorneys’ fees and costs in an unknown amount.
The Company answered the Tredo Lawsuit in which it asserted a
general denial of plaintiff's allegations and asserted various
defenses.
The Company is investigating the allegations and defenses.
At the request of plaintiff's counsel, the parties have agreed to
postpone mediation from January 2024 to May 2024, and to stay
formal discovery pending the outcome of the mediation.
If the case is not resolved at mediation, it intends to defend the
matter vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that it will
be successful in such defense.
At this stage the Company is unable to estimate the total costs to
defend the matter and have estimated the potential liability to be
immaterial to the Company in the event that it is not successful in
its defense.
Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and developer of
technology-driven smoke and carbon monoxide detection home safety
products and security solutions. It is also a wholesale distributor
of low-voltage security products including access control, fire
detection, fire suppression, security, and video products.
RESTAURANT LIFE: Partial Bid to Dismiss Surgento Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida denies the Defendant's
partial motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint in the lawsuit
captioned MARYELLEN SURGENTO, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT LIFE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60306-RS (S.D. Fla.).
The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for the
purpose of resolving the Partial Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated against the Defendant, her former
employer, raising claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"). She alleges that the Defendant
violated the law by failing to give employees proper notice that it
would credit tips against the applicable minimum wage; requiring
employees to share tips with owners, supervisors, and managers;
requiring employees to use tips to cover the costs of walkout and
dine-and-dash customers; and paying employees less than the
applicable minimum wage when they performed non-tipped duties.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the five counts brought under
the FMWA (Counts I, III, V, VI, and VII), contending that the
Plaintiff failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing a
lawsuit under the FMWA. The Defendant argues that that the
Plaintiff's FMWA claims fail to satisfy "the express language as
well as the intent" of Section 448.110(6).
The Court is unclear about the Defendant's procedural basis for
dismissal, as the Partial Motion to Dismiss includes the legal
standards to dismiss both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Defendant has cited no authority, and the Court has found none,
that holds that a plaintiff's failure to comply with Section
448.110(6) deprives a federal court of subject matter
jurisdiction.
At this motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court must accept as true the
Plaintiff's allegations that she satisfied the conditions precedent
to filing this lawsuit. Thus, it does not appear to the Court that
the Defendant has brought its challenge at the correct procedural
posture. But even if the Defendant did bring its challenge at the
correct procedural posture, Judge Augustin-Birch says the Partial
Motion to Dismiss must be denied.
The Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiff sent it a notice of
her FMWA claims before she initiated this lawsuit. The Defendant
does not contend that the notice was deficient as to the minimum
wages that the Plaintiff is claiming. The Defendant's challenge is
to the sufficiency of the notice as it relates to minimum wages
owed to other class members.
Although the Partial Motion to Dismiss is not entirely clear, Judge
Augustin-Birch says the Defendant's challenge seems to be based on
one or more of the following propositions: (1) a plaintiff cannot
bring a class action for violation of the FMWA; (2) a notice of
FMWA claims on behalf of a class must itemize the minimum wages
purportedly due to each class member; and/or (3) a FMWA plaintiff
may not condition acceptance of the minimum wages she contends are
due for herself on payment of the minimum wages that other class
members purportedly are due.
However, Judge Augustin-Birch finds the Defendant does not cite any
authority that stands for any of these propositions, and each is
incorrect. First, the FMWA expressly permits a plaintiff to bring a
class action for violation of the FMWA.
Second, Judge Augustin-Birch explains, it is unnecessary for a
notice of FMWA claims on behalf of a class to itemize the minimum
wages purportedly due to each class member. The potential class
members likely are unknown to the plaintiff at the pre-suit stage,
and thus, it is unreasonable to require member-by-member
itemization.
Third and finally, Judge Augustin-Birch points out a defendant may
not avoid a class FMWA lawsuit by pre-suit tender of the minimum
wages that the plaintiff contends are due to her. If such a
practice were permitted, a FMWA defendant could avoid being held
responsible to the class simply by paying the relatively modest
amount that an individual claims.
Judge Augustin-Birch finds the Defendant has not demonstrated that
the Plaintiff's FMWA claims should be dismissed for failure to
satisfy a condition precedent.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Partial Motion
to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8x9fpmf from PacerMonitor.com.
REVAIRA LLC: Zappavigna Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ZAPPAVIGNA, individually v. REVAIRA, LLC, d/b/a REVAIRA
ITALIAN STEAKHOUSE, and GEORGE HANNA, Individually, Case No.
4:24-cv-00041 (W.D. Tenn., May 20, 2024) is a class action seeking
to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act as well as under the Tennessee doctrine of
conversion to recover the Plaintiff's tips that Defendants
unlawfully appropriated to its management staff.
Plaintiff Zappavigna was hired by Defendants as a restaurant
employee at $1,000.00 per week and served in that capacity until
the Defendants later stopped his $1,000 per week and commenced to
pay him only some of the tips he received from customers. While
receiving $1,000 per week pay, the Plaintiff Zappavigna's primary
duties were to clean the restaurant, stock and inventory food and
drink items, prepare food and service customers, the suit says.
While receiving $1,000 per week pay, the Plaintiff Zappavigna never
supervised any employees nor was he responsible for any business
operations for the Defendant at any times material to this lawsuit.
As a result, he was never an exempt employee from overtime
compensation during all times material, the Plaintiff asserts.
Plaintiff Zappavigna routinely worked more than 70 hours per week
while employed at $1,000.00 per week but never received one and
one-half times his effective regular hourly rate of pay of $25.00
per hour for all hours over 40 per week within weekly pay periods.
Revaira is an Italian steakhouse restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
REVLON CONSUMER: Jurdi Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lillian Jurdi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, a New
York limited liability company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV08861 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 23, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-04288.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for violation of
California Penal Code arising from Revlon's alleged installation of
software on its consumer-facing website,
https://www.revlonsanz.com..[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Phone: +1 973 549 7000
Facsimile: +1 973 360 9831
Email: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Victor J. Sandoval, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: +1 310 203 4000
Facsimile: +1 310 229 1285
Email: victor.sandoval@faegredrinker.com
REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Disner
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s
motion for substitution of plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned
Matthew E. Orso in his capacity as Court-appointed receiver for Rex
Venture Group, LLC dba ZeekRewards.com, Plaintiff v. Todd Disner
and Samuel Timpson, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01608-JAD-DJA (D.
Nev.).
Nationwide explains that Defendant Timpson was a beneficiary of a
massive Ponzi scheme called ZeekRewards. The Securities and
Exchange Commission shut the scheme down in 2012 and appointed a
receiver, Kenneth Bell, to reclaim ill-gotten funds obtained by
"net winners" of the scheme like the Defendant. Bell filed a class
action case in the Western District of North Carolina and
ultimately obtained final judgments against thousands of net
winners.
In 2019, Matthew Orso was appointed as successor receiver. In that
role, he sold thousands of final judgments to Nationwide in July of
2019, including the judgment against the Defendant. Nationwide
asserts that the transfer of interest in the judgments was
completed on Dec. 16, 2019.
Afterwards, the Western District of North Carolina amended the
caption of the final judgment to replace Orso with Nationwide and
many courts in the Middle District of Florida have ruled on
Nationwide's substitution motions--like the motion here--and
granted them.
Judge Albregts notes that federal and Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure 25(c) provide for substitution of parties where a
transfer of interest has occurred during litigation. Whether to
transfer is within the discretion of the Court.
The Court finds substitution appropriate. Although not controlling,
Judge Albregts opines that the numerous federal courts in Florida
that have granted Nationwide's substitution requests are persuasive
here.
The Court also finds that where the assignee wishes to enforce the
judgment and have the Court enter writs of garnishment,
substitution is appropriate and necessary for enforcement of the
judgment.
The Court, therefore, grants Nationwide's motion for substitution.
The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Plaintiff Matthew E.
Orso with Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2yzp73ej from PacerMonitor.com.
RIKENMIO INC: Trippett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rikenmio, Inc. The
case is styled as Alfred Trippett, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rikenmio, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-03670-FB-JRC (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.[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
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Mattson Seeks More Time to File Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROCKET MORTGAGE,
LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00989-YY (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending deadline to respond to Rocket's
motion to deny class certification.
Mattson requests a one-week extension to file his response in
opposition to Rocket Mortgage's motion to deny class certification.
The requested extension would put Mattson's new deadline to file a
response on May 30, 2024.
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.
Rocket Mortgage does not oppose the requested extension.
Rocket Mortgage is an American mortgage lender.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m6VKuN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Caldwell Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Chynna Caldwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a corporation, Case No.
2:24-cv-02756-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 22, 2024), is brought arising
from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA")
and common law as a result of the Defendant's failure to compensate
proper wages.
The Defendant employed Customer Service Representatives with job
titles that include, but are not limited to, Customer Service
Representative, Customer Advocate, Customer Support Advocate, and
Field Service Representative (collectively referred to herein as
"CSRs") in brick-and-mortar call centers and in remote call center
settings across the United States The Defendant violated the FLSA
and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for
work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts and
during their unpaid meal periods, when they were not logged into
Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted
in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, and in
non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. More specifically, the
Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they
spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems
prior to clocking into the Defendant's timekeeping system and when
returning from their meal periods; closing all work applications
and systems they used during their shift; disconnecting from the
Defendant's server; and shutting down their computer after their
last fielded call for the shift concluded and after clocking out of
Defendant's timekeeping system, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
CSR.
The Defendant holds itself out to be "the largest auto glass repair
and replacement organization in the U.S.," and claims that its
services are "available to 96% of drivers in all 50 states."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: 614-221-4221
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: 248-355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
SAINT THOMAS HEALTH: Wilkin Files Suit in Tenn. 20th Judicial Dist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Thomas Health.
The case is styled as Yvonne Pratt, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Saint Thomas Health, Case No.
24-0647-II (Tenn. 20th Judicial Dist., Davidson Cty., May 24,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Damages/Torts."
Ascension Saint Thomas (AST) -- https://healthcare.ascension.org/
-- is a leading health care system.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
SAZERAC COMPANY: Bethea Sues Over Misleading Representations
------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Bethea, Joseph Vazquez, and Mariahlee Spahn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAZERAC COMPANY
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03747-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024), is
brought as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading
representations, comparisons, and omissions with regards to the
Defendant's Chi-Chi's Original Margarita Malt.
Chi-Chi's is believed to be responsible for popularizing "Mexico's
favorite drink" across the United States, introducing generations
of Americans to the irresistible mix of tequila, triple sec, and
lime juice. For those seeking to recapture the Chi-Chi's
excitement, Sazerac Company Inc. introduced large bottles of
Chi-Chi's "Original Margarita," in gold and green labeling,
corresponding to the key margarita ingredients of tequila and lime,
with pictures of an agave plant and fresh limes, above a cocktail
glass filled above the brim with a frozen margarita, rimmed with
salt and a wedge of lime, described as "Made With Tequila & Triple
Sec."
To boost sales, Defendant decided to not just compete against other
mini bottles of mixed drinks based on distilled spirits, by
developing and marketing a "pseudo cocktail" version of Chi-Chi's
Original Margarita. This version was manufactured and designed to
look and taste like its higher valued counterpart, but based not on
distilled spirits, but a malt alcohol base, so it could be sold in
more locations. To protect consumers from having to "fly-speck" the
alcoholic beverages they buy, the Federal Alcohol Administration
Act ("FAAA") prohibits sellers from passing off lower quality malt
beverages as distilled spirits, "irrespective of falsity," with
respect to, inter alia, "their identity and quality." ("Labeling");
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations ("C.F.R."), Parts 1 to 39,
Tax and Trade Bureau ("TTB").
The labelling of the Chi-Chi's Original Margarita Malt is
misleading for multiple reasons. First, while the malt version is
required to have a "brand name," "Chi-Chi's Original Margarita" "is
misleading because it creates by itself erroneous impressions or
inference as to its identity, or other characteristics." This is
because Chi-Chi's Original Margarita is associated with, and
understood by consumers, as referring to the tequila and triple
sec-based version. Second, the "Chi-Chi's Original Margarita" brand
name "is misleading because it creates an erroneous impression or
inference as to its identity, or other characteristics," viz., that
it contains the distilled spirt of tequila and orange liqueur, like
its counterpart.
Third, "Chi-Chi's Original Margarita" is not "qualified with the
word 'brand' or with some other qualification which could dispel
any misleading impression that might otherwise be created," that it
contains tequila and triple sec, like its counterpart, when it does
not. Fourth, though the Product's "statement of composition," "Malt
Beverage With Natural Flavors and FD&C Yellow," "only meets the
Minimum type size," it is not "readily legible to potential
consumers under ordinary conditions." Fifth, retailers selling the
Chi-Chi's Margarita Malt display it next to other "pseudo-spirits,"
like Fireball and Southern Comfort, all in miniature bottles. As
these pseudo-spirits are often promoted as "shots," their promotion
next to the Margarita Malt furthers the misleading impression the
Chi-Chi's Margarita Malt contains tequila and triple sec, even
though it is a malt beverage.
As a result of the false and misleading representations,
comparisons, and omissions identified here, the Product is sold at
a premium price, at or around $2.69 for 6.3 oz, excluding tax and
sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and/or higher than it would be sold for absent
the misleading representations, comparisons, and/or omissions, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased, used, consumed, and/or applied the
Product.
The Defendant is one of the world's largest seller of distilled
spirits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
Great Neck, New York 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7084
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
CHUNG LAW FIRM P.C.
43-22 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Phone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
SCRIBE MEDIA: Cormier Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSSA CORMIER, CLAIRE
BRUDNER, MARIANNA ACOSTA, and ESTY PITTMAN, v. SCRIBE MEDIA, LLC,
BOND FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, LLC, ENDURING VENTURES, INC.,
ENDURING CONSULTING GROUP LLC, and ENDURING VENTURES TY PARTNERSHIP
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion to approve
a stipulation for an extension of time for Plaintiffs to file a
reply in support of their motion for class certification from May
23, 2024, until June 6, 2024.
Scribe Media is a writing service company that offers editing,
publishing, book coaching, and marketing services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rMx9uY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
Ryan O. Estes, Esq.
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
J. Bryan Wood, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM
2901 Bee Cave Rd
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 553-9390
E-mail: cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com
restes@kaplanlawatx.com
akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com
bwood@kaplanlawatx.com
SEASON 4 LLC: Sunderland Suit Transferred to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Sunderland and Benjamin Binder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SEASON 4, LLC, PHARMACARE U.S., INC. and PHARMACARE LABORATORIES
PTY LTD., Case No. 3:24-cv-04074 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on May 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00895-JLS-MSB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Season 4 is a group of online professionals (designers, programmers
and writers) with years of experience in the legal industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Mark Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (347) 668-8445
- and -
Robert T. Szyba, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
620 Eighth Avenue, 32 Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 218-3351
Fax: (917) 344-1174
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert T. Szyba, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 218-5500
Email: rszyba@seyfarth.com
- and -
Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Seaport East, Suite 1200
Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Hardnett Suit Removed to D. Columbia
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as C. Sukari Hardnett, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case
No. 2024-CAB-001711 was removed from the Superior Court of DC, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 24,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01534 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. -- https://www.spservicing.com/ --
is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital
Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Collin Grier, Esq.
GOODWIN PRACTER LLP
1900 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 346-4000
Email: cgrier@goodwinlaw.com
SELENE FINANCE: Bid to Extend Deadlines Tossed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Argona, et al., v. Selene
Finance, LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order denying as
moot joint motion to extend class-related deadlines to the extent
it seeks an extension of the class-certification briefing
deadlines.
-- Insofar as the Joint Motion seeks an extension of the period to
complete class discovery, that aspect of the joint motion is
denied without prejudice, and the parties are directed as
follows.
-- On or before May 30, 2024 , the parties shall file a detailed
class-discovery status report, specifying (with dates) the
pending
depositions relevant to class discovery and any other aspect of
pending class discovery that has to be completed and why.
-- The Court notes that the deadline for completing class
discovery
expired on May 10, 2024, after being previously extended for 30
days.
-- Any request to further extend that deadline must come
accompanied
by specific details and noticed deposition dates, and must take
into account the balance of the remaining deadlines in the
Court's
Scheduling Order and the effect of any such extension on
class-
certification briefing and any other pending briefing.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Consumer Credit.
Selene Finance operates as a residential mortgage company.[CC]
SIKA AG: Faces Suit Over Concrete Mixture Price Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
COVERED BRIDGE OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, individually and
on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA
CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER
BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL
COMPANY; and RPM INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03965 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful agreement to fix the prices for (a) concrete
admixtures, (b) cement additives, and (c) admixtures for mortar
(collectively, "CCAs"). Defendants' scheme included both price
increases and the imposition of surcharges on CCAs sold in the
United States.
During the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased CCAs at
supracompetitive prices other than directly from one or more of the
Defendants, and suffered antitrust injury and damages as a
material, direct, and proximate results of Defendants' conspiracy
and overt acts in furtherance thereof.
The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to
their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for CCAs
than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants' illegal
contract, combination, or conspiracy, 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander W. Cogbill, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
45 Broadway, Suite 920
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 876-4420
Email: acogbill@zellelaw.com
- and -
Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
Qianwei Fu, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Email: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
qfu@zellelaw.com
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SOLIDQUOTE LLC, and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND
ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
N. Reid Neureiter entered an order that Plaintiff's Second
Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines and to Modify Limitation on
Interrogatories and Requests for Production is granted.
-- Plaintiff is permitted to serve five (5) additional
interrogatories and five (5) additional requests for production
on
each Defendant.
-- The Defendants are each permitted to serve five (5) additional
interrogatories and requests for production on Plaintiff.
-- Disclosure of affirmative experts: July 29,
2024
-- Disclosure of rebuttal experts: Sept. 13,
2024
-- Motion for class certification: Sept. 23,
2024
-- Discovery cut-off: Oct. 28,
2024
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5o0o9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SONY INTERACTIVE: Loses Class Cert. Denial Bid
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGUSTIN CACCURI, et al.,
v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03361-AMO
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an
order denying Sony's motion to deny class certification.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the second prong of the waiver
analysis is met and concludes that Sony waived its arbitration
rights as to the putative class members. Sony may not, therefore,
rely on those rights to prevail on its motion to deny class
certification.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs Agustin Caccuri,
Adrian Cendejas, and Allen Neumark allege that the Defendant
engaged in anticompetitive conduct by discontinuing the sale of
digital PlayStation game download cards to third-party retailers.
Sony now moves to deny class certification, relying on the
arbitration and class action waiver provisions in its terms of
service and related agreements.
The Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that the agreements do not cover
their claims and that Sony has waived the right to enforce the
arbitration and class action waiver provisions. On the current
record, the Court cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs are precluded
from prosecuting their claims on a class basis in this forum.
The Court has previously detailed the underlying facts in the order
denying Sony's first motion to dismiss and does not repeat those
facts here. As relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of:
"all persons in the United States, exclusive of Sony and its
employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its
employees,
who purchased any digital video game content directly from the
PlayStation Store at any time from April 1, 2019 through the
present."
The Plaintiff Agustin Caccuri commenced the first-filed putative
class action against Sony on May 5, 2021. The Plaintiff Adrian
Cendejas filed a second proposed class action on May 7, 2021.
On July 27, 2021, the parties in Caccuri and Cendejas filed a
stipulation and proposed case management order.
On January 7, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed a
second case management order Sony is an American multinational
video game and digital entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2U3IAe at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOTERA HEALTH: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sotera Health Co. 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 stockholder class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
In January 2023, a stockholder class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company, certain past and present directors and senior executives,
the Company's private equity stockholders and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") in November 2020 and
the Company's secondary public offering ("SPO") in March 2021 (the
"Michigan Funds Litigation").
In April 2023, the court appointed the Oakland County Employees'
Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (the
"Michigan Funds") to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on
behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who acquired shares of
the Company in connection with our IPO or SPO or between November
20, 2020 and September 19, 2022 (the "Proposed Class").
The Michigan Funds allege that statements made regarding the safety
of the Company's use of EO and/or its EO tort lawsuits and other
risks of its EO operations violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (when made in the registration
statements for the IPO and SPO) and Sections 10(b), Section 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (when made in
subsequent securities filings and other contexts).
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and that
motion remains pending.
In May 2023, July 2023 and April 2024, the Company received demands
pursuant to 8 Del. C. §220 for inspections of its books and
records from shareholders purporting to be investigating the
Company's internal operations, disclosure practices and other
matters alleged and at issue in the Michigan Funds Litigation and
related to the Company's March 2024 Secondary Public Offering.
The Company is producing documents in response to the 220 Demands.
The Company believes that the allegations and claims in the
Michigan Funds Litigation and 220 Demands are without merit and
plans to vigorously defend the Michigan Funds Litigation.
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Black & Decker 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 Rammohan class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh
Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00369-KAD (the "Rammohan Class Action"), was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between
October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading
statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products
amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses.
On October 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff General Retirement System of
the City of Detroit filed an Amended Complaint that asserts the
same claims and seeks the same forms of relief as the original
complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all
respects and on December 14, 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety.
Briefing on that motion concluded on April 5, 2024, and the Company
awaits a decision on that motion.
Given the early stage of this litigation, at this time, the Company
is not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss
or adverse effect on its financial condition or to estimate the
amount or range of potential losses, if any, from this action.
Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools,
power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial
customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial
customers.[BN]
SUMMIT HEALTH: Class Settlement in Reyes Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion for
final approval of the proposed class action settlement with the
Defendant in the lawsuit styled ANA MARTINEZ REYES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SUMMIT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-09916-VSB (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court finds that notice to the Class required by Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been provided in
accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. The
Defendant has timely filed notification of the settlement with the
appropriate officials pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA").
The Court also finds, among other things, that the Settlement as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the members of the Class in light of the complexity,
expense and duration of litigation and the risks involved in
establishing liability, damages and in maintaining the class action
through trial and appeal.
The Settlement Class is finally certified for settlement purposes
only, the Court finding that the Settlement Class satisfies all
applicable requirements of Rule 23 and due process, under the
following class definition:
The Class: All persons who paid CityMD bills up to and
including Dec. 1, 2022, for a Covid test that was conducted
at a CityMD facility located in either New York or New
Jersey.
The Class does not include the Defendant's officers, directors, and
employees; the Defendant's attorneys; the Named Plaintiff's
attorneys; and any Judge overseeing or considering the approval of
the Settlement together with members of his immediate family and
any judicial staff. Also excluded from the Class are Alex
Berzanskis, Josselin Aldana Ng, Nina Sarkisova, and Elmira Amirkhan
Zozzaro, all of whom opt-outed from the Settlement.
Therefore, the Court ordered that the Settlement Agreement
submitted by the parties is finally approved pursuant to Rule 23(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Class.
The action is dismissed on the merits, with prejudice and without
costs, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and this
Final Order and Judgment. In the event that there is a cy pres
remainder, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Court
approves Epidemics Fund of The Fund for Public Health NYC as a cy
pres recipient, and distribution.
Upon the Effective Date, the Released Parties will be released and
discharged by the Plaintiff and the members of the Class in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval
Order. Four individuals have excluded themselves from the Class
and, therefore, have not released the Released Parties.
Upon consideration of Class Counsel's application for fees and
costs and other expenses, the Court awards Class Counsel attorneys'
fees in the amount of $600,000, which the Court finds to be fair
and reasonable, and $7,546.07 in reimbursement of expenses incurred
in prosecuting the Actions, which amounts will be paid through the
Settlement Fund. The Court directs payment as provided under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Upon consideration of the Class Counsel's application for a service
award for the Named Plaintiff, the Named Plaintiff is awarded a
service award in the amount of $9,000 for her services in assisting
the prosecution of the case, and the Court directs payment as
provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Because the exact fees incurred by the Settlement Administrator
cannot yet be determined, the Court approves deducting from the
Settlement Fund all reasonable fees up to $140,000 but not
exceeding that sum. Class Counsel is charged with reviewing the
Settlement Administrator's invoices for reasonableness.
The parties and each Class Member have irrevocably submitted to the
exclusive jurisdiction of this Court for any suit, action,
proceeding, or dispute arising out of the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment
dated May 9, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ut32j39
from PacerMonitor.com.
SUN COMMUNITIES: Continues to Defend Manufactured Home Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Communities 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 Manufactured Home class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
Since August 31, 2023, several putative class action complaints
have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Datacomp Appraisal
Systems, Inc., us, and nine other large MH operators in the U.S.
The complaint alleges that the defendants have violated federal
antitrust laws by sharing and receiving competitively sensitive
non-public information to maintain artificially high site rents.
The complaints have been consolidated into the case captioned In re
Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:23-cv-06715.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary damages, as well as
attorneys' fees.
The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that
could result were there to be an adverse final decision in this
litigation.
If an unfavorable result were to occur, it is possible that the
impact could be material to its results of operations in the
periods in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.
The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.
Sun Communities, Inc., a real estate investment trust (REIT),
engages in the ownership, operation, development, and financing of
manufactured housing communities in the midwestern and southeastern
United States. The Company is
headquartered in Southfield, Mich. with additional offices located
in Austin, Tex.; Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Elkhart, Ind.;
and Orlando, Fla.
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sunnova Energy International 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 stockholder class suit.
On February 16, 2024, a purported stockholder class action was
filed against us and certain of our individual executives in the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
The plaintiff, who seeks to certify a class of persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 25, 2020 and
December 7, 2023, alleges that certain statements made during the
class period about our business, operations and compliance policies
were false and misleading, specifically that it failed to disclose
it engaged in improper business practices with respect to
disadvantaged homeowners and communities.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defends itself.
Sunnova -- https://www.sunnova.com/ -- is a leading national
residential solar company.[BN]
SWEDISH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Adan Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAHAN ADAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SWEDISH HEALTH
SERVICES, doing business as SWEDISH MEDICAL GROUP, Case No.
2:23-cv-01266-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an
order:
-- denying Defendant's motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) or,
in
the alternative, to strike collective and class claims Under
FRCP
12(f); and
-- denying the Defendant's motion for Sanctions under FRCP 11(c).
Further, Plaintiff’s counsel has now missed multiple deadlines in
their prosecution of this case. Yet Plaintiff’s counsel again
missed a deadline in opposing Defendant’s motion for sanctions.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is
DENIED
During Plaintiff's period of employment with Swedish, she
"routinely performed work off-the-clock, was subject to
interruptions during attempted meal and rest breaks, and in fact
was interrupted or denied meal and rest breaks on a regular basis."
She was not compensated for the work performed during these meal
and rest breaks. During her employment with Swedish, the Plaintiff
worked an average of 9–10 hours per shift and between four and
five shifts per week. But because Defendant did not include time
worked off the clock before and after shifts or during meal and
rest periods in the Plaintiff's total hours worked in a given
workweek, the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff at one and
one-half times her regular hourly rate for all overtime hours
worked.
The Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant at various
Swedish campuses in Seattle from April to August 2021.
The Defendant owns and operates several medical campuses in the
Seattle area under the Swedish Medical Group name, including
campuses in First Hill, Cherry Hill, Ballard, Issaquah, Edmonds,
Mill Creek, and Redmond.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e9fvLi at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRENTON CITY, NJ: Steals Surplus Value, Thompson Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy M. Thompson, Barry Seward, and Trude Sherrod-Polan on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Constance
Ludden, in her official capacity as tax collector for the City of
Trenton, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06295-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J., May 21,
2024) alleges that the Defendant Class had an established policy
and practice of taking property without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's violation proceeds as
follows. First, the municipalities automatically secure property
taxes at assessment by placement of a lien. Next, the
municipalities take the liens on properties of people who owe back
taxes -- often, only a few thousand dollars -- and sell them as tax
sale certificates. The buyer -- or the municipality if it retained
the certificate -- can then foreclose on the property, receiving
title in fee simple to the property. Neither the certificate buyer
nor the municipality, however, returns to the original owner the
surplus value over-and-above the back taxes; instead, the buyer (or
municipality) keeps that surplus value for
themselves, the Plaintiffs contend.
This is what happened to Dorothy Thompson. Mrs. Thompson and her
late husband formerly owned a property at 233 Highland Avenue,
Trenton, New Jersey. A tax sale certificate had been issued in
2014. By January 2023, when the certificate holder foreclosed on
the property, Mrs. Thompson owed $7,826.84. Yet the fair market
value of the property was $105,600. When the property was
foreclosed, Mrs. Thompson lost almost $100,000 in surplus value,
the suit alleges.
This lawsuit seeks redress for these unconstitutional,
uncompensated takings. More precisely, this suit seeks relief on
behalf of a class of all victims of the counties' property value
theft. And it seeks this relief against a defendant class
consisting of every New Jersey municipalities.
The Defendants include the City of Trenton, a New Jersey political
subdivision unit of government; Rachel Hundley, in her official
capacity as clerk of the tax collection department for the Township
of Hazlet; the Township of Hazlet, a New Jersey political
subdivision unit of government; Susan E. McCloskey, in her official
capacity as tax collector for the Township of Lawrence; and the
Township of Lawrence, a New Jersey political subdivision unit of
government; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and Marita R. Sciarrotta, acting director of the State of
New Jersey Division of Taxation, Trenton is the municipal
government for a municipality in New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Scirocco, Esq.
SCIROCCO LAW, P.C.
143 Washington Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973)691-1188
Facsimile: (973)691-3353
E-mail: mark@sciroccoesq.com
- and -
Daniel R. Suhr, Esq.
HUGHES & SUHR LLC
747 N. LaSalle St., Suite 210
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (414) 588-1658
E-mail: dsuhr@hughesandsuhr.com
- and -
Christopher E. Mills, Esq.
SPERO LAW LLC
557 East Bay St. #22251
Charleston, SC 29413
Telephone: (843) 606-0640
E-mail: cmills@spero.law
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twist Bioscience 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 Peters securities class suit in the
Northern District of California.
On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No.
22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action") was filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court")
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Financial Officer (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal
securities laws.
The Securities Class Action's claims are based in large part on
allegations made in a report issued on November 15, 2022 by
Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among other
things, the Company's DNA chip technology and accounting practices.
The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges
that various statements that the defendants made between December
13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading
in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report.
The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 and sought damages
as well as certain other costs.
On July 28, 2023, the Court appointed a new plaintiff, not the
original plaintiff who filed the case, as lead plaintiff in the
case and appointed a new law firm as lead counsel.
On October 11, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's
securities between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022.
The amended complaint alleges that certain statements regarding,
among other things, the Company's DNA products and accounting
practices were false and misleading.
This case remains in the preliminary stage.
Given the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the legal
standards that must be met, including class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot express an opinion on the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or on the amount or range of
any potential loss.
The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the claims asserted against them, and filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 6, 2023, which
the Court has taken under submission.
Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that
has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform.
TWITTER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Schobinger Modified to July 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and
X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order modifying briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification
shall be July 23, 2024.
2. Defendants' opposition shall be due by Aug. 20, 2024.
3. Plaintiff's reply brief shall be due by Sept. 6, 2024.
4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
shall
be Sept. 19, 2024.
The Court does not anticipate granting further extensions of the
class certification schedule.
On Jan. 26, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order following the
Initial Case Management Conference that set a briefing schedule and
hearing date for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The current case schedule sets the following deadlines for the
Motion for Class Certification: the deadline to file the motion is
May 24, 2024, the deadline for the opposition is June 21, 2024, and
the deadline for the reply is July 12, 2024, and a hearing is
scheduled for August 15, 2024.
Both Plaintiff and Defendants subpoenaed a third-party witness Ned
Segal, Twitter's former Chief Financial Officer, for deposition.
The Magistrate Judge set the hearing regarding Mr. Segal's
deposition for May 23, 2024.
The Defendants seek Plaintiff's deposition testimony in connection
with their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nWzPg8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com
ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com
TWITTER INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Bid Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and
X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order modify briefing schedule for plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification
shall be July 23, 2024.
2. Defendants' opposition shall be due by Aug. 20, 2024.
3. Plaintiff's reply brief shall be due by Sept. 6, 2024.
4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification
shall be Sept. 19, 2024.
On Jan. 26, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order following the
Initial Case Management Conference that set a briefing schedule and
hearing date for Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Both the Plaintiff and Defendants subpoenaed a third-party witness
Ned Segal, Twitter's former Chief Financial Officer, for
deposition. The Magistrate Judge set the hearing regarding Mr.
Segal's deposition for May 23, 2024. The Parties both sought Mr.
Segal's deposition testimony in connection with the Motion for
Class Certification.
Given the discovery disputes, the Parties have conferred and
request that the Court modify the briefing schedule for the Motion
for Class Certification to allow sufficient time to complete the
depositions of Plaintiff, Mr. Segal, and the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of the
Defendant.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gZD1vD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com
ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com
TYRONE OLIVER: Gholston Class Status Bid Tossed
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANTE GHOLSTON, v. TYRONE
OLIVER, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00156-WMR-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge William Ray II entered an order sustaining in part and
overruled in part the defendant's objections and declining to adopt
the R&R.
The Complaint survives frivolity review, and the Plaintiff's motion
for certification of class action is denied. The clerk of Court is
directed to return this case to the Magistrate Judge.
The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Certification of Class Action.
However, the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the personal right
to proceed pro se "does not extend to the representation of the
interests of others."
The Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, alleging
that the Defendants, employees of Hays State Prison, violated
various constitutional rights while he was an inmate. After the
Plaintiff arrived at Hays, he received death threats from the
Defendant Jones and was brought to solitary confinement, where he
was "denied cell clean out," denied "yard" time, and either denied
food or served "very small portions" of food. The Plaintiff was
later brought to a "security strip cell," where the Plaintiff
"ingested metal screws" after 20 hours in the cell. The Plaintiff
was taken to the hospital following this incident.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=COv5vu at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Popkova Action Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Larisa Popkova DSHS
Employee no. 1, Paula Brantner-Thomas DSHS Employee no. 2,
Katherine Rowlette DSHS Employee no. 3, Karen Robbins DSHS Employee
no. 4, Gary C. Bright DSHS Employee no. 5, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND HEALTH SERVICES, Don Clintsman and Jilma Meneses DOES 1-50,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05130-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G.
Estudillo entered an order that the Popkova action suit shall
remain stayed for an additional 14 days.
-- On or before the expiration of 14 days following entry of this
order, the parties shall file a status report with the Court
describing the status of the parties' settlement discussions.
-- On Jan. 11, 2024, and Feb. 14, 2024, the parties jointly
requested
extensions of the class certification briefing schedule to
enable
the parties to focus their efforts on resolving the class
certification issues without Court involvement.
-- On April 17, 2024, the Parties asked for an additional 30 days
to
finalize settlement terms, and the Court also granted that
request.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8uxJbH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tracy Tribbett, Esq.
Harold Franklin, Esq.
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
6404 Three Rivers Drive
Pasco, WA 99301
Telephone: (509) 713-9868
E-mail: ttribbett@pji.org
hfranklin@pji.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Mary Crego Peterson, Esq.
Michael J. Ewart, Esq.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
E-mail: mary.peterson@hcmp.com
jake.ewart@hcmp.com
USAA CASUALTY: Class Cert Filing in Jennings Due Feb. 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARYN JENNINGS and TRICIA
HARDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-06171-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered a scheduling order as follows:
Deadline Due Date
Last day to Join Additional Parties and Sept. 2, 2024
Amend Pleadings:
Complete Discovery Relevant to Class Jan. 15, 2025
Certification (excluding discovery regarding
identity of putative class members):
Last day to file Motion for Class Certification, Feb. 3, 2025
with expert reports, if any
Defendants to complete depositions of April 3, 2025
Plaintiffs' experts
Last day to file Opposition to Motion for May 5, 2025
Class Certification, with expert reports,
if any
Plaintiffs to complete depositions of July 3, 2025
Defendants' experts, if any
Last day to file Reply to Motion for Aug. 4, 2025
Class Certification
Entered at the direction of U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo
on May 24, 2024.
USAA is an American financial services company providing insurance
and banking products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vTgwCa at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALGREEN CO: Pizzo Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dominick Pizzo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., and DOES 1 through
10, Case No. 24SL-CC01922 was removed from the Circuit Court for
St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on May 24, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-00736.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely
advertises its Triple Hydration Electrolyte drink mix products (the
"Product") as containing "No Preservatives." The Complaint asserts
claims for breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the following state consumer
protection statutes: Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act; Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; Montana
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act; Ohio Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act; Oregon
Unfair Trade Practices Act; Wyoming Consumer Protection Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite #1
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Catherine D. Singer, Esq.
GM LAW PC
1201 Walnut St., Suite 2000
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 471-7700
Fax: (816) 471-2221
Email: catherines@gmlawpc.com
- and -
William P. Cole, Esq.
Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP
515 South Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 933-2330
Facsimile: (312) 884-7352
WALKER BROTHERS: Bullock Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WALKER BROTHERS BEVERAGE CO.,Case No. 1:24-cv-03944
(S.D.N.Y., May 22, 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 is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Walker Brothers provides to their non-disabled customers
through www.drinkwalkerbrothers.com (hereinafter
"drinkwalkerbrothers.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
drinkwalkerbrothers.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Walker Brothers'
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.
Walker Brothers provides to the public a website known as
drinkwalkerbrothers.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
WEATHER GROUP: Discloses Data Without Consent, Marden Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MARDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEATHER GROUP TELEVISION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-11349 (D. Mass., May 21, 2024) alleges violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class
Members, the Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses Local
Now users’ personally identifiable information, including a
record of every video viewed by the user, to an unrelated third
party. By doing so, Defendant is violating the VPPA, says the
suit.
WEATHER GROUP TELEVISION, LLC provides television and radio
broadcasting services. The Company offers real-time weather
information to viewers through cable television, internet, and
radio.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
Kyle D. Gordon, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
kgordon@bursor.com
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Bielak Files Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WebTPA Employer
Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Grzegorz Bielak,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WebTPA Employer Services LLC, The Hartford Financial Services Group
Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01264-D (N.D. Tex., May 23, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Prop: Other Personal
Property Damage.
WebTPA, Employer Services, LLC (WebTPA) -- https://www.webtpa.com/
-- is a third-party administrator for claims adjudication for
certain products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Fax: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@swclaw.com
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Fails to Safeguard Consumers' Info, Reagan Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH REAGAN, CHANELLE ZIMMERMAN, and TAMIKIA REED, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WebTPA Employer
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01236-L (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2024)
sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
the sensitive personally identifiable information from a data
breach, which WebTPA publicly disclosed on May 8, 2024 .
The Plaintiffs contend that nearly 2.5 million consumers'
information were affected by the Data Breach, in which sensitive
personal information, including names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, and account information, was accessed by an
unauthorized third party. On Dec. 28, 2023, WebTPA detected
unauthorized activity within its IT network. As a result of the
Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer
injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of PII; the
loss or diminished value of their PII; lost time associated with
detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and
financial information, say the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against the
Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment,
breach of implied contract, and breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and invasion of confidence.
Mr. Reagan is a citizen of Missouri and resides in St. Louis. He
received a notice letter from WebTPA dated May 8, 2024, informing
him that his information was compromised in the Data Breach.
WebTPA provides customized administrative services to health plans
and insurance companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Heller Files Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WebTPA Employer
Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Conrad Heller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WebTPA Employer Services LLC, The Hartford Financial Services Group
Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01235-L (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
WebTPA, Employer Services, LLC (WebTPA) -- https://www.webtpa.com/
-- is a third-party administrator for claims adjudication for
certain products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Durden Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Comyia Durden, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 2024CH03524 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 24, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-04298.
The Complaint seeks relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"), including, among other things, liquidated
damages of $5,000 for "each and every intentional and reckless
violation of BIPA."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
Email: dkays@seyfarth.com
[] Daniel Lerman Joins Kramer Levin as Litigation Partner
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel N. Lerman, a former appellate attorney with the U.S.
Department of Justice's Criminal Division, has joined Kramer Levin
as a partner in its nationally recognized Litigation Department. He
will litigate matters at both the trial and appellate levels and
serve as deputy chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation
practice and be resident in the firm's Washington, DC, office.
During his six years with the Appellate Section of the Criminal
Division of the DOJ, Mr. Lerman briefed numerous U.S. Supreme Court
cases, argued on behalf of the United States in federal courts of
appeals across the country and advised on complex appellate
issues.
At Kramer Levin, he will focus on trial and appellate matters
involving criminal law, intellectual property law, constitutional
law, commercial litigation, securities law, bankruptcy law,
environmental law and administrative law, drawing on his extensive
public and private sector experience and his Ph.D. in biology.
Throughout his career, Mr. Lerman has worked across a wide array of
industries, including pharmaceuticals, health care, transportation,
technology, energy, hedge funds and many others.
Early in his career, Mr. Lerman clerked for renowned Judges William
C. Bryson and David S. Tatel of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the
Federal and DC circuits, respectively.
Prior to serving with the DOJ, Mr. Lerman spent eight years as a
trial and appellate litigator at the DC litigation boutique
Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, which combined
with Kramer Levin in 2022. He was promoted to partner at Robbins
Russell in 2017.
While at Robbins, Russell, Mr. Lerman argued and won before the
U.S. Supreme Court a challenge on behalf of the American Trucking
Associations to the City of Los Angeles' Clean Air Action Plan
regulations imposed at the Port of Los Angeles, securing a
unanimous decision from the Court that reversed the district court
and Ninth Circuit decisions and found that the regulations were
preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act
of 1994.
"Dan is an extraordinary lawyer. His impressive track record at the
DOJ and at Robbins Russell enhances the depth of our Supreme Court
and Appellate practice," said Kramer Levin co-managing partners
Paul H. Schoeman and Howard T. Spilko.
In 2023, The National Law Journal recognized Kramer Levin's Supreme
Court and Appellate practice on its Appellate Hot List.
"Dan joins us at a pivotal moment for individuals and businesses
navigating the reputational and legal risks of complex litigation.
His background in government and as a successful appellate lawyer
with broad practice experience makes him a uniquely valuable
resource for our clients," said Roy T. Englert Jr., co-chair of the
firm's Supreme Court and Appellate practice.
"My decision to join Kramer Levin was driven by the firm's
reputation for successfully defending clients in a wide array of
high-stakes cases, " Mr. Lerman said. "I am excited to rejoin my
partners in Washington and contribute to the firm's innovative
trial and appellate work across bankruptcy, commercial and
intellectual property litigation, and high-profile white collar
cases."
Jennifer S. Windom and Gary A. Orseck, co-managing partners of
Kramer Levin's DC office, said, "We are thrilled to welcome Dan
back to the DC office. His arrival underscores our commitment to
attracting premier talent and bolsters our ability to strategically
represent clients."
Mr. Lerman earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown
University Law Center, his Ph.D. in biological sciences from the
University of Chicago, and his B.A., magna cum laude, from Brown
University.
About Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP is an American law firm
headquartered in New York City with branch offices in Silicon
Valley, California; Washington, D.C.; and Paris, France. The firm
has 324 lawyers.
*********
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 ***