/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240610.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, June 10, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 116
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Schoone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Stafford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Vaughan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Wardean Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Weisbrod Matteis Files 31 Lawsuits Over Toxic Foams
AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Ziss Files Suit in D. New Jersey
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Plaintiffs Seek to Reset Discovery Deadline
ALDER HOLDINGS: Roig Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
ALLY FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 7, 2025
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Seeks to Decertify Overby Collective Action
ANN MARIE ALLEN: Parties Seek More Time to File Reply Memo
ATLAS CREST: Singh Files Affidavit, Verification Under Delaware Law
BAYER CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 8, 2025
BLUE APRON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Mitchell Due Nov. 15
CAKE 5332: Alavarez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
CAKE 5332: Alvarez Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
CIENA HEALTH: Robertson Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed Pending Mediation
CONVERSE INC: Gutierrez Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
DDS MAZAL: Rechkunov Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
ELDERCARE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Patient Care Staff, Stafford Says
EMERY CREDIT: Filing of Bid for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due Oct. 1
EXAMONE WORLD: Brauer Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
EXAMONE WORLD: Brauer Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
EZ FESTIVALS: Filing for Class Status Bid Due August 8
FORD MOTOR: Faces Shiff Suit Over Defective Vehicle Camera System
GENERAL MOTORS: Chicco Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid to Reconsider Class Certification Order Tossed
KELLOGG CO: Reichert Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
KINDER MORGAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rodriguez Due Feb. 28, 2025
KINDER MORGAN: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Anderson Due Feb. 28, 2025
KONICA MINOLTA: Luense Wins Class Certification Bid
LENOVO INC: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines in Axelrod Tossed
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Blain Seeks to Certify California Residents Class
LIVE NATION: Paxson Must Oppose Arbitration Bid by June 11
MASONITE CORP: Class Cert. Filing in Shugars Extended to Sept. 26
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Amended Case Management Plan Remains in Effect
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Junks Class Suit w/o Prejudice
NEW YORK, NY: Teagle Bid to Certify Class Terminated as Withdrawn
NORTH CAROLINA: Klyman Appeals Ruling in Johnson Civil Rights Suit
OAKLAND COUNTY, CA: Sinclair Seeks to Certify Class
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Bid for Leave to File Sur-reply Tossed
PENNSYLVANIA: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid
PINK JEEP: Slepian Seeks Reconsideration of May 21 Class Cert Order
PREMERA BLUE: Class Cert Bid Filing in LB Suit Extended to Nov. 22
SAFE STREETS USA: Workman Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
SAN ANTONIO SECURITY: Soliz Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
SELENE FINANCE: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Discovery Deadline
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement Stipulation
STATE FARM: Underpays Insureds w/ "Total Loss" Vehicles, Robin Says
TEAM HEALTH: Court Consolidates Buncombe County Suit w/ Plaquemine
TELADOC HEALTH: Disseminates Misleading Statements, Stary Says
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: RDC Sues Over Anticompetitive Delay Tactics
TRUEACCORD CORP: June 28 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
TSAROUHIS LAW GROUP: Yoo Files Suit in D. New Jersey
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Eberhardt Suit Removed to N.D. California
UNITED SUGAR: Salazar Suit Alleges Sugar Price-Fixing Conspiracy
VALVE CORP: Bid to Seal Confidential Information Partly OK'd
WALMART INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to Sept. 5
WESTERN ELECTRICAL: Delsom Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WHALECO INC: Kohler Files Suit in S.D. California
WOW RESTAURANT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chen Extended to July 30
ZULILY LLC: Douglas Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
*********
3M COMPANY: Schoone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan E. Schoone, 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-02004-RMG (D.S.C.,
April 17, 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 -
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-4063
3M COMPANY: Stafford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
William Thomas Stafford, Jr., 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-02147-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 bladder cancer and 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 -
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-4063
3M COMPANY: Vaughan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Fielding Vaughan, III,, 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-02170-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 -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Wardean Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
John Francis Wardean, 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-02180-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 bladder 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 -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Weisbrod Matteis Files 31 Lawsuits Over Toxic Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC filed 31 lawsuits seeking class
action status against the Defendants 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. Each of the complaints alleges that
the Defendants caused 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.
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.
All of the complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed
in April 19-21, 2024.
The Plaintiffs are:
Ricardo L. Allison. Case No. 2:24-cv-02252-RMG.
Anthony Steele. Case No. 2:24-cv-02300-RMG.
David G. Brewster. Case No. 2:24-cv-02320-RMG.
David R Barrows. Case No. 2:24-cv-02314-RMG.
Don L. Schwertner. Case No. 2:24-cv-02305-RMG.
Edwin Ortiz Rodriguez. Case No. 2:24-cv-02298-RMG.
Erik C. Hanson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02259-RMG.
George R. Graff. Case No. 2:24-cv-02255-RMG.
John Gerald Bryant. Case No. 2:24-cv-02297-RMG.
Henry Baskin, Jr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02307-RMG.
Heriberto Ramos Morales. Case No. 2:24-cv-02299-RMG.
James H. Burnes. Case No. 2:24-cv-02302-RMG.
Jason Jones. Case No. 2:24-cv-02263-RMG.
Joe D. Clayton. Case No. 2:24-cv-02308-RMG.
Joseph A. Reynolds. Case No. 2:24-cv-02316-RMG.
Justin Young. Case No. 2:24-cv-02315-RMG.
Keith Anthony Mitchell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02254-RMG.
Larry Wayne Walker. Case No. 2:24-cv-02309-RMG.
Marvin Richardson. Case No. 2:24-cv-02301-RMG.
Melvin L. Shoulders. Case No. 2:24-cv-02312-RMG.
John Nulph, Sr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02295-RMG.
Paul D. Reagan. Case No. 2:24-cv-02304-RMG.
Raymond F. Nanatovich. Case No. 2:24-cv-02303-RMG.
Ricardo Sims. Case No. 2:24-cv-02310-RMG.
Richard Frederick Lappin, Sr. Case No. 2:24-cv-02311-RMG.
Roy Spell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02296-RMG.
Scott Pentz. Case No. 2:24-cv-02306-RMG.
Travis J. Spencer. Case No. 2:24-cv-02256-RMG.
Vernon Campbell. Case No. 2:24-cv-02318-RMG.
Larry Williams. Case No. 2:24-cv-02319-RMG.
Darryl S. Blevins. Case No. 2:24-cv-02320-RMG.
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 Plaintiffs are 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 -
Juan Saavedra-Castro, Esq.
Wilma E. Reveron Collazo
290 Ave. Jesus T. Pineiro, Suite 1201
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918
Phone: (787) 474-0244
- and -
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
Smith Tower
506 2nd Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 990-0390
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Ziss Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFFILIATED
DERMATOLOGISTS & DERMATOLOGIC SURGEONS, P.A. The case is styled as
Charles Ziss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS & DERMATOLOGIC SURGEONS,
P.A., Case No. 2:24-cv-06571 (D.N.J., May 31, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons PA --
https://www.affiliateddermatologists.com/ -- is a Medical Group
Practice located in Morristown, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (212) 868-1229
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Plaintiffs Seek to Reset Discovery Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW S. BEERS and
KATHERINE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as SHERIFF
OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00367-TDS-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
resetting the discovery deadline upon the Court's ruling on the
Plaintiff's Collective/Class Certification Motion.
On Aug. 21, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report
recommending a discovery completion deadline of May 31, 2024.
On Aug. 25, 2023, the Court entered an Order approving the
Parties’ Joint 26(f) Report without modification.
On Feb. 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Collective/Class
Certification Motion, which is currently pending before the Court.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HmV5v4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com
corey@gibbonslg.com
ALDER HOLDINGS: Roig Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROIG, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALDER HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No.
2:23-cv-00721-TC-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(a) granting this Motion for Conditional Certification of Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective Action;
(b) approving the content and method of dissemination of notice;
(c) requiring Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff within 10
calendar days of Court Order a list of all Field Service
Technicians employed from Oct. 11, 2020, through the date of
conditional certification, in Excel format containing: full
name, last known mailing address with city, state, and zip
code; all known e-mail addresses, beginning dates of
employment, ending dates of employment, and telephone
numbers,
and entering any and all such further relief as may be
deemed
just and appropriate under the circumstances.
The Defendant misclassifies Field Service Technicians ("FST's")
across the country as independent contractors and denies these
workers overtime wages required by the FLSA, when they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify the following
Nationwide Collective:
"Any and all Field Service Technicians who worked for the
Defendant who were classified as independent contractors and
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks but were not
paid overtime wages at any time during the previous three (3)
years."
On Oct. 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his Collective Action
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial. The Plaintiff has
specific knowledge of at least 35 other FST's across the country
who Defendant similarly misclassified as independent contractors,
and failed to pay overtime premiums to in weeks in which they
worked in excess of 40 hours.
Alder is a privately owned and operated company offering security,
home automation, and life safety services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qpzGRx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Justin Galvez, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
222 S. Main Street, Suite 537
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (689) 216-7762
Facsimile: (689) 216-7812
E-mail: jgalvez@forthepeople.com
afrisch@forthepeople.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 7, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLY
FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Frank Volk entered an order setting the following case events
and dates:
Date Case Events Relating to Class Certification
Dec. 27, 2024 Deadline for written fact discovery related to
class certification.
Feb. 14, 2025 Deadline for fact witness depositions related to
class certification.
Feb. 7, 2025 Deadline for expert disclosures intended to
contradict or rebut evidence on same issue
identified by another party.
Mar. 7, 2025 The Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Apr. 4, 2025 Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion
for
class certification.
May 16, 2025 Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
Certification.
Respecting the deadlines applicable to the remainder of the case,
the Court sets the following events and dates:
Deadline Date
Amending the pleadings or joining parties July 3, 2024
Last date to serve discovery requests Dec. 27, 2024
Opening Rule 26 expert disclosures Dec. 12, 2024
Responsive Rule 26 expert disclosures Jan. 13, 2025
Rebuttal Rule 26 expert disclosure Jan. 27, 2025
Ally is a financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ifaKZp at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Seeks to Decertify Overby Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR. and
ABBY GEARHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM
(E.D. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
decertifying the Plaintiffs' conditionally certified collective
action.
As explained in A-B's memorandum in support of this cross-motion
and opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
plaintiffs have not met (and in fact cannot meet) their burden of
showing that the opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated to them
as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section
216(b). For these reasons, A-B respectfully requests that the Court
enter an order granting this motion and dismissing the claims of
all opt-in plaintiffs.
Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jam3l9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq.
James E. Tysse, Esq.
Katherine I. Heise, Esq.
Margaret O. Rusconi, Esq.
Benjamin R. Saul, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
2001 K Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 887-4000
Facsimile:(202) 887-4288
E-mail: blian@akingump.com
jtysse@akingump.com
kheise@akingump.com
mrusconi@akingump.com
saulb@akingump.com
ANN MARIE ALLEN: Parties Seek More Time to File Reply Memo
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA,
JUSTIN HORTON, MADELAINE THOMPSON, LUKE MELVIN LEWIS, and MARCOS
HERNANDEZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. THE HON. ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, THE HON. JEREMIAH
HUMES, THE HON. CHRISTINE JOHNSON, THE HON. THOMAS LOW, and THE
HON. MATTHEW BELL in their official capacities, Case No.
4:21-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting an extension of the deadline for the Plaintiffs
to file a reply memorandum in support of their Amended Motion for
Class Certification on or before June 14, 2024.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZtPA3k at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karra J. Porter, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.
257 East 200 South, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2047
Telephone: (801) 323-5000
Facsimile: (801) 355-3472
E-mail: Karra.Porter@chrisjen.com
- and -
Anna P. Christiansen, Esq.
FABIAN VANCOTT
95 South State Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84115
Telephone: (801)-531-8900
E-mail: AChristiansen@fabianvancott.com
ATLAS CREST: Singh Files Affidavit, Verification Under Delaware Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Saheem Kundapur filed an Affidavit and Verification
pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(aa) and 3(aa) in connection
with the filing of the Complaint captioned as SONAL SINGH and
SAHEEM KUNDAPUR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. ATLAS CREST INVESTMENT LLC, KENNETH MOELIS,
MICHAEL SPELLACY, TODD LEMKIN, EMANUEL PEARLMAN, DAVID FOX, EILEEN
MURRAY, CHRISTOPHER CALLESANO, TAYLOR RETTIG, ADAM GOLDSTEIN, BRETT
ADCOCK, MOELIS & COMPANY LLC, MOELIS & COMPANY GROUP, LP, and
ARCHER AVIATION INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0527 (Del. Ch., May
17, 2024).
Mr. Kundapur said that he is a continuous holder of Atlas Crest
Investment Corp. common stock since February 22, 2021. He has
reviewed and authorized the filing of the Complaint against the
Defendants in this Action and noted that allegations as to him and
his own actions are true and correct and all other allegations are
true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief.
In accordance with Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23, he has not
received, been promised or offered, and will not accept, any form
of compensation, directly or indirectly, for prosecuting or serving
as a representative party in this class action, except for: (1)
such damages or other relief as the Court may award him as a member
of the class; (11) such fees, costs, or other payments as the Court
expressly approves to be paid to or on his behalf; or (iii)
reimbursement, paid by my attorneys, of actual and reasonable
out-of-pocket expenditures incurred directly in connection with the
prosecution of this Action.
Atlas Crest Investment LLC operates as a blank check company.[BN]
BAYER CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 8, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA KHARAEVA and ZSAIAHNA
HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00640-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia Perez entered a
scheduling order as follows:
1. All factual discovery shall be completed on or before
December
18, 2024.
2. The Parties may continue to conduct fact depositions until
March
10, 2025.
3. Plaintiff's expert report is due by March 3, 2025.
4. Plaintiff's expert witness shall be deposed by March 24,
2025.
5. Defendant's expert report is due by April 14, 2025.
6. Defendant's expert witness shall be deposed by May 5, 2025.
7. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before June 16,
2025.
8. Motions for class certification and Plaintiff's Daubert
motions
shall be filed no later than August 8, 2025.
9. Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's motions for class
certification and Daubert motions shall be filed no later
than
Sept. 8, 2025.
Bayer Corporation is the American subsidiary of Bayer AG
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etD0Vm at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLUE APRON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Mitchell Due Nov. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blue Apron,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-05131 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F.
Lin
entered an order modifying case schedule.
-- Exchange Initial Disclosures are due by: June 13, 2024
-- Last Day to Amend Pleadings is: Aug. 13, 2024
-- Class Certification Motion Deadline is: Nov. 15, 2024
-- Class Certification Opposition Deadline is: Dec. 20, 2024
-- Class Certification Reply Deadline is: Jan. 24, 2025
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Feb. 25, 2025
is set for:
The nature of suit states labor litigation.
Blue Apron operates as an e-commerce business that delivers fresh
ingredients and recipes to make meals for homes.[CC]
CAKE 5332: Alavarez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and
SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC, ABDUL HAMIDEH and AJTX MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class, composed of all current and former
servers
of AJTX Management, LLC, Cake 5332, LLC and Abdul Hamideh who
worked for the Defendants at any time from Oct. 28, 2022 to
the
Present;
2. Requiring the expedited issuance of the notice form as set
forth
in Exhibit 8 to those class members, and setting a deadline
of
90 days after the date of the Court's Order granting
certification, for which putative class members can join this
matter;
3. Requiring the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs'
counsel a
list both electronically (in an Excel spreadsheet with each
item
of the employee's name and address designated as a separate
field) and by hard copy, of all individuals who meet the
above
class description, including their current or last known
address, phone number, and e-mail address, within 15 days of
the
issuance of the order;
4. Requiring the Defendants to post notices and opt-in forms at
time clocks, micros, and other conspicuous locations (such as
bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are
posted)
at Defendants' locations for a period of 90 days where
employees
can see such notices;
5. Tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative
class members from the date of filing of Plaintiffs' Motion
for
Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in
period;
6. Designating Plaintiffs Rosangelica Alvarez and Shahram
Shahandeh, as class representatives for the collective class;
7. Approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel in this
matter; and
8. Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
The Plaintiffs bring this action as a hybrid state class/nationwide
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA" or the
"Act") and accompanying state and common law. The parties have
submitted a phased scheduling order to first address FLSA
conditional certification, and then subsequently class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 later in the matter.
Cake 5332 is a regional international house of pancakes restaurant
group that "has grown to over 20 IHOP franchise restaurants."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5H26IX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
Barry R. Grissom, Esq.
GRISSOM MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Telephone: (816) 600-0117
Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
barry@grissommiller.com
CAKE 5332: Alvarez Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and
SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC, ABDUL HAMIDEH and AJTX MANAGEMENT, LLC
Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting the motion for leave to file exhibits in
support of her Motion for Summary Judgment under seal.
On June, 23, 2023, this Court entered the Parties' Stipulated
Protective Order for the protection and entry of confidential
information in this matter. Specifically, the Protective Order
provides that information designated as "Confidential" shall be
filed with the clerk under seal.
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion and Memorandum in Support of
Conditional Certification on May 30, 2024.
In support of their Motion for Conditional Certification, Plaintiff
seek to provide the Court with Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, which have been
designated as “Confidential” by Defendants pursuant to the
Protective Order. Due to the designation by Defendants, Plaintiff
seeks to have these exhibits filed under seal.
Cake 5332 is a regional international house of pancakes restaurant
group that "has grown to over 20 IHOP franchise restaurants."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6H5r5J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
Barry R. Grissom, Esq.
GRISSOM MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Telephone: (816) 600-0117
Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
barry@grissommiller.com
CIENA HEALTH: Robertson Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
LENA ROBERTSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIENA HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02526-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 17, 2024)
is a class action for Defendant's willful failure to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as
failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio unjust enrichment
common law.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt State Tested Nursing
Assistant and direct care employee for Defendant during the three
years preceding this complaint.
Ciena Healthcare operates over 80 skilled nursing and
rehabilitation facilities throughout the State of Ohio, Michigan,
Virgina, North Carolina, and Indiana providing services from
skilled nursing care and rehabilitation to long term care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORLIS VERNON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CLOSETS BY DESIGN, INC. and CBD FRANCHISING, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-01180-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead
entered an order on stipulated motion for extension of time:
-- The Parties' class certification deadlines are stayed pending
the
Parties' June 19, 2024, mediation.
On Oct. 31, 2023, the Court issued a Minute Order setting forth the
following deadlines regarding class certification:
Event Date
Affirmative class certification expert June 7, 2024
disclosures
Rebuttal class certification expert June 21, 2024
disclosures
Completion of depositions of class July 19, 2024
certification experts
Deadline to file Motion for class Aug. 16, 2024
certification
Deadline to file Opposition to motion for Sept. 16, 2024
class certification
Deadline to file Reply to motion for Oct. 16, 2024
class certification
The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint in this Court on
Oct. 13, 2023. The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on Nov. 15, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xL42Tx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon C. Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
- and -
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON & NOEL, PLLC
20 Sixth Ave. NE
Issaquah WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 395-7786
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Duncan McCreary, Esq.
Christopher S. Reeder, Esq.
REEDER MCCREARY, LLP
11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 861-2470
E-mail: duncan@reedermccreary.com
chris@reedermccreary.com
- and -
Zachary E. Davison, Esq.
Byron C. Starkey, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: ZDavison@perkinscoie.com
ByronStarkey@perkinscoie.com
CONVERSE INC: Gutierrez Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORA GUTIERREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CONVERSE INC., a
Massachusetts Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 2:23-cv-06547-KK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting her application pursuant to Central
District of California Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b) to request permission
to file under seal Exhibit 6 the Declaration of Narain Kumar in
Support of Plaintiff Nora Gutierrez's Reply on Motion for Class
Certification.
The documents were all produced by Defendant Converse Inc., who
designated each of them as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY pursuant to the Protective Order entered in
this case.
The Plaintiff does not believe that any of the attached documents
are entitled to be filed under seal, in part or in whole. Plaintiff
may oppose the request to seal these documents but is nonetheless
required by the Local Rules to first follow this procedure.
Converse is an American lifestyle brand that markets, distributes,
and licenses footwear, apparel, and accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xwycSy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 590-3927
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Samuel C. Cortina, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
mpanek@kslaw.com
DDS MAZAL: Rechkunov Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXEY RECHKUNOV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DDS MAZAL, LLC D/B/A BAL HARBOUR
SMILES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-21928 (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2024)
is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, to promote its goods and services, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to
text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's
solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without
the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel
engaged in telemarketing.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion
upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff
and members of the Class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.
DDS MAZAL, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its
headquarters located in Hollywood, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
ELDERCARE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Patient Care Staff, Stafford Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAVONA STAFFORD, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ELDERCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a STONEBRIDGE SENIOR
LIVING, Case No. 4:24-cv-00690 (E.D. Mo., May 17, 2024) is a
collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Stafford worked for StoneBridge as a registered nurse in
Jefferson City, Missouri from approximately October 2019 until
April 2024. Stafford and the other patient care employees regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week but StoneBridge did not pay them
for all their hours worked. Instead, StoneBridge automatically
deducted 30 minutes a day from Stafford's and its other patient
care employees' recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks,"
regardless of whether they actually received a bona fide meal
break, says the suit.
Eldercare Management Services is a senior living community that
provides memory care, rehabilitation care, assisted living and
skilled nursing services for patients across Arkansas, Illinois,
and Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 766-4000
E-mail: carl@fitz.legal
EMERY CREDIT: Filing of Bid for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due Oct. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angela Brown, et al., v.
Emery Credit Union, Case No. 1:22-cv-00175-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered a calendar order as follows:
1. Telephone Status Conference1: July 31, 2024
2. Deadline to file motion for Oct. 1, 2024
leave to amend the pleadings:
3. Deadline for motions relative to Nov. 3, 2024
the pleadings:
4. Disclosure of topics of class Aug. 26, 2024
certification expert(s):
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c0a38d at no extra
charge.[CC]
EXAMONE WORLD: Brauer Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARS F. BRAUER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE
INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-07760-MEMF-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his application for leave to file his and
his son's health information in Exhibits 3, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16
under seal.
The Defendants shall have four days from the filing of this
application to file a declaration establishing that the material
they have designated as confidential is sealable under Local Rule
79-5.2.2(b)(i).
Pursuant to Central District of California Local Civil Rule
79-5.2.2 and the Protective Order entered by this Court on
September 29, 2023, ECF 61, Plaintiff submits this Application for
Leave to File Under Seal certain documents or portions of documents
that have been designated confidential by Defendants or that
include Plaintiff’s and his family members’ confidential health
information. The parties conferred in an effort to eliminate or
minimize the need for filing under seal by means of redaction,
pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b). Declaration of Jennifer Rust
Murray in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File
Under Seal
The Plaintiff identifies below the documents that are being
conditionally filed under seal, either in their entirety or with
redactions, and provides the basis for sealing his and his son’s
health information in Exhibits 3, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Defendants
shall have four days from the filing of this application to file a
declaration establishing that the material they have designated as
confidential is sealable under Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b)(i).
Examone provides Diagnostics services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7xvaYW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
EXAMONE WORLD: Brauer Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARS F. BRAUER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE
INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-07760-MEMF-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying two classes of consumers for whom
Defendants sold a ScriptCheck report to life insurance companies.
(1) an inaccuracy class consisting of individuals for whom
Defendants sold a report containing data indicating that a
physician specializing in the treatment of minors
prescribed a
medication to an adult; and
(2) a disclosure class consisting of all individuals who made a
request for information and to whom Defendants sent a file
disclosure that did not identify the sources of the
information Defendants included in the report.
The Plaintiff Lars Brauer is an attorney and part-time fitness
instructor.
In December 2021 he filled out an application with insurance broker
Sproutt Aktibo, but was told he had been denied because a
prescription history report that Sproutt received from the
Defendants -- called a ScriptCheck report -- showed that Mr. Brauer
had been prescribed medications that made him ineligible.
Examone provides Diagnostics services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tVfD6e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@millershah.com
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
EZ FESTIVALS: Filing for Class Status Bid Due August 8
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE BROCKMOLE et al.,
v. EZ FESTIVALS, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08106-MMG-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Willis entered an order setting
the schedule for briefing class certification shall be as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion is due August 8, 2024,
-- Defendants' Opposition must be submitted by September 9, 2024,
and
-- Plaintiffs' Reply is to be filed by September 27, 2024.
Summary of Claims, Defenses, and Relevant Issues
-- Plaintiffs:
Breach of Contract; Fraud; GBL 349 and 350; RICO
1962(a)(b)(c)(d); negligent misrepresentation; breach of
implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; promissory estoppel;
and
unjust enrichment against owners and operators of music and
concert venues and events arising out of Electric Zoo
Festival,
Randalls Island Labor Day Weekend 2023 Festival aborted and no
refunds provided.
-- Defendants:
The Defendants have filed motions to dismiss challenging the
sufficiency and plausibility of various of each set of
Plaintiffs' claims, including those against certain entities
and
individual Defendants and certain claims involving alleged
RICO
violations, fraud, good faith and fail dealing, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and promissory
estoppel.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=anMjAM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Fletcher Moore, Esq.
MOORE KEUHN, PLLC
30 Wall St 8fl
New York, NY 10005
E-mail: fmoore@moorekuehn.com
- and -
Jacob Chen, Esq.
DGW KRAMER, LLP
Rockefeller Plaza Floor 10
New York, NY 10020
E-mail: jchen@dgwllp.com
- and -
Rita Wang, Esq.
E-mail: rita@dgwllp.com
- and -
Jonathan Corbett, Esq.
CORBETT RIGHTS, P.C.
5551 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 1248
Los Angeles, CA 90028
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com
- and -
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
PARKER POHL LLP
9 Park Ave Suite 1510
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 202-8886
E-mail: shelly.friedland@parkerpohl.com
- and -
Eyal Dror, Esq.
TRIEF & OLK
750 3rd Ave Suite 2902
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: edror@triefandolk.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick M. Kennell, Esq.
Kathleen A. Mullins, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
E-mail: pkennell@kaufmandolowich.com
kathleen.mullins@kaufmandolowich.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Shiff Suit Over Defective Vehicle Camera System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL SHIFF and ROBERT SONSINI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11306-PDB-CI (D.N.J., May 17, 2024)
arises from Ford's design, manufacture, and installation of the
defective 360-Degree Camera system in the 2020-2023 Ford Explorer,
a 2020-2023 Lincoln Aviator, and/or a 2020-2022 Lincoln Corsair
vehicles in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the
New Jersey Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.
According to the complaint, Ford designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, and sold or leased the Affected Vehicles to Plaintiffs
and the class with a defective 360-Degree Camera system, which
routinely and systematically "glitches" or malfunctions while the
Affected Vehicles are operating in reverse, resulting in a total
loss of the rear camera image and displaying instead a blank screen
or blue or black image. This defect leaves the vehicle operator
with no operational rear-view camera, and renders the 360-Degree
Camera feature -- an upgraded option for which Plaintiffs and the
class paid extra -- effectively useless while reversing, says the
suit.
This action seeks redress for Plaintiffs and the class in the form
of compensatory, statutory, treble, and/or punitive damages under
the CFA and common law, as well as injunctive relief, which would
include an order directing Ford to cease the unlawful practices
challenged, specifically the manufacture, installation, marketing,
advertising, and sale or lease of the Defective Cameras in the
Affected Vehicles, and to initiate a program to provide refunds,
repairs, and/or restitution to Plaintiffs and the class.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
josefchen@denittislaw.com
sprince@denittislaw.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Chicco Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romeo Chicco, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. General Motors LLC,
OnStar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No.
9:24-cv-80281-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his Motion For Class Certification Pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(B)(2) and (B)(3).
The Plaintiff submits that Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Rule 23(b)(3), or in the alternative, under
Rule 23(b)(2) against Defendant should be granted.
However, the Plaintiff requests the Court defer ruling on such
Motion until after the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct pre-certification discovery and Plaintiff is able to
re-file a Motion with information obtained during the discovery
process.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members need for injunctive and
declaratory relief provides adequate basis for certification under
Rule 23(b)(2). Based upon Defendants’ common practice of
collecting and/or distributing private information for financial
gain, such relief is necessary. Therefore, class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is appropriate here as alternative
relief.
The Plaintiff Romeo Chicco alleges that Lexis failed to maintain
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy regarding the
Plaintiff and Class members' driving data., in violation of the 15
U.S.C. section 1681e(b). Next, the Plaintiff alleges that General
Motors, OnStar, and Lexis engaged in a deceptive scheme whereby
Defendants shared Plaintiff's and Class members' uncontextualized,
personal driving data without their consent in violation of Fla.
Stat. section 501.204.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following Class pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
"All persons, who from two years prior to the filing of this
action (1) had their alleged driving data (telematics)
collected
and shared with LexisNexis; and (2) those persons' telematics
appeared on at least one LexisNexis consumer disclosure." (the
"FCRA Class").
Excluded from the proposed Class is Lexis’s officers,
directors,
affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the proposed
class
is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this
matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial
staff.
The Plaintiff also seeks certification of the following Class:
"All persons, who from four years prior to the filing of this
action (1) had their car's driving data (telematics) collected
and
shared with LexisNexis; (2) without those persons' consent.
(the
"FDUTPA Class").
Excluded from the proposed Class is Defendants’ officers,
directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees,
successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the
proposed class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
"All persons, who from four years prior to the filing of this
action (1) had their car's driving data (telematics) collected
and
shared with LexisNexis; (2) without those persons' consent; and
(3) those persons' telematics appeared on at least one
LexisNexis
consumer disclosure." (the "Invasion of Privacy Class")
Excluded from the proposed Class is Defendants’ officers,
directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees,
successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the
proposed class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff.
On Nov. 16, 2021, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2021 Cadillac XT6
from Ed Morse Cadillac in Delray Beach, Florida.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NPX7b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: mike@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid to Reconsider Class Certification Order Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc et al. (HOMEADVISOR, INC. LITIGATION), Case No.
1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
of the class certification order.
The Court finds no clear error in its decision that plaintiffs
failed to establish the predominance element for the nine state
classes because "plaintiffs failed to undertake a claim-specific
analysis and identify the elements of the forty-three claims."
However, even if there was an error in the Court's decision that
the Plaintiffs failed to establish predominance for the nine state
classes, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted
because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the superiority element
under Rule 23(b)(3).
On Jan. 10, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a
Nationwide Misappropriation Class and three State Misappropriation
Classes, but denied the Plaintiffs' request to certify a Nationwide
Deceptive Practices Class and nine State Deceptive Practices
Classes for the states of California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio.
On Jan. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
on the class certification order.
HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace that connects homeowners with
local service professionals to carry out home improvement,
maintenance, and remodeling.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s3QluS at no extra
charge.[CC]
KELLOGG CO: Reichert Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Thomas Reichert, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion and Order and Judgment dated April 17,
2024 entered in the lawsuit styled THOMAS N. REICHERT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
KELLOGG COMPANY, THE KELLOGG COMPANY PENSION PLAN, THE KELLOGG
COMPANY-BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS
PENSION PLAN, THE KELLOGG ERISA FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE KELLOGG
ERISA ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY, TOBACCO
WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS PENSION COMMITTEE, and JOHN/JANE DOES
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-12343-BAF-CI, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at
Detroit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, filed on
September 14, 2023, is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful shortchanging of the
participants of the Kellogg Company Pension Plan and the Kellogg
Company - Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers
Pension Plan by millions of dollars through their use of outdated
formulas to calculate pension benefits. These formulas result in
the Plaintiff and Class members receiving less than the "actuarial
equivalent" of their vested benefits, in violation of ERISA's
actuarial equivalence requirements. The Defendants disregarded
their fiduciary duty to act loyally and solely in the interest of
the Plans' participants and beneficiaries by electing to use
unreasonable and outdated formulas for payment of pension benefits
for their own financial gain, the suit says.
On January 5, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case which the Court granted on April 17 through an Opinion and
Order and Judgment signed by Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III.
The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Reichert, et al. v.
Kellogg Co., et al., Case No. 24-1442, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant brief is due on July 2, 2024; and
-- Appellee brief is due on August 1, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS N. REICHERT, STUART R. BUCK, and
KENNETH A. HENRICH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (772) 783-8436
Defendants-Appellees BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND
GRAIN MILLERS PENSION COMMITTEE; KELLANOVA, fka Kellogg Company; WK
KELLOGG COMPANY; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF KELLANOVA PENSION
PLAN; and JOHN DOE, 1/20, are represented by:
Alexis Bates, Esq.
Joseph J. Torres, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 222-9350
KINDER MORGAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rodriguez Due Feb. 28, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RODRIGUEZ, v. KINDER
MORGAN, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02007-MMA-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Daniel Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating
discovery and other pre-trial proceedings:
1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or
to
file additional pleadings must be filed by July 29, 2024.
2. A telephonic Status Conference will be held on Oct. 25, 2024
at
10:00 a.m. Counsel must call the Court's teleconference line
at
1-888-398-2342, enter access code 83-89-272, and press to
bypass
the prompt for a security code.
3. All parties shall complete all class discovery by Jan. 24,
2025.
4. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than
Feb. 28, 2025.
5. The parties must contact the undersigned's Chambers within
three
days of a ruling on the motion for class certification to
schedule a Case Management Conference.
6. Plaintiff's counsel must serve a copy of this Order on all
parties that enter this case hereafter.
Kinder is a midstream energy infrastructure company which owns and
operates through a network of pipelines and terminals.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jHBJZ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KINDER MORGAN: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Anderson Due Feb. 28, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE ANDERSON, v.
KINDER MORGAN, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00473-MMA-DEB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating
discovery and other pre-trial proceedings:
1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or
to
file additional pleadings must be filed by July 29, 2024.
2. A telephonic Status Conference will be held on Oct. 25, 2024
at
10:00 a.m. Counsel must call the Court's teleconference line
at
1-888-398-2342, enter access code 83-89-272, and press to
bypass
the prompt for a security code.
3. All parties shall complete all class discovery by Jan. 24,
2025.
4. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than
Feb. 28, 2025.
5. The parties must contact the undersigned's Chambers within
three
days of a ruling on the motion for class certification to
schedule a Case Management Conference.
6. Plaintiff's counsel must serve a copy of this Order on all
parties that enter this case hereafter.
Kinder is a midstream energy infrastructure company which owns and
operates through a network of pipelines and terminals.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dJ1iXm at no extra
charge.[CC]
KONICA MINOLTA: Luense Wins Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAY ALLEN LUENSE, PAMELA
PEARSON, DANIEL F. SETTNEK, and NEIL ROSE, Individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Konica Minolta 401(k) Plan, v. KONICA MINOLTA
BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KONICA
MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., KONICA MINOLTA 401(K) PLAN
COMMITTEE, SANDRA SOHL, SUSAN MCCARTHY, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case
No. 2:20-cv-06827-EP-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Evelyn Padin
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, D.E.
Konica provides management technologies and IT Services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsBUiy at no extra
charge.[CC]
LENOVO INC: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines in Axelrod Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD, et al., v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order denying ex
parte motion to extend class certification deadlines.
The Court Denies Plaintiffs' motion for an extension. The
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains due on June 4,
2024 and the current deadlines remain in effect.
The Plaintiffs asked, in the alternative for leave to file
supplemental briefing on their motion for class certification. The
Court DENIES that request as premature.
However, because the Court does not find Lenovo faultless in the
parties’ continued disputes regarding the production of
discovery, Plaintiffs may renew that request at a later date.
Before moving to file supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs must meet
and confer with Defendant in person or by video and shall provide
Defendant with a proposed brief for its consideration.
Any motion to supplement the record must explain why additional
evidence is material resolving the issue of class certification. In
addition, counsel must be able to certify that the material in
question was not available at the time an earlier brief or
declaration was filed.
The Court advises the parties that supplemental briefing will not
be one sided; if Plaintiffs are granted leave to supplement the
record, Defendant will be given the opportunity to do so as well.
On May 29, 2024, four business days before their motion for class
certification was due, the Plaintiffs filed an "ex parte" motion to
extend the deadlines associated with the class certification
briefing and hearing.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Court extended the class certification
deadlines by 120 days and stated that it would not entertain
further extensions barring extremely good cause or unusual
circumstances that create a need for further delay.
The Court advises all parties that it does not look favorably on
requests for extensions that do not afford the Court sufficient
time to consider a request for an extension before the deadline
expires.
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGGKa1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Blain Seeks to Certify California Residents Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLAIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court for Class Certification pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order:
(1) Certifying a class of "All California residents who
purchased
personal automobile insurance from Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Company covering any portion of the time period
from
March 1, 2020 to June 11, 2021" with respect to Count I of
the
Amended Complaint;
(2) Appointing Named Plaintiff Sarah Blain as class
representative;
and
(3) Appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Stephan Zouras, LLP, and
Manfred, APC as class counsel.
The Plaintiff's Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and
Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
thereof, and the Declarations and Exhibits filed in support of this
motion as well as any pleadings, papers, and records on file
herein, all matters upon which judicial notice may be taken, any
oral argument that may be presented, and upon such other matters
the Court deems just and necessary.
The class action challenges Liberty Mutual's unfair application of
pre-pandemic auto insurance rates during the changed circumstances
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff alleges that Liberty Mutual
enjoyed excess revenue at the expense of its policyholders due to
the drastic, at times government-mandated, reduction in driving
resulting from COVID-19. Although Liberty Mutual issued premium
relief to its California policyholders through its Personal Auto
Customer Relief Refund program, this was insufficient to remedy the
excessive premiums paid.
Ms. Blain purchased a California auto insurance policy from Liberty
Mutual for the period beginning on April 7, 2019, and ending on
April 7, 2020. Ms. Blain renewed her policy for the period
beginning on April 7, 2021, and ending on April 7, 2022; her
premium was
$1,487.75. During and after this time period, Ms. Blain received
insufficient premium refunds of $82.00 on May 13, 2020, $163.00 on
June 16, 2021, and $110.84 on October 16, 2023.
Liberty sold auto insurance in California.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j8DbjI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-4005
Facsimile: (619) 550-4006
E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
- and -
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Robert L. Schug, Esq.
Melanie A. Johnson, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN, 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: morgan@nka.com
schug@nka.com
mjohnson@nka.com
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
LIVE NATION: Paxson Must Oppose Arbitration Bid by June 11
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN J. PAXSON, v. LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; LIVE NATION
WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; C3 PRESENTS, LLC, a Texas
Limited-Liability Company; FRONT GATE TICKETING SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited-Liability Company, JOHN ROE COMPANIES NOS. 1-5,
ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES NOS. 1-20; AND DOE INDIVIDUALS NOS. 1-100,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00907-APG-EJY (D. Nev.), the Court entered an
order regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration (first request).
The parties stipulate to the following briefing schedule for
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration:
Plaintiff's Opposition: June 11, 2024
Defendants' Reply: June 18, 2024
Moreover, the parties stipulate to the following briefing schedule
for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is as follows:
Defendants' Opposition: two (2) weeks before the hearing
Plaintiff's Reply: one (1) week before the hearing
Live Nation promotes, operates and manages ticket sales for live
entertainment internationally.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DVD7fQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel S. Hengstler, Esq.
THE702FIRM
8335 W. Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, NV 89147
E-mail: service@the702firm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Laureen P. Frister, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Telephone: (702) 893-3383
Facsimile: (702) 893-3789
E-mail: Laureen.Frister@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
Eleonora Antonyan, Esq.
Alexandra K. Christensen, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
Eleonora.Antonyan@lewisbrisbois.com
Alexandra.Christensen@lewisbrisbois.com
MASONITE CORP: Class Cert. Filing in Shugars Extended to Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shugars et al v. Masonite
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01237 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Nov.
21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order
extending class certification schedules and deadlines as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Aug. 12, 2024
(2) Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Sept. 26.
2024
(3) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is: Oct. 15, 2024
(4) Class Certification Motion is due by: Sept. 6, 2024
(5) All Discovery, including all depositions, Nov. 15, 2024
shall be completed by:
(6) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by: Jan. 10, 2025
The nature of suit states labor litigation -- diversity-employment
discrimination.
Masonite is a manufacturer of particleboard door core, door
components and doors.[CC]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Amended Case Management Plan Remains in Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall-Landers v. New York
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Sarah Cave entered an order that all terms of the Feb. 15,
2024 Amended Case Management Plan, including the briefing schedule
for Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, remain
in effect.
Pursuant to the Court's April 19, 2024 Order, the plaintiff Casey
Hall-Landers and defendant New York University ("NYU") jointly
write to report that the parties have completed class discovery. In
addition to the exchange of written discovery and the production of
documents, pursuant to the Court’s November 22, 2023 Order, NYU
deposed the plaintiff and the plaintiff deposed four witnesses
produced by NYU as corporate representatives of NYU, NYU's Tisch
School of the Arts, and NYU’s Office of the Bursar.
New York University is a private research university in New York
City.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TPxtLj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
The Defendant is represented by:
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq.
Rachael C. Kessler, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 335-4500
Facsimile: (212) 335-4501
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Junks Class Suit w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10515-VSB-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon
Broderick entered an order:
-- granting NYU's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and
-- denying as moot Doe's motion to certify the class.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
Docs. 36 and 42 and close this case.
The Plaintiff alleges that the membership-selection process for the
NYU Law Review violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. section
1681(a), and 42 U.S.C. section 1983, by giving preferential
treatment to women, non-Asian, homosexual, and transgender
students.
New York University is a private research university.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IIPObC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
Austin, TX
- and -
Ronald A. Berutti, Esq.
MURRAY-NOLAN BERUTTI LLC
Clark, NJ
- and -
Christopher Ernest Mills, Esq.
SPERO LAW LLC
Charleston, SC
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua Adam Matz, Esq.
Raymond P. Tolentino, Esq.
Roberta Ann Kaplan, Esq.
Gabrielle Tenzer, Esq.
Amit Jain, Esq.
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
Washington, DC
NEW YORK, NY: Teagle Bid to Certify Class Terminated as Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al., v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07211 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 23, 2019), the Hon. Judge entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is terminated as withdrawn.
-- The parties certified the close of all July 9, 2023
discovery on:
-- The last date to take the first step in July 1, 2024
dispositive motion practice is:
-- In the absence of dispositive motions, Aug. 1, 2024
the parties shall file their proposed
joint pretrial order by:
The nature of suit states civil rights – employment
discrimination.
New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets
the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]
NORTH CAROLINA: Klyman Appeals Ruling in Johnson Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Movant/Non-party KAREN KLYMAN has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated March 6, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
SETI JOHNSON and SHAREE SMOOT, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. TORRE JESSUP, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00467, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro.
This lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2018, and, as amended, alleged
certain due process violations in connection with the North
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles' revocations of drivers
licenses based on North Carolina's procedures implemented by state
courts for revoking or suspending driving privileges where drivers
claim they are unable to pay fines and costs.
On March 31, 2019, the court certified two classes -- the "revoked
class" (those whose driving privileges were revoked within the
limitations period) and the "future revoked class" (those who
privileges may be revoked). After several years of litigation and
hearings, including an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the parties negotiated a settlement, which they presented
to the court on July 1, 2021.
The court reviewed and preliminarily approved the settlement on
October 15, 2021, notice was made to the class members, and a
fairness hearing was held on February 22, 2022. A final order and
judgment approving the settlement was entered on March 3, 2022,
which was followed by an amended final order and judgment on March
7, 2022.
Some fourteen months later, on May 15, 2023, Klyman filed the first
of several motions -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60
Motion for Changes. Each sought to set aside the court's March 7,
2022, amended final order and judgment resolving the class action.
In substance, Klyman contended that she is a member of the revoked
class because she received a June 28, 2019 letter from the North
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles notifying her that her North
Carolina driving privileges would be suspended effective 12:01 a.m.
on August 27, 2019, for failure to pay a fine she was assessed on
December 14, 2018. As the Commissioner reports, Klyman's suspension
was due to an order of a Florida court for her failure to pay a
traffic-related fine in Florida, which the Commissioner honored.
The court denied Klyman's motions procedurally and alternatively on
the merits. The court found that her motions violated the court's
local rule requiring that a brief be filed in support of any
motion. And construing her motions liberally as seeking relief
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court also
explained that the motions lacked merit.
Klyman then made a second attempt to set aside the court's final
judgment by filing the present motion for relief under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) on October 11, 2023, followed by a third
attempt by filing her motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and
(b)(6) on December 27, 2023. In these motions, she seeks to raise
essentially the same arguments the court has previously rejected,
but under different rules of civil procedure.
Having considered all of Klyman's arguments, Judge Schroeder ruled
on March 6, 2024, that all motions are DENIED and the CASE IS
CLOSED. Judge Schroeder added that:
1. Klyman's "FRCP Rule 59(e) Motion" is DENIED;
2. Klyman's "Motion to Order Parties to Use Mailing Address as
Provided to Court" is DENIED AS MOOT both because the parties have
been mailing her filings at three addresses for her and no further
filings will be made as this case is CLOSED;
3. Klyman's "Motion for Exemption of Pacer Fees" is DENIED AS
MOOT;
4. Klyman's "FRCP 60(b)(4) | 60(b)(6) Motion" is DENIED;
5. Klyman's "Motion for Stay of Text Order 129" and "Motion for
Stay of Text Order 130" are DENIED;
6. Klyman's "Objections to Text Order 129" and "Objections to No
24/7 Electronic Filing: Text Order 130" are OVERRULED.
The appellate case is captioned as Karen Klyman v. Wayne Goodwin,
Case No. 24-1453, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2024.[BN]
Movant-Appellant KAREN KLYMAN appears pro se.
Defendant-Appellee WAYNE GOODWIN, In his official capacity as
Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, is
represented by:
Stephanie A. Brennan, Esq.
Kathryne Elizabeth Hathcock, Esq.
Alexander McClure Peters, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Telephone: (919) 716-6937
OAKLAND COUNTY, CA: Sinclair Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARION SINCLAIR, on behalf
of herself and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF OAKLAND,
Case No. 2:18-cv-14042-TGB-MJH (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and 23
(b)(3) defined as follows:
"All persons and entities that owned real property in Oakland
County whose real property, during the relevant time period,
was
seized through a real property tax foreclosure and
subsequently
purchased via a local municipality's right of first refusal
program (MCL 211.78m), which was worth more than the total
tax
delinquency taxes owed and were not refunded the surplus
equity
in excess of the delinquent tax amount."
2. Appointing Mark L. McAlpine of McAlpine P.C. and Scott F.
Smith
of the Smith Law Group, PPLC as Co-Lead Counsel; and
3. Appointing Plaintiff Marion Sinclair as class representative.
In accordance with L.R. 7.1(a) the Plaintiff's counsel sought
concurrence from the Defendant's counsel in the relief sought by
this Motion but concurrence was not obtained.
After Plaintiff fell behind on her proper taxes, Oakland, through
its Treasurer, initiated forfeiture and foreclosure proceedings on
June 12, 2015, against the property owned by the Plaintiff. As part
of the GPTA procedure, a judgment of foreclosure was entered in the
Oakland County Circuit Court on Feb. 2, 2016.
On July 7, 2016, the property was subsequently transferred to
Southfield for $28,424.84. On Sept. 22, 2016, the property was
conveyed by quit claim deed from Southfield to SNRI for $1.00.
Title to the property remains in the possession of SNRI. To date,
Oakland County refuses to compensate Sinclair for her unlawfully
taken equity.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D2Z5Mv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. McAlpine, Esq.
Douglas W. Eyre, Esq.
Mark W. Oszust, Esq.
MCALPINE PC
3201 University Drive, Suite 200
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Telephone: (248) 373-3700
- and -
Scott F. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Telephone: (248) 626-1962
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Bid for Leave to File Sur-reply Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22,
2022), the Hon. Judge Mae A D'Agostino entered an order denying the
Defendant's request for leave to file a surreply.
-- The motion for class certification is deemed fully brief.
-- No further briefing will be permitted.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Ollie's is an American chain of discount closeout retailers.[CC]
PENNSYLVANIA: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHALIL HAMMOND, et. al.,
v. PA DOC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02290-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the
Commonwealth Defendants request that the Court strike the
Plaintiffs' class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
In the alternative, Commonwealth the Defendants request that this
Court partially dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Laurel Harry,
George M. Little, Michael Wenerowicz and Lucas Malishchak
("Commonwealth Defendants"), move to transfer this matter to the
Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
In the alternative, Commonwealth Defendants move to strike
Plaintiffs' class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
In the alternative, Commonwealth Defendants move to partially
dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The reasons for this Motion are stated in the accompanying
memorandum of law
On March 4, 2024 the Plaintiffs filed a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"). The Plaintiffs allege that the
Department of Corrections employs "solitary confinement" throughout
its various institutions, specifically within Security Level 5
housing units. The Plaintiffs further challenge the alleged failure
to provide adequate due process for inmates on the Restricted
Release List ("RRL") and the Intensive Management Unit ("IMU"), in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs include the following subclasses under the main
class of inmates subjected to "solitary confinement":
Mental Health Class
"All individuals who are currently or in the future will be housed
in an SL5 unit in the Pennsylvania Department and who ever had a
"C" or "D" designation on the DOC's MH/ID Roster."
Prolonged Solitary Confinement Class "All individuals who are
currently or in the future will be housed in any SL5 unit in the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and who have spent three
years or longer, whether cumulative or continuous, in an SL5
unit."
Mental Health Damages Class
"All individuals housed in an SL5 unit in the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) at any time since March 4, 2022 who
have ever had a "C" or "D" designation on the DOC's MH/ID Roster."
Prolonged Solitary Confinement Damages Class
"All individuals who have spent three years or longer, whether
cumulative or continuous, in any SL5 unit in the DOC and have been
housed in an SL5 unit at any time since March 4, 2022."
Disability Class
"All individuals who are currently or in the future will be housed
in an SL5 unit in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and
have a mental health condition that substantially limits one or
more major life activities."
RRL Class
"All individuals who are or in the future will be on the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Restricted Release List
(RRL)."
The six Plaintiffs in this putative class action are inmates housed
in six different State Correctional Institutions throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.ccom/u?l=7Bt8t5 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sarina Kaplan, Esq.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
1600 Arch St., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 768-3964
Facsimile: (717) 772-4526
E-mail: skaplan@attorneygeneral.gov
PINK JEEP: Slepian Seeks Reconsideration of May 21 Class Cert Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Geoffrey H. Slepian, on
behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Pink Jeep
Tours, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Herschend
Adventure Holdings, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Case
No. 3:23-cv-08105-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for reconsideration of order
denying plaintiff's motion for rule 23 class action certification.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g) and this Court's plenary power to
reconsider its Order, Plaintiff Geoffrey Slepian files this Motion
seeking reconsideration of the Court's May 21, 2024 Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Certification.
Good cause exists to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
as to one specific aspect of Plaintiff's Motion: Rule 23
certification of the claims for unpaid wages arising from the time
the Guides spent analyzing Pink Jeep's tour booking system known as
the Gantt without being compensated.
The Plaintiff believes that the Court "overlooked or misapprehended
matters" at issue regarding certification of Plaintiff's unpaid
wage claims arising from analyzing the Gantt. L.R. Civ 7.2(g).
Thus, Slepian requests the Court reconsider its Order as to
certification of his claim for unpaid wages arising from the time
the Guides must check Pink Jeep's tour booking system.
The Plaintiff brought claims for unpaid wages resulting from time
he and the similarly situated Guides are required to work off the
clock.
Pink Jeep is a passenger tour operator that offers off-road and
road-based excursions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tNREkV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC
2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 598-4000
E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com
patti@frankelsyverson.com
PREMERA BLUE: Class Cert Bid Filing in LB Suit Extended to Nov. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B.,
individually and on behalf of their minor child A.B., and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case No.
2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Zilly entered
an order modifying scheduling order as follows:
Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines Current New
Deadline
Deadline
Disclosure of supplemental expert N/A Sept. 16,
2024
testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2)
Disclosure of rebuttal expert N/A Oct. 15,
2024
testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2)
All motions related to discovery June 25, 2024 Oct. 25,
2024
must be filed by
Discovery completed by July 31, 2024 Nov. 22,
2024
Any motions related to class Aug. 6, 2024 Nov. 29,
2024
certification must be filed by
All dispositive motions must be Nov. 5, 2024 Mar. 5,
2025
filed by
All motions related to expert Nov. 12, 2024 Mar. 12,
2025
witnesses (e.g., Daubert motion)
must be filed by
Agreed Pretrial Order due Mar. 17, 2025 Aug. 29,
2025
Trial briefs, proposed voir Mar. 17, 2025 Aug. 29,
2025
dire questions, and proposed
jury instructions due
Pretrial conference Mar. 24, 2025 Sept. 5,
2025
Trial Apr. 3, 2025 Sept. 15,
2025
Premera is a not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield licensed health
insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pp96vZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAFE STREETS USA: Workman Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Streets USA LLC.
The case is styled as Candy Workman, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Safe Streets USA LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00375-AMA (D. Utah, May 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Safe Streets USA LLC -- https://www.safestreets.com/ -- is an ADT
Authorized Dealer, that sells and installs ADT-monitored security
systems.[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 -
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
SAN ANTONIO SECURITY: Soliz Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONEL SOLIZ, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SAN ANTONIO SECURITY AGENCY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00515 (W.D. Tex., May 17, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from San Antonio Security under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Soliz brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of
all current and former security guards who worked for San Antonio
Security Agency and were paid straight time for overtime. The
Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers regularly worked for San
Antonio Security in excess of 40 hours each week. But San Antonio
Security did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff worked for San Antonio Security from approximately
September 2021 until September 2023 as a Security Guard in and
around Corpus Christi, Texas.
San Antonio Security Agency LLC provides security services
throughout Texas, including in Corpus Christi and San Antonio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 766-4000
E-mail: carl@fitz.legal
SELENE FINANCE: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Discovery Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARISSA CRUZ, ROBERT
ALLAN MARTIN and KATRINA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order extending the class certification
discovery deadline to June 14, 2024, and Selene's deadline to
respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification to June
28, 2024.
.
Selene requests that the class certification discovery deadline be
extended to June 14, 2024, based on the Plaintiffs' depositions
currently scheduled to take place on June 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs'
first date of availability.
Finally, to account for the late scheduling of the Plaintiffs'
depositions, Selene requests that its deadline to respond to the
Class Certification Motion be extended until June 28, 2024.
On Oct. 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the first amended class
action complaint.
On Dec. 29, 2023, the Court entered the Order Setting Trial,
Setting Pre-Trial Deadlines, and Referring Certain Matters to
Magistrate Judge.
On May 8, 2024, after multiple follow up requests made by Selene's
counsel, the Plaintiffs' counsel indicated the Plaintiffs would not
be available for their depositions until, at earliest, June 6,
2024.
Selene operates as a residential mortgage company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zxtonP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sara D. Accardi, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
1001 Water Street, Suite 1000
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-5500
Facsimile: (813) 229-5946
E-mail: saccardi@bradley.com
jbrandt@bradley.com
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement Stipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE CHEN, MICHAEL
NGUYEN, and all other similarly situated employees of SS&C, v. SS&C
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
(1) preliminary approval of the Settlement Stipulation,
(2) certifying the Settlement class, for settlement purposes
only,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
(3) approving the notice and distribution of same to class
members,
(4) implementing the schedule and procedure proposed by the
parties
for effectuating the other terms of the Settlement and
(5) such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
SS&C develops financial software solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qgbVdx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kara Miller, Esq.
Jenny Brejt, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
40 Broad Street – 7th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 943-9081
E-mail: kmiller@vandallp.com
STATE FARM: Underpays Insureds w/ "Total Loss" Vehicles, Robin Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH ROBIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., an Illinois
Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00391-RLB-EWD (M.D. La., May 17,
2024) is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff, individually, and on
behalf of a putative class of persons, who were insureds under a
State Farm automobile policy issued for private passenger auto
physical damage, pursuant to which Defendant was required to pay
the cost to repair or replace an insured vehicle up to the "Actual
Cash Value" of the vehicle.
According to the complaint, one of the coverages State Farm sells
to consumers is comprehensive and collision coverage. State Farm
systematically and uniformly underpaid Plaintiff and thousands of
other putative Class Members amounts owed to its insureds who
suffered the total loss of a vehicle insured with comprehensive and
collision coverage.
Insureds, such as Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, pay a
premium in exchange for State Farm's promise to repair any damage
to an insured vehicle caused by a covered peril. However, State
Farm's obligation to repair damage is not limitless; rather, it is
limited (or capped) to the ACV of the insured vehicle -- for
example, State Farm is not obligated to spend $20,000 to repair
extensive damage to a vehicle that is only worth $5,000. Under such
circumstances, where the cost to repair damage exceeds the value of
the vehicle (less retained value), the vehicle is considered a
"total loss." If a "total loss" occurs, State Farm's contractual
obligation is limited to paying the ACV of the total-loss vehicle,
says the suit.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is an Illinois insurance
company licensed to and conducting business in Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1860
New Orleans, La 70113
Telephone: (504) 581-4892
Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
E-mail: sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com
- and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Christopher M. Hudon, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
ed@normandpllc.com
ean@normandpllc.com
TEAM HEALTH: Court Consolidates Buncombe County Suit w/ Plaquemine
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00420-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton Corker
entered an order agreeing with the parties that consolidation is
appropriate in light of the common questions of fact and law each
share.
In this case, the parties agree that the factors weigh in favor of
consolidation of the two cases for purposes of conducting discovery
relative to the class certification issue.
Accordingly, the Court orders that Buncombe County, North Carolina
v. Team Health Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 3:22-CV-00420 be
consolidated with City of Plaquemine v. Team Health Holdings, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:23-CV-00111 for the limited purpose of addressing the
class certification issue. It is further ordered that Buncombe
County, North Carolina v. Team Health Holdings, Inc., et al., No.
3:22-CV-00420 SHALL SERVE as the lead case for purposes of this
consolidation and future filings related to class certification
shall only be made in case 3:22-CV-00420.
At that point, the parties agreed they would be in a much better
position to identify who would need to be deposed during Phase I of
discovery. In fact, Plaintiff Buncombe County has already served
Defendants with written discovery, and Plaintiff City of Plaquemine
intends to do so as well. Further, counsel for Plaintiff City of
Plaquemine indicated they could serve Defendants with its written
discovery requests by the "first of next week." Accordingly,
Plaintiff Plaquemine shall serve Defendants with its initial
written discovery requests by Wednesday, June 5, 2024.
Counsel for Defendants also discussed the need to enter a
Protective Order governing disclosure of discovery material prior
to producing any written discovery. But counsel for the parties
represented that they have already been working on finalizing such
an order and believed a Proposed Protective Order could be
submitted for the Court's review within two weeks. Counsel for the
parties also believed that they could establish ESI protocols
within that time as well.
Accordingly, the parties shall file a Proposed Protective Order and
finalize ESI protocols by Wednesday, June 12, 2024. If the parties
cannot agree on a Proposed Protective Order, then the parties shall
file with the Court their respective proposals and provide the
Court the basis for the disagreement. The same shall be true for
the ESI protocols, that is, if the parties cannot agree, they shall
file with the Court their proposed ESI protocols and the basis for
their disagreement.
To monitor how discovery is progressing, the Court ORDERS
Defendants to file by July 31, 2024, a status report addressing the
production of written discovery. The parties agreed that the Court
could address the areas of disagreement regarding the number of
depositions that need to be taken and related issues at that point.
Accordingly, the Court sets a discovery conference by Zoom for
Wednesday, August 7, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. EST. The parties should be
prepared to address the remaining issues in dispute, if any, on the
call. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide connection information to
the parties via email. SO ORDERED:
Team Health offers staffing, administrative support and management
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6MRyoV at no extra
charge.[CC]
TELADOC HEALTH: Disseminates Misleading Statements, Stary Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL STARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TELADOC HEALTH, INC., JASON NATHANIALL
GOREVIC, and MALA MURTHY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03849
(S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2024) is a federal securities action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Teladoc stock between November 2, 2022 and February 20,
2024, inclusive, against Teladoc and certain of its officers and/or
directors for violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants disseminated or approved
false statements which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading. Specifically, the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they: (a) employed devices,
schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of
material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading; or (c) engaged in acts,
practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit upon Plaintiff and other Class members in connection with
their purchases of Teladoc stock during the Class Period.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered damages in
connection with their respective purchases and sales of Teladoc
stock during the Class Period, because, in reliance on the
integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for
Teladoc stock and experienced loses when the artificial inflation
was released from Teladoc stock as a result of the revelations and
stock price decline, says the suit.
Teladoc Health, Inc. provides direct-to-consumer, online health
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: RDC Sues Over Anticompetitive Delay Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------------
RDC LIQUIDATING TRUST, by and through its trustee, ADVISORY TRUST
GROUP LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
R&D, INC.; NORTON (WATERFORD) LTD.; and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11320 (D. Mass., May 17, 2024)
is brought under Section 4 of the Clayton Act for injuries
sustained from violations of the Sherman Act by the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the defendants in this action, Teva
Branded Pharmaceuticals R&D, Inc. and its affiliates, embarked on a
nearly decade-long (and continuing) anticompetitive scheme to delay
generic competition for QVAR, its blockbuster line of brand name
asthma inhalers. QVAR's lawful period of patent exclusivity was set
to expire in July 2015. But that was too soon for Teva. So Teva
perpetrated a full panoply of anticompetitive delay tactics that
both collectively and individually violate the antitrust laws to
extend its exclusivity and continue charging astronomical prices,
says the suit.
This suit is brought under federal antitrust law to recover the
overcharges sustained by direct purchasers for QVAR and QVAR
Redihaler as a result of Teva's alleged unlawful monopoly.
Teva Pharmaceutical is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Jonathan Seredynski, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
1 Landmark Sq. - 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
Adam Steinfeld, Esq.
Stephen G. Doherty, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
One Penn Center, Suite 1550
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
Facsimile: (215) 983-9330
E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
jlukens@faruqilaw.com
asteinfeld@faruqilaw.com
sdoherty@faruqilaw.com
TRUEACCORD CORP: June 28 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINA QUINN-DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
TRUEACCORD CORP., Case No. 1:23-cv-23590-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for an extension of time through and including June 28,
2024, to file her motion for class certification.
On Apr. 23, 2024, this Court entered an amended order setting jury
trial and class certification deadlines. The Amended Order set May
31, 2024, as the deadline to file any motions for class
certification.
Before the Amended Order, there was no class certification deadline
in place. As such, the Plaintiff anticipated that she would have
until the discovery deadline, June 28, 2024, to complete class
discovery. The Plaintiff needs a brief extension of time to
complete class discovery.
As this extension will affect the Defendant's response deadline and
the Hearing on Class Certification. The Plaintiff proposes the
extension of the Defendant's response deadline to July 26, 2024.
The Plaintiff also proposes the continuance of the Hearing on Class
Certification to Aug. 7, 2024. These extensions will not prevent
the parties from complying with the other deadlines set by the
Court or the current trial setting. This Motion is being made in
good faith and not for delay. Accordingly, good cause exists to
grant this Motion.
TrueAccord is a third party debt collection company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sJU3Vq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
TSAROUHIS LAW GROUP: Yoo Files Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tsarouhis Law Group,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jung Yoo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Brutlag, Trucke & Doherty,
P.A., Spring Lake Park Lumber Co., Perfekt, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-05350-MAS-TJB (D. Minn., April 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Tsarouhis Law Group -- https://www.pacollections.com/ -- is a
full-service collection law firm serving New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason Robert Lipkin, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC
112 W. 34TH STREET, SUITE 1515
NEW YORK, NY 10120
Phone: (646) 362-4058
Email: jlipkin@mcglinchey.com
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Eberhardt Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chris Eberhardt, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL,
INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF U-HAUL HOLDING COMPANY; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 24CV01165 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Cruz, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on May 28,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03183.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, as well as a claim for negligence. These
claims arise out of property damage Plaintiff allegedly incurred
after an uninsured motorist crashed into Plaintiff's home and
surrounding property while operating a U-Haul vehicle.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
Russell L. Taylor, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 544-1900
Fax: (415) 391-0281
Email: tbwebb@shb.com
rtaylor@shb.com
UNITED SUGAR: Salazar Suit Alleges Sugar Price-Fixing Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY SALAZAR, LIANA BRITT, KIMBERLY RYBARCZYK, AMANDA BOARDMAN AND
VIRGINIA SMITH Plaintiffs v. UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS
COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING, INC.; ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.;
CARGILL, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.;
AND RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01847-JMB-ECW
(D. Minn., May 17, 2024) alleges that Defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices for
Granulated Sugar sold throughout the United States since at least
January 1, 2019.
According to the complaint, the Producing Defendants are the
largest producers and sellers of Granulated Sugar in the United
States. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Producing Defendants
engaged in anticompetitive behavior by price signaling and
exchanging, with each other and through Defendant Commodity
Information, Inc., competitively sensitive information related to
pricing, production capacity, sales volume and demand with the
intent and effect of increasing Granulated Sugar prices throughout
the United States.
As a direct result of Defendants' conspiracy, Granulated Sugar
prices in the United States have been artificially inflated since
at least 2019, causing Plaintiffs and Class Members to pay more for
Granulated Sugar than they would have but for the conspiracy, says
the suit.
The Plaintiffs purchased granulated sugar in various states in the
U.S. indirectly from one or more Defendants during the class
period.
United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative sells granulated
sugar primarily under the brand name Crystal Sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa Weiner, Esq.
Brian S. Pafundi, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Ave. South, Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
bpafundi@pwfirm.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
bpouya@pwfirm.com
- and -
Jill Manning, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
555 Montgomery St., Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
E-mail: jmanning@pwfirm.com
VALVE CORP: Bid to Seal Confidential Information Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v.
Valve Corporation (VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion to seal.
The Plaintiffs moved for the certification of a class of game
developers and/or game publishers who paid the Defendant for the
use or sale of the developers/publishers' games on the Defendant's
game platform. That motion, along with various supporting exhibits,
includes information the Defendant categorizes as confidential
financial information; business, decision-making, operational
documents and communications; details regarding certain third-party
contracts and related communications; third-party financial
information; third-party business information and communications;
and/or personally identifiable information.
The Defendant contends the disclosure of this information would
harm either Defendant's or third-parties' competitive standing. On
this basis, Defendant asks to maintain unredacted versions of
documents containing this information under seal.
Accordingly, within 14 days of this order, the parties shall meet
and confer and file final public redacted versions of Docket
Numbers 181 and 182-2 (based on the highlighting provided in
Exhibits A and B).3 In the meantime, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
continue to maintain Docket Numbers 181, 182, and 182-1–182-84
under seal. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to maintain Exhibits A
and B to this order under seal (and provide the parties a copy
electronically).
Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher,
and digital distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUcAR0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to Sept. 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON SPENCER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WALMART INC., a foreign for-profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01793-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara
Rothstein entered an order resetting the upcoming case deadlines,
including the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for
class certification, the deadline for the Defendant to file its
response to the motion for class certification, and the deadline
for the Plaintiff to file his reply in support of the motion for
class certification as follows:
Event Original Extended
Deadline Deadline
Deadline to Complete Discovery May 7, 2024 Aug. 15,
2024
related to Class Certification
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to June 7, 2024 Sept. 5,
2024
File Motion for Class
Certification
Defendant's Response to the July 12, 2024 Oct. 10,
2024
Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff's reply in Support of July 26, 2024 Oct. 24,
2024
the Motion for Class Certification
Walmart operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department
stores, and grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHzKFx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani Jr., Esq.
EMERY | REDDY PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101-1269
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam T. Pankratz, Esq.
Mathew A. Parker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 693-7057
Facsimile: (206) 693-7058
E-mail: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com
mathew.parker@ogletree.com
WESTERN ELECTRICAL: Delsom Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Electrical
Contractors Association, Inc., et al. The case is styled as
Michelle A. Delsom, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Western Electrical Contractors Association,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24CV007662 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., April 17, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (WECA) --
https://www.goweca.com/ -- is the premier independent electrical
and low voltage contractors association in the American West.[BN]
WHALECO INC: Kohler Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WhaleCo, Inc. The
case is styled as Kristen Kohler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WhaleCo, Inc. doing business as: Temu,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00935-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
WhaleCo, Inc. doing business as Temu -- https://www.temu.com/ -- is
an online marketplace operated by the Chinese e-commerce company
PDD Holdings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Johnsgard, Esq.
COAST LAW GROUP
1140 S. Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Phone: (760) 942-8505
Fax: (760) 942-8515
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Aya Dardari, Esq.
Helen Irene Zeldes, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 400-4990
Email: adardari@sshhzlaw.com
hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
- and -
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
9415 Culver Blvd., #115
Culver City, CA 90232
Phone: (619) 400-4990
WOW RESTAURANT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chen Extended to July 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chen, et al., v. Wow
Restaurant TH, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-01602 (M.D. Fla., Filed July
17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Cov entered an
endorsed order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to extend time to complete discovery.
-- The discovery deadline is now: June 28, 2024
-- The deadline to file a motion for July 30, 2024
class certification is now:
-- The deadline to respond to the Aug. 20, 2024
motion for class certification
is now:
-- The dispositive motions deadline July 30, 2024
is now:
-- All other motions are now due by: Nov. 12, 2024
-- The joint meeting to prepare the Nov. 25, 2024
pretrial statement must now occur by:
-- The pretrial statement is now due: Dec. 5, 2024
-- The pretrial conference is now: Dec. 12, 2024
The nature of suit states fraudulent filing of information
returns.[CC]
ZULILY LLC: Douglas Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex Douglas, Samuel Prestwood, Jittania Smith, and others
similarly situated v. ZULILY, LLC, REGENT, L.P., ZULILY ABC, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02916-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 28, 2024), is
brought to recover for the harm as a result of the Defendants
failure to provide notice and for systemic violations of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988
(WARN), and related state law claims.
In May of 2023, private equity firm Defendant Regent, L.P.
purchased Defendant Zulily, LLC. As a result of this acquisition,
the former owned, operated, and controlled the latter. By December
of 2023, however, Defendant Regent, L.P. decided that Defendant
Zulily, LLC was no longer a viable company and chose to voluntarily
liquidate it. As part of this voluntary liquidation, Defendant
Regent, L.P. ordered the layoff of the following employees of
Defendant Zulily, LLC: around 300 employees in the State of
Washington, and around 550 employees in the State of Ohio and the
State of Nevada.
When Defendant Regent, L.P. ordered these layoffs, neither it nor
Defendant Zulily, LLC provided sixty-day WARN Act notices or pay to
all affected employees. Instead, they provided it only to affected
employees who worked in-person. Defendant Regent, L.P. apparently
decided it could save money in the liquidation process if it did
not provide sixty-day WARN Act notices or pay to any remote
workers. Specifically, management disclosed to some of the laid off
workers that Defendant Regent, L.P.'s lawyers had supposedly found
a "loophole" in the WARN Act for remote employees under which the
statute allegedly did not apply to them. This was not accurate,
however, and the WARN Act does in fact cover remote employees who
are affected by a "plant closing" or "mass layoff" as defined by
the statute.
The Plaintiffs were laid off, and did not receive sixty days'
notice or pay under the WARN Act. They are entitled to those wages,
plus the applicable waiting-time penalties under state law for
failure to timely pay those wages. The Plaintiffs intend to
represent, in this class action, all of Defendant Zulily, LLC's
remote workers who were wrongfully denied their rights under the
WARN Act and related state law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked remotely for Defendant Zulily, LLC.
Zulily, LLC is an e-commerce company that sells various merchandise
out of its fulfillment centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason E. Starling, Esq.
WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING
4635 Trueman Boulevard, Suite 200
Hilliard, OH 43026
Phone: (614) 586-7915
Facsimile: (614) 586-7901
Email: jstarling@willisattorneys.com
- and -
John C. Camillus, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
P.O. Box 141410
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Phone: (614) 992-1000
Facsimile: (614) 559-6731
Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***