/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240613.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 13, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 119 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mungaray Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation ARIZONA BEVERAGES: August 8 Extension for Class Cert Bid Sought AUTOMATIC DATA: Court Certifies Kiani Collective Action BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Aseltine Suit Gets Initial Nod BASF CORP: Camden Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines BMW OF NORTH: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification Briefing BNSF RAILWAY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Miyler Suit BROCK GROUP: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply in Valentic Class Suit CENCORA INC: Pettiford Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info CHINA: Buzz Photos Appeals Denial of Bid to Reopen Case CITADEL SERVICING: Plaintiffs Seek June 19 Class Cert Bid Deadline COLOR FACTORY: Charles Suit Seeks Class Certification CONVERSE INC: Court Removes Exhibit 7 in Gutierrez Class Suit ELECTRONIC SERVITOR: Faces Borgers Class Suit in Colorado ELON MUSK: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ERTC EXPRESS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline in Dukes FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded Perrone's Counsel FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Fields' Counsel FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Mull's Counsel FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM in Atty's Fees Awarded to Robertson's Counsel FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM in Atty's Fees Awarded to Smith's Counsel FNU JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Partaka Suit with Prejudice FORD MOTOR: Martin Seeks to File Portions of Class Cert Under Seal FORD MOTOR: Martin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GOLDEN STATE: Filing of Class Cert and PAGA Claims Due June 24 HOUSTON EMERGENCY: Misclassifies Tow Truck Drivers, Steele Says HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals Fees Ruling to 3rd Cir. MEDSTAR HEALTH: Slaton Sues Over Unprotected Health Info OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Stith-Morales Sues Over Unpaid Wages PIONEER & CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hedges Says SHEIN US SERVICES: Ramirez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SOL AND SELENE: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA: Roark Balks at Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Class Suit in Delaware STARBUCKS CORP: Premo Alleges Discriminatory Surcharge for Drinks STITCH FIX: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Long Files Appeal in Kentucky Supreme Court VITALS CONSUMER: Sweeton Seeks to File Corrected Class Cert Bid WALMART INC: Bid to Dismiss Opioid-Related Securities Suit Pending WEBMD LLC: Sweeton Seeks to File Corrected Class Cert Bid WELLS FARGO: SEB Investment Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action WILLIAM MARSHALL: Brandon Bid for Prelim Injunctive Relief OK'd WOODFORD COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Keim ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mungaray Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Mungaray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Nationwide Testing Association Inc., Low Country Drug Screening LLC and Quantix SCS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2024CP1002726 (S.C. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., May 24, 2024) brings claims for discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. On or about March or April of 2023, Defendants Abbott LCDS, NTA publicized a drug screen report to Quantix that falsely insinuated that Plaintiff was actively using marijuana and was performing his job under the influence of a controlled substance. Defendants Abbott LCDS, NTA provided a drug screen report to Plaintiff's employer that was inaccurate, misleading, and false. Quantix terminated Plaintiff based on the false and misleading drug screen report, says the suit. As a proximate result of the alleged false drug screen report, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Class Members have suffered economic loss, loss of their reputation, shame, and injury to their feelings. The Plaintiff was employed by Quantix as a lift operator from January 2017 until his unlawful termination on April 10, 2023. Abbott Laboratories Inc. is a publicly traded global healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 4900 O'Hear Ave. North Charleston, SC 29405 Telephone: (843) 588-5587 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net ARIZONA BEVERAGES: August 8 Extension for Class Cert Bid Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andre Miller, Kaaron Warren, and Joe Digiacinto, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-03540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the joint stipulation extending deadlines for class certification briefing, fact discovery, expert discovery and dispositive motion deadlines as follows: Event New Deadline Class certification motion Aug. 8, 2024 Defendants' opposition to class Oct. 17, 2024 certification and expert disclosures opposing class certification Plaintiffs reply in support of class Nov. 19, 2024 ce1tification Defendant's Daubert Motions regarding Oct. 17, 2024 Plaintiffs motion for class certification Hearing on Class Certification Motion Jan. 7, 2025 Dispositive Motion Hearing Date Mar. 4, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery Dec. 31, 2024 Close of Fact Discovery Nov. 14, 2024 On Mar. 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a first amended complaint whereby two additional Plaintiffs filed claims. On Apr. 24, 2024, the Defendant propounded additional discovery requests on the two additional Plaintiffs and those Plaintiffs have requested an extension of time to respond. Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dki2b2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Gurwell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KYLE GURWELL 7755 Center Ave Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 The Defendant is represented by: Leticia C. Butler, Esq. Olivia J. Miner, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 E-mail: lbutler@wilsonturnerkosmo.com ominer@wilsonturnerkosmo.com - and - Robert P. Donovan, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone:(201) 857-6778 E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com AUTOMATIC DATA: Court Certifies Kiani Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amir Kiani, et al., v. Automatic Data Processing Incorporated, Case No. 4:23-cv-00508-BGM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Macdonald entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a Collective Action; -- conditionally certifying the following collective: "All hourly commissioned sales representatives, also known as inside sales representatives, or district managers (including those designated as senior or elite), or digital sales associates, employed by ADP, Inc. in Tucson, Arizona, since Sept. 22, 2020;" and -- approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join, proposed method of distribution including mailing, emailing, texting, and sending an Adobe Sign version, and the form and content of the proposed language for each distribution method; The Defendant shall produce the requested contact information of each collective member in an electronically importable and malleable electronic format, such as Excel or .csv, within seven (7) days after the date of this Order. The Court adopts the following deadlines and notice plan: DEADLINE DESCRIPTION OF DEADLINE 7 Days After Order Defendant to produce the names, mailing Approving Notice addresses, last known e-mail addresses and cell phone number of the collective members in a usable electronic format. 14 Days After Order Plaintiffs' Counsel to send by U.S. mail, Approving Notice email message and text message a copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the collective members. 30 Days After Plaintiffs’ Counsel is authorized to send a E-Mailing of Notice follow-up email via Adobe Sign and a text message to those collective members who did not respond to the initial notice. The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated employees "were pressured not to clock in during overtime hours worked before their scheduled start time, after their scheduled end time, over lunch, or on the weekend," in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The Plaintiffs were ADP employees paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiffs' duties included "making and receiving phone calls, text messages, and emails from current and prospective clients, securing software sales contracts with clients, and meeting the required sales quota." Automatic Data sells payroll, human resources, and tax services to businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JNSqpV at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Aseltine Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON ASELTINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-00235-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order preliminarily approving class settlement and certifying class for settlement purposes. -- The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All Accountholders in the United States who, during the Class Period, paid and were not refunded an Incoming Wire Transfer Fee." Excluded from the Settlement Class is BANA, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, all Settlement Class members who make a timely election to opt-out, and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. The Class Period is March 8, 2019, through August 31, 2023. -- The named Plaintiff, Aaron Aseltine, is designated as Class Representative. -- The following attorneys and firms are appointed as Class Counsel: Jeff Ostrow and Jonathan Streisfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Sophia Gold of KalielGold PLLC; David Wilkerson of The Van Winkle Law Firm. -- The Court approves the appointment of Kroll, LLC as the Settlement Administrator. The Defendant offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, and online banking. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pu1Mos at no extra charge.[CC] BASF CORP: Camden Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v. BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b) and (e): (1) preliminary approving a proposed Settlement Agreement with BASF Corporation ("BASF"); (2) preliminary certifying, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement Class; (3) approving the form of Notice to the Settlement Class; (4) approving Notice Plan and its commencement; (5) appointing Class Counsel; (6) appointing Class Representatives; (7) appointing the Notice Administrator; (8) appointing the Claims Administrator; (9) appointing the Opt Out Administrator; (10) appointing the Special Master; (11) the scheduling of Objection, Opt Out, and other deadlines; and (12) scheduling of a Final Fairness Hearing. BASF offers chemicals, plastics, performance, and crop protection products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=URXhAB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C. 59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00986 (M.D. Fla., Filed May 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. -- The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Blackstone is a privately held medical company.[CC] BMW OF NORTH: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification Briefing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIS et al., v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the deadlines for serving the parties' class certification briefing be slightly modified. Pursuant to the Court's prior Amended Scheduling Orders, class certification began with the Plaintiffs serving their opening brief on May 22, 2024. The parties have conferred and propose the following schedule for the remainder of the briefing: BMW NA will serve its brief in opposition on July 22, 2024; and Plaintiffs will serve their brief in reply on Sept. 18, 2024. The parties anticipate that all class certification briefing will be filed on CM/ECF under the old "Appendix N" format per the Court's schedule on Sept. 21, 2024. This is a modification from the previously set deadline of Aug. 30, 2024. We greatly appreciate the Court's attention to this matter. BMW is an importer and distributor of BMW luxury and performance vehicles, and light trucks. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8t5YLC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4582 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com BNSF RAILWAY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Miyler Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miyler, v. BNSF Railway Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-04054-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. BNSF is one of seven North American Class I railroads. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HEhPcv at no extra charge.[CC] BROCK GROUP: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply in Valentic Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALENTIC v. THE BROCK GROUP, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01789 (W.D. Pa., Filed Dec 8, 2021), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply. The nature of suit states civil rights -- employment. Brock is a provider of industrial specialty services.[CC] CENCORA INC: Pettiford Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE PETTIFORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC., THE LASH GROUP, LLC, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB PATIENT ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02228 (E.D. Pa., May 24, 2024) is a class action arises out of Defendants' failure to properly secure, safeguard, transmit, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. This case involves the unauthorized breach of Defendant Cencora's information system announced through a Notice of Data Security Incident letter on May 17, 2024, wherein -- on or around February 21, 2024 -- the personal identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members was exposed due to a flaw in Defendant Cencora's information systems, which allowed hackers and other bad actors to obtain Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information for unsavory and illegal purposes. The complaint asserts that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) declaratory relief. Cencora, Inc. is a drug wholesale company and contact research organization that provides drug distribution and consulting services to health care providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (215) 888-3214 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las. Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CHINA: Buzz Photos Appeals Denial of Bid to Reopen Case ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs BUZZ PHOTOS, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's September 15, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit styled BUZZ PHOTOS, FREEDOM WATCH, INC., LARRY KLAYMAN, and members of the class and subclasses and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY, THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY, and agency of the Government of China, SHI ZHENGLI, Director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and MAJOR GENERAL CHEN WEI of China's People's Liberation Army, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00656-K-BN, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this complaint is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs on March 17, 2020 against Defendants for their alleged negligence, wrongful conducts causing wrongful deaths, assault and battery and violations of 18 U.S. Code Sections 2332(a)(b)(c), 2333, and 2339A. The complaint alleges that the People's Republic of China and its agencies and officials violated its agreements under international treaties by creating and releasing, accidental or otherwise, of a variation of coronavirus known as COVID-19 as a biological weapon. Allegedly, China failed to prevent the Wuhan Institute of Virology's personnel from being infected with the bioweapon and carrying it into the surrounding community and proliferation into the U.S. The complaint asserts that because of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs and members of the class and subclasses suffered conscious pain, suffering, severe emotional distress and the fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death, and death, and have suffered pecuniary and economic damage, loss of support, loss of nurture, care and guidance, grief, anguish, loss of services, loss of society, and other mental and physical injuries. On February 1, 2021, Judge David L. Horan entered an Order administratively closing the case. On September 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case and Plaintiffs' official status report which the Court denied the following day through an Order entered by Judge Ed Kinkeade. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Buzz Photos, Case No. 24-10454, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 23, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Buzz Photos, et al., members of the class and subclasses and all persons and entities similarly situated, are represented by: Larry Klayman, Esq. FREEDOM WATCH, INC. 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Ste. 345 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (561)558-5336 Email: leklayman@gmail.com CITADEL SERVICING: Plaintiffs Seek June 19 Class Cert Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Falon Ballard and Matthew Ballard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Citadel Servicing Corporation, a/k/a Acra Lending; and DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to continue the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification by six weeks, from June 7, 2024 to July 19, 2024. This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiffs need to complete the deposition of a key third party witness, ServiceMac, LLC ("SM"), the subservicer of the Plaintiffs' loan. On Jan. 31, 2024 the Plaintiffs took the first part of SM's deposition. The deposition time was cut short due to the discovery hearing, SM's witnesses being two hours ahead in the Central time zone, and Ms. Robinson's personal obligations. Following the Court's discovery order, on May 3 Citadel and SM produced additional documents. However, to date SM has unreasonably refused to appear for the second part of its deposition. SM's deposition is necessary for Plaintiffs to prepare their class certification motion because SM possesses information about its credit reporting procedures and practices that impacted other borrowers and debt collection conduct and notices that were sent to other borrowers, that is critical and material to Plaintiffs' class certification motion. Following the parties most recent meet and confer call on Friday, May 31, it appears that SM will agree to voluntarily appear for the second part of its deposition. Plaintiffs expect to find out by Tuesday, June 4 whether SM will agree to do so. The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint seeking to certify the following two classes: Credit Reporting Class: "All persons in California who received a payment "accommodation" from Citadel as defined by the CARES Act, were current before the accommodation, and whose accounts were reported as delinquent or past due as a result of the non-payments subject to the accommodation, during the relevant statute of limitations period." Debt Collection Class: "All persons in California who received a payment "accommodation" from Citadel as that term is defined by the CARES Act, were current before the accommodation, and received a past due debt collection notice as a result of the non-payments subject to the accommodation, during the relevant statute of limitations period." Citadel provides non-prime loans for residential properties on both an owner occupied and non-owner occupied basis. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3traX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (833) 729-5529 Facsimile: (833) 972-9546 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com COLOR FACTORY: Charles Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZHARIA CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLOR FACTORY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00322-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff, on June 28, 2024, will move before the Honorable Jed. S. Rakoff, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to: (i) certify a class defined as "all individuals who purchased tickets to Color Factory NYC from the Defendant's website from Aug. 29, 2022 to Jan. 23, 2024, and paid fees in connection with that purchase;" (ii) appointing Zharia Charles as representative of the Class; and (iii) appointing Philip L. Fraietta and Stefan Bogdanovich of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel. Pursuant to the Court's March 4, 2024 Civil Case Management Plan, opposition papers, if any, shall be filed by June 17, 2024, and reply papers, if any, shall be filed by June 24, 2024. Color Factory specializes in the production of vibrant and innovative color-based products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PTdZ2C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com CONVERSE INC: Court Removes Exhibit 7 in Gutierrez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nora Gutierrez, v. Converse Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06547-KK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting stipulation to remove and replace exhibit 7. The Court is in receipt of the parties' stipulation seeking to remove Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Camrie Ventry filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification from the public docket and permit the filing of a redacted version of Exhibit 7. The stipulation is granted. Exhibit 7, dkt. 83-13, is ordered to be placed under seal. The Court will consider the redacted version of Exhibit 7, dkt. 90-1, as part of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Converse is an American lifestyle brand that markets, distributes, and licenses footwear, apparel, and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TTTVmm at no extra charge.[CC] ELECTRONIC SERVITOR: Faces Borgers Class Suit in Colorado --------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Servitor Publication Network Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2024, that the Company faces the Borgers class suit in the District Court in the State of Colorado in Jefferson County. On May 30, 2024, the Company filed suit against Borgers and its owner in a class action captioned Electronic Servitor Publication Network, Inc. v. BF Borgers CPa PC. et al,. Case No. 2024CV030771, which is pending in the District Court in the State of Colorado in Jefferson County (the "Class Action Lawsuit"). The complaint for the Class Action Lawsuit alleges negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, deceptive trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Company seeks compensatory damages in the Class Action Lawsuit. Electronic Servitor Publication Network, Inc. amplifies reach and lift for content providers through its development and use of a proprietary technology platform. The platform's functionality provisions content and provides an omni-channel publishing tool for its users with talent identity protection and monetization tools in line with interaction and media creation services. ELON MUSK: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ELON R. MUSK, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to extend the deadlines for certification briefing and amendment of the pleadings, as follows: 1. Defendant's deadline to file his Opposition to the motion shall be extended to July 15, 2024; 2. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of their motion shall be extended to Aug. 16, 2024; 3. The hearing on the Motion should be held no earlier than Sept. 6, 2024, at a date and time to be scheduled by the Court. 4. The deadline to amend the pleadings shall be extended to Dec. 20, 2024. On Feb. 27, 2024, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting dates for briefing on a Class Certification Motion. On May 24, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify The parties have met and conferred and agreed that in order for each party to adequately conduct certification related-fact and expert discovery relevant to the Motion, the time for the parties to oppose and reply to the Motion should be extended The parties have also met and conferred and agreed that the deadline to amend the pleadings should be continued due to the discovery stay and fact that the Plaintiffs have not received any discovery to-date. Elon Musk is a businessman and investor known for his key roles in space company SpaceX and automotive company Tesla, Inc. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJKGIA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Aaron Arnzen, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com aarnzen@bottinilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alex Spiro, Esq. Jesse A. Bernstein, Esq. Jonathan E. Feder, Esq. Michael T. Lifrak, Esq. Joseph C. Sarles, Esq. Alex Bergjans, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Madison Ave 22nd floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com jonathanfeder@quinnemanuel.com michaellifrak@quinnemanuel.com josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com alexbergjans@quinnemanuel.com ERTC EXPRESS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline in Dukes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE DUKES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ERTC EXPRESS, LLC and JOHN SOUZA, Case No. 8:24-cv-00618-TPB-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to stay the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification until both the Defendants have responded to an amended Complaint and a case management scheduling order, which would include a revised deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion, is filed by this Court. Pursuant Local Rule 3.01(g), Counsel for the Defendants has conferred with the Plaintiffs' counsel by email, and the Plaintiff agrees that the Defendants should have an opportunity to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion. On March 8, 2024, the Plaintiff Charlotte Dukes filed the Complaint in the United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. On April 9, 2024, the Defendant ERTC provided answers to the allegations and affirmative and other defenses to the Complaint. On May 31, 2024, the parties met and conferred and agreed to the following: a) Plaintiff would file an amended Complaint to which the Defendants will respond; b) the parties will file a joint proposed case management report no later than June 7, 2024; and c) the proposed case management report will include a revised deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion. ERTC is a business consultancy that focuses on tax consultation and provides expert assistance on employee retention tax credits. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fJ5ODl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Adama K. Wiltshire, Esq. James W. Seegers, Esq. Eric L. Barnum, Esq. Mitchell A. Robinson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32802-0112 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jseegers@bakerlaw.com ebarnum@bakerlaw.com marobinson@bakerlaw.com awiltshire@bakerlaw.com FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded Perrone's Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perrone, et al v. Family Dollar, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02383 (W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars, which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here. Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the reasonableness of rates charged. As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs' counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is appropriate. The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested fees are reasonable. All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism, expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor of approving the fee request. On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of proposed settlement. Family Dollar is an American variety store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GQOmJS at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Fields' Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fields, et al v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02380 (W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars, which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here. Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is unopposed, they still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the reasonableness of rates charged. As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs' counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is appropriate. The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested fees are reasonable. All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism, expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor of approving the fee request. On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of proposed settlement. Family Dollar is an American variety store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ekt6VY at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM Atty's Fees Awarded to Mull's Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mull v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc., et al. (Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation), Case No. e 2:22-cv-02408-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars, which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here. Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is unopposed, they still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the reasonableness of rates charged. As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs' counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is appropriate. The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested fees are reasonable. All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism, expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor of approving the fee request. On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of proposed settlement. Family Dollar is an American variety store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i0iYmX at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM in Atty's Fees Awarded to Robertson's Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robertson, et al., v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas LLC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02378 (W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars, which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here. Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the reasonableness of rates charged. As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs' counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is appropriate. The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested fees are reasonable. All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism, expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor of approving the fee request. On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of proposed settlement. Family Dollar is an American variety store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6k0Joi at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: $10MM in Atty's Fees Awarded to Smith's Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Family Dollar Inc et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02375 (W.D. Tenn), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order awarding ten million dollars in attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of ten million dollars, which applies a multiplier of about two. Because this is not a common fund case, the Plaintiffs assert that the lodestar method is appropriate. Indeed, the lodestar method is favored in cases where there is no common fund, and thus it will apply here. Although Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is unopposed, they still have the burden of providing evidence of hours worked and the reasonableness of rates charged. As the Court noted in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the outcome of the case was uncertain. Considering the risk Plaintiffs' counsel took in bringing the case, a multiplier of two is appropriate. The complexity of the case also supports finding that the requested fees are reasonable. All attorneys have handled matters with extreme professionalism, expediency, and competency. All attorneys have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the applicable law throughout the case and have successfully navigated this case to the settlement stage. The Court has no hesitation concluding that this factor weighs in favor of approving the fee request. On May 6, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards and granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of proposed settlement. Family Dollar is an American variety store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p1vtke at no extra charge.[CC] FNU JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Partaka Suit with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS W. PARTAKA, et al., v. FNU JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00031-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jeremy Kernodle entered an order adopting report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the District Court. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any request for class certification is denied. On April 17, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and deny any request by the Plaintiff seeking a class action proceeding in this case. The Plaintiff objected. The Plaintiff's objections fail to address the substance of the Magistrate Judge's Report. Rather, he maintains that the "plaintiffs are not going to let the defendants get away with this." The Plaintiff identifies no error in the Report. Further, the Plaintiff's mere "Notice" of an intent to file a class action is insufficient. Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct, and the Plaintiff's objections are without merit. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aUVLrD at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Martin Seeks to File Portions of Class Cert Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10365-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing her to provisionally file under seal certain portions of her Motion for Class Certification, and certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Jordan L. Lurie in Support of the Plaintiff's motion for certification. The portions of the Motion for Certification, and exhibits attached to the Lurie Declaration, to be provisionally sealed either constitute, quote, reference, or otherwise rely on information that the Defendant or CARB designated as "Confidential" under the stipulated protective order. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1dtupF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Martin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10365-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 20, 2024, will move for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). The Plaintiff also moves to appoint the Plaintiff as representative of the Class and to appoint Jordan L. Lurie and Ari Y. Basser of Pomerantz LLP, and Robert L. Starr of the Law Offices of Robert L. Starr as counsel for the Class. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=baQtT4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com GOLDEN STATE: Filing of Class Cert and PAGA Claims Due June 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA ROMERO; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLDEN STATE SUPPLY, LLC, a limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-10578-MCS-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order: 1) That the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and PAGA claims will remain on calendar on Aug. 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.; 2) That the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and PAGA claims be filed no later than June 24, 2024; 3) That the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion be filed no later than July 8, 2024; and 4) That the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion be filed no later than July 22, 2024. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court ordered that good cause exists to continue the hearing date on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the briefing schedule because the parties have diligently worked to mediate the case and require additional time to consider the mediator’s proposal prior to investing the time and resources preparing the briefing and having a hearing on the Motion for Class Certification A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LuQLma at no extra charge.[CC] HOUSTON EMERGENCY: Misclassifies Tow Truck Drivers, Steele Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN STEELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. HOUSTON EMERGENCY AUTO RESCUE & TRUCKING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01993 (S.D. Tex., May 24, 2024) is a collective action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant requires Plaintiff to work more that 40 hours in a work week. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee and paid him based on the number of tow jobs he performed without overtime. Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a tow truck driver in approximately July of 2022. He is currently still employed by Defendant. Houston Emergency Auto Rescue & Trucking LLC is a towing company that operates under the tradename HEART Towing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals Fees Ruling to 3rd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs JAY J. LIN, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JAY LIN, and IRENE LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK M & T BANK; and PARKER MCCAY, PA, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15387-BRM-LHG, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, this suit brought by the Plaintiffs on October 29, 2018 is a class action against the Defendants for monetary damages, out-of-pocket expenses, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and penalties. According to the complaint, August 3, 2010, the Defendants filed a foreclosure case to foreclose on the Plaintiffs' mortgage of 2007 and 2001 which had been paid off. The Plaintiffs settled and remitted payments to the Defendants. The Defendants delayed to sign the settlement as it was merging with another entity. Within the foreclosure case against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants included in a claim for costs to cover the additional fees, disbursements fees and the attorneys' fees in the Defendants complaint. The Defendants filed Bankruptcy Petitions under Chapter 11 and for an automatic stay on August 3, 2015. However, the Defendants refused to stay the Plaintiffs' foreclosure case while the bankruptcy case is pending causing damages to the Plaintiffs, says the suit. On January 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued which the Court denied through a January 11 Memorandum Order signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti. Also on January 4, 2019, Defendants HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK M & T BANK filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant PARKER MCCAY PA filed a motion to dismiss on March 6. On August 26, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. On November 8, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to reopen case for the limited purpose of adjudicating Defendants' renewed motion for sanctions which the Court granted on July 1, 2020. The Order further says that Plaintiffs' November 22, 2019 motion to set aside the Court's August 26, 2019 Order is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions is also DENIED; and the Clerk shall re-open this case and Defendants' Renewed Motion for Sanctions. On January 31, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' November 8, 2019 renewed motion for an Order deeming Plaintiffs vexatious litigants, enjoining future filings, and for sanctions. On July 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike letter filed by Defendants which the Court denied on October 17. The court ordered that the Clerk of Court is not to accept for filing any other complaint, lawsuit, or petition from Plaintiffs pertaining to same without signed approval from a judge in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 19, 2024, the Court released a MEMORANDUM ORDER that Defendants' September 14, 2022 renewed fee petition is GRANTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs shall pay, jointly and severally, Defendants' attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $110,643.86; and Plaintiffs shall remit payment to Defendants' counsel, payable to the entity or entities designated by defense counsel. The appellate case is captioned as Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 24-1936, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 23, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAY J. LIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK, et al., are represented by: James P. Berg, Esq. Scott W. Parker, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG 270 Davidson Avenue, 5th Floor Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (908) 725-9700 - and - Marissa Edwards, Esq. Fred W. Hoensch, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG 1635 Market Street 7 Penn Center, 11th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 908-9800 - and - Andrew C. Sayles, Esq. MOREIRA SAYLES RAMIREZ 712 Kearny Avenue Kearny, NJ 07032 Telephone: (973) 201-9001 MEDSTAR HEALTH: Slaton Sues Over Unprotected Health Info -------------------------------------------------------- ANNIE SLATON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01523-JMC (D. Md., May 24, 2024) is a class action complaint against Defendant for failing to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal data, including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth, addresses, dates of treatment, health insurance information, and provider information. On March 6, 2024, MedStar completed a forensic audit of its computer systems and concluded that an unauthorized party had gained intermittent access between January 25, 2023, and October 18, 2023. As a result, the Private Information of thousands of individuals was compromised. The Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to steal the Private Information of Plaintiff and members of the Class, says the suit. The complaint asserts that the Data Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant's violation of their obligations to abide by best practices, industry standards, and federal and state laws concerning the security of individuals' Private Information. The Plaintiff is a current patient of Defendant. She has three doctors at MedStar that she sees approximately three times a year. Her last appointment was in April of 2024 MedStar Health, Inc. is a healthcare organization operating a number of hospitals and medical facilities in the Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE, Ste. 302 Washington, DC, 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------- Ooma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from Chiu class suit in the Federal Court of Canada. On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company from describing and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021. In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification issues, and the parties are awaiting the Court's ruling. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against this complaint. Ooma Inc. provides communications services and related technologies based in California. PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Stith-Morales Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- SHALICKA STITH-MORALES, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALAMERICAN SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00776 (W.D. Pa., May 24, 2024) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable Pennsylvania wageand-hour laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and improperly fails to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees for all hours worked, fails to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and fails to provide with accurate time and payroll statements. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated did not receive minimum-wage, straight-time, or overtime pay as appropriate for all hours worked, did not receive time and payroll statements that accurately reflect their work performed and hours worked, and had their take-home pay unlawfully reduced. Plaintiff Stith-Morales worked for Defendant as an Armed Security Guard from approximately August 2022 to February 2023 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PalAmerican is a full-service security company, operating across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com Jamisen@lcllp.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com PIONEER & CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hedges Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER & CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04030 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.sealife-cameras.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on April 5, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the Micro 3.0 Camera from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase products and services available online and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies on their website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pioneer & Co., Inc. provides electronics equipment for outdoor activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SHEIN US SERVICES: Ramirez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22002 (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2024) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations to promote its goods and services. Through this action, thePlaintiff seeks statutory damages on behalf herself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Shein US Services, LLC is a global online fashion and lifestyle retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com SOL AND SELENE: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOL AND SELENE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04033 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.solandselene.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on March 8, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the Quilted Crossbody as a gift from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase apparel, accessories and other products available online and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies on their website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Sol and Selene, Inc. provides water bottles, shoes, backpacks, masks, and jewellery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA: Roark Balks at Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD R. ROARK, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA, INC., and LOUIS C. METRO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00302-DRC (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2024) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages - unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages). The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March 2017 to October 2023 as a delivery driver. The Defendants own and operate numerous Domino's franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Class Suit in Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 4, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2024, that the On January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "2024 Delaware Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors or officers of the Company and is captioned Kogut v. Bejar, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.). In his complaint, Mr. Kogut contends that certain provisions in the Company's advance notice bylaws (the "Challenged Provisions") are invalid and void and that the members of the Board have breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the Challenged Provisions. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Mr. Kogut seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the putative class. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides sporting goods and equipment, bicycles, footwear, electronics, and apparels. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings serves customers in the United States. STARBUCKS CORP: Premo Alleges Discriminatory Surcharge for Drinks ----------------------------------------------------------------- LORA PREMO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01474 (D. Colo., May 24, 2024) is a class action against Starbucks on behalf of all consumers in Colorado within three years of the filing of this lawsuit who have purchased coffee-based drinks or other beverages from Starbucks that contained non-dairy milk alternatives including oat milk, almond milk, coconut milk, soy milk and lactose-free milk and paid a surcharge for the Non-Dairy Alternatives. According to the complaint, when Plaintiff visited Starbucks coffee shops in Colorado, she ordered drinks that included milk as part of the regular menu item. Due to her condition, the Plaintiff requested to substitute milk for Non-Dairy Alternatives, specifically soy, oat, coconut, or almond "milk," and was charged at least an extra $0.50-$0.70 surcharge by Starbucks for the substitution. In this way, Defendant's conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Colorado's Anti-Discrimination statute, and constitutes common law Unjust Enrichment, says the suit. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that Defendant charges the same price to those customers with milk allergies and lactose intolerance for the same menu items as regular customers and that it does not add a Surcharge for Non-Dairy Alternatives such as soy, almond, coconut, oat, or other lactose-free "milk." Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Enica Bogdan, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 375 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (305) 306-4989 E-mail: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com - and - Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 490 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 1 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 E-mail: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com STITCH FIX: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Stitch Fix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 27, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2024, that the decision on the motion to dismiss a securities class suit is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by certain of the Company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors. An amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2023. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its Freestyle offering between December 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2023. The plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2023, and the Company filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2024. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 18, 2024 and the Company is awaiting a decision. Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget and style. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Long Files Appeal in Kentucky Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs AMELIA LONG, et al., filed an appeal from the Court's Opinion dated March 1, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled AMELIA LONG, KAREN DEVIN, RICHARD HARDY II, TABITHA MARCUM, and KAREN SANSOM individually, and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY; PENNY COX in her official capacity as Treasurer, University of Kentucky; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; and ALLISON BALL, in her official capacity as Kentucky State Treasurer, Case No. 3:20-cv-00032-GFVT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from the Kentucky Circuit Court, Franklin County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort) on May 5, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their constitutional right to due process by referring their medical debt incurred at the University of Kentucky hospital to the Kentucky Department of Revenue for collection. The Defendants challenge the Franklin Circuit Court's rulings on the issues of class certification and sovereign immunity. In an August 15, 2022 order granting partial judgment on the pleadings, the Circuit Court determined sovereign immunity did not apply to any of Plaintiffs' claims. In a March 28, 2023 Order, the Circuit Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 1, 2024, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part Franklin Circuit Court's August 15, 2022 order granting partial judgment on the pleadings regarding the sovereign immunity issue. The Appeals Court remanded for proceedings consistent with its Opinion. The appellate case is captioned as COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. v AMELIA LONG, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated et al., Case No. 2024-SC-0229, in the Kentucky Supreme Court, filed on May 23, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees-Movants AMELIA LONG, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: E. Douglas Richards, Esq. Bryan Collin Hix, Esq. Chevy Chase Plaza 836 Euclid Avenue, Suite 321 Lexington, KY 40502 E-mail: Edrichards714@gmail.com Defendants-Appellants-Respondents COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., are represented by: Bryan H. Beauman, Esq. William Eugene Thro, Esq. STURGILL, TURNER BARKER & MOLONEY 333 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507-1681 Telephone: (859) 255-8581 - and - Raymond Campbell Connell, Esq. Frank Leslie Dempsey, Esq. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 501 High Street Frankfort, KY 40602-5222 VITALS CONSUMER: Sweeton Seeks to File Corrected Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON and JASON MOSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VITALS CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00088-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the consent motion to file their corrected motion for class certification. On May 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs timely filed their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' motion contained references to a report prepared by Bill Hartzer. The Plaintiffs intend to designate Mr. Hartzer as an expert witness for the merits phase of this case but had not, to that point, designated him as an expert for class certification even though the time for doing so had passed. The Plaintiffs' counsel and Defense counsel discussed this issue by phone and Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to file a corrected Motion for Class Certification removing the references to Mr. Hartzer's report. Vitals provides healthcare medical information solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BRGj7p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Marcus, Esq. DLM LAW LLC 4700 Belleview Ave., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 256-4699 Facsimile: (816) 222-0534 E-mail: Dmarcus@dlmlaw.com - and - Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373.9319 E-mail: Bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Clayton Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 405 Foxwood Drive Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com WALMART INC: Bid to Dismiss Opioid-Related Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Walmart Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2024, that the motion to dismiss the opioid-related securities class suit remains pending in the District Court for the District of Delaware. The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017 through December 22, 2020. Those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2021 and later consolidated. On April 8, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss these actions. On April 29, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where the matter remains pending. Headquartered in Arkansas, Walmart, Inc. is a retail corporation operates an online, "app-based" delivery platform, branded and known as "Spark". [BN] WEBMD LLC: Sweeton Seeks to File Corrected Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00094-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the consent motion to file their corrected motion for class certification. On May 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs timely filed their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' motion contained references to a report prepared by Bill Hartzer. The Plaintiffs intend to designate Mr. Hartzer as an expert witness for the merits phase of this case but had not, to that point, designated him as an expert for class certification even though the time for doing so had passed. The Plaintiffs' counsel and Defense counsel discussed this issue by phone and Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to file a corrected Motion for Class Certification removing the references to Mr. Hartzer's report. WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z6Blm1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Marcus, Esq. DLM LAW LLC 4700 Belleview Ave., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 256-4699 Facsimile: (816) 222-0534 E-mail: Dmarcus@dlmlaw.com - and - Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373.9319 E-mail: Bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Clayton Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 405 Foxwood Drive Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com WELLS FARGO: SEB Investment Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, and WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, KLEBER R. SANTOS, and CARLY SANCHEZ, Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 23, 2024, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, for an Order: (i) certifying this matter as a class action; (ii) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel. As the Parties have noted in multiple filings, until "the [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA")] discovery stay is lifted" Plaintiffs cannot properly move for class certification. Because the PSLRA discovery stay is still in place, Plaintiffs do not currently have the discovery necessary to support this motion. As a result, Plaintiffs also move this Court for permission to supplement this Motion once the PSLRA discovery stay is lifted. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Court should certify the following class under Rule 23(a) and b(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Wells Fargo common stock between Feb. 24, 2021, and June 9, 2022, both dates inclusive." (Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws). Class certification is warranted because the defined class satisfies all of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and b(3). F Wells Fargo is a diversified, community-based financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EDlKWc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com - and - Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Dianne M. Pitre, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com dpitre@saxenawhite.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Bonni S. Jensen, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com bonni@robertdklausner.com WILLIAM MARSHALL: Brandon Bid for Prelim Injunctive Relief OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHESTER BRANDON, III, et al., v. COMMISSIONER WILLIAM K. MARSHALL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00265 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene Berger entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court orders that the following injunctive relief be granted: 1. The Defendants are directed to return to the status quo before the Defendants began forcing individuals out of parole approved, uncertified recovery residences by ceasing to force Plaintiffs and absent class members out of their parole approved housing at recovery residences; 2. The Defendants are directed to permit members of the absent class who have already been removed from their parole approved housing at recovery residences to return to their prior housing arrangements, if so desired; and 3. The Defendants are directed to permit any member of the putative class who has not yet been removed from their recovery residence housing to stay in that housing—absent any unrelated change in circumstance—until such time as sufficient recovery residence housing meeting the state's certification requirement becomes available for the class. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. The Plaintiffs argue that the bond should be waived or nominal because they are indigent, the public has an interest in the issues raised herein, and the preliminary injunction requested will not result in monetary costs or damages to the Defendants. Finding that the Defendants would sustain no damages should the injunction granted herein be found to be wrongful, and in light of the public interest in this matter, the Court finds that no bond should be required. The named Plaintiffs are Chester Brandon, III, and Harold Midkiff. The Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of a class, defined to include: "all persons on parole under the authority of the WVDCR [West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation] who, after having been previously approved by the Parole Board or their parole officer to be housed at a non-West Virginia Alliance of Recovery Residences (WVARR) certified recovery residence and not having violated any element of their parole, have been or are being forced by Defendants to vacate their previously approved housing by May 31, 2024." This case arises in response to a recent decision by the Defendants to require parolees who were released, in accordance with approved home plans to recovery residences that are not certified pursuant to state law, to vacate those residences and find other housing with limited notice. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8OGNxO at no extra charge.[CC] WOODFORD COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Keim ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keim, v. Woodford County et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01156-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Woodford County is part of the Peoria, IL. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hq81IB at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***