/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 122 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Gildersleeve Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Moca City Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: South Suit Removed to D. South Carolina 405 HOTEL: Colak Balks at Website's Noncompliance With ADA, NYSHRL ABC CORP: Faces Duran Suit Over Labor Law Breaches ACCENTURE LLP: Watson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACTION SALES: Galano Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL: Demaio Suit Removed to S.D. Florida AHMED M. FATTOUH: Katz Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. AIRPORT TAXI LLP: Abreu Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ALDI INC: Cantwell Sues Over Product's Deceptive Labeling ALLIED AVIATION: Mejia Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ALLINA HEALTH: Frost and Frost Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Hudson Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. New York AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek Class Cert Briefing Schedule AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bahamonde Suit Removed to N.D. California AMERGIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, O'Neal Suit Says AMERICAN HONDA: Graham et al. Sue Over Defective Equipment APELLIS PHARMA: Soderberg Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ramos Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia AT HOME STORES: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AT&T CORP: Gibbs et al. ERISA Suit Removed to S.D. Miss. AT&T INC: Knight Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ATLAS SAND: Dewitt Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AUDIOCITYWHEELS INC: Dunn Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California AUTO GLASS: Moore Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages AVANTOR INC: Johnson Sues Over Alleged Illegal Bylaw Provision AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Segura Suit Removed to D. Colorado AW WESTSIDE: Payne Sues Over ADA Non-Compliance of Facilities BAKER MOTOR: Basinger Sues Over Wage Theft and Breach of Contract BANDON FITNESS: Osley Suit Removed to S.D. California BARK INC: Continues to Defend Kenville Class Suit in Delaware BEST VACUUM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wahab Alleges BLST OPERATING COMPANY: Robinson Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota BMW OF NORTH: Craft Sues Over Undisclosed Vehicle Defect C&W FACILITY: Luna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPITAL VACATIONS: Hudson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls CASHE SOFTWARE: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CENCORA INC: James Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Private Info CENCORA INC: Lynn Sues Over Data Security Failures CENCORA INC: Strickland Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CEVA FREIGHT: Tomasevic Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers CIRCLE K STORES: Ramos Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages CITIZENS BANK: Magga Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Endorses Narrowing of Claims in Ortiz CONTINENTAL AG: Valenzano Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio CORE CAMPUS: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CTR.POINT ENERGY: Ferguson Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. DREAMLAND BABY: Fehrenbach Sues Over Sleep Products' False Ads DRIVE SALLY: Hood Sues Over Customer Data Breach EUSTIS CABLE: Faces Forney Suit Over Wage and Hour Violations FCA US: Dantoni Sues Over Defective Active Head Restraints FORE ALL LLC: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FRANCESCO'S ITALIAN: Medina and Reyes Sue Over Unpaid Wages FRESH HARVEST: Rubio-Leon et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info GOODYEAR TIRE: McMiller Alleges Price-Fixing Conspiracy on Tires GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bids to Dismiss Dempsey Suit Nixed as Moot GROZA BUILDERS: Samblas Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages GWT ENTERPRISES: Lemache et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations HANS MENDE: Gera Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. HIALEAH DEVELOPMENT: Pardo Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities HISMILE INC: Jimenez Sues Over Teeth Whitening Products' False Ads HUMANA INC: Faces Iron Workers Suit Over Misleading Statements HUSCH BLACKWELL: Oie Sues Over Abusive Debt Collection Practices IC SYSTEM: Galloway Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification IGNITE LOGISTICS: Cochran and Welch Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices IN YOUR FACE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Alleges J&S LANDSCAPING: Lopez Seeks Proper Overtime Wages JUMP TRADING: Court Refuses to Transfer Kim Suit to N.D. California LABORATORY CORP: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply LIVE NATION: Caballero et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach LYFT INC: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 22, 2025 MDL 2332: DPPs' Bid for Class Certification in Lipitor Suit Denied MDL 2332: EPPs' Bid for Class Certification in Lipitor Suit Denied MDL 2332: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Lipitor Antitrust Suit MERCHANT'S AUTOMOTIVE: JMV Transportation Sues Over Contract Breach MEYER CORPORATION: Tucker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Seeks More time to File Class Cert Response MM PRODUCTS: Faces Knowles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MONDO A2B: Siguenza Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Tovar Suit Removed to C.D. California NDAL MFG INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NESTLE USA: Court Tosses Bid to Modify Case Management Schedule NEW HYDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Colak Suit Says NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Zurich Alleges Unlawful Insurance Policies NISSAN NORTH: Faces Roberts Suit Over Alleged Data Breach NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Wells Suit Seeks to Certify Collective O'REILLY AUTO: Class Settlement in Pipich Suit Gets Initial Nod ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Olney Sues Over Unlawful Foreclosure Process ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure OUTLAW SOAPS: Bullock Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OXFORD HEALTH: Molly ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class OXFORD HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal OXFORD HEALTH: Seeks to File Portions of Exhibits Under Seal PENN PINES: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Blind, Gil Says PERDUE FOODS: Tripp Seeks Conditional Collective Certification PHARMACOPIA INC: Competello Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PORT BROKERS: Karim Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations PRESTIGE PROTECTIVE: Mercado Suit Seeks PAGA Civil Penalties PRIMARY ARMS: E.D. Pennsylvania Grants Bid to Stay McQueen Suit PRIMARY ARMS: McQueen Suit Stayed Pending BPS Direct Appeal Ruling PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Jones Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Resolution RACHAEL GODDARD: Monroe Sues Over Labor Law Violations REGULATORY DATACORP: Court Extends Stay of Carr Proceedings RIVER STREET: Fails to Proper OT Wages, Hernandez Says S.C. JOHNSON: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Says SABA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class SANGAMO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Sell Stockholder Class Action Suit SHOREFRONT OPERATING: All Pretrial Deadlines in Skolkin Suit Stayed SKULLCANDY INC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SUNSET & 97: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities SURGE STAFFING: Bunger's Bid for Court-Facilitated Notice Granted SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE: Faces Johnson Data Breach Suit TAMAQUA TRANSFER: Youmans Seeks Proper Wages for Drivers TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025 TARGET CORP: Hill-Horse Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Minn. TARGET CORP: Krysinski Sues Over Refill Bags' False Ads TECH GROUP: Sloan FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania THOMAS J. VILSACK: Chavez Files Suit in D. New Mexico TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Curry and Freifeld Suit Over Data Breach TORRID HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility TORRID MERCHANDISING: Clemens Sues Over Labor Law Breaches TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA: Dudley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TRC STAFFING: Davis Sues Over Private Data Breach TRC STAFFING: Peintner Sues Over Customers' Unsecured Personal Info TRIONFO SOLUTIONS: Neufeld Sues Over Private Data Breach TRIVAGO GMBH: Bid to File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal Tossed TRUCADENCE LLC: Roberts and Garcia Sue Over BIPA Violations TWITTER INC: Zeman Seeks Conditional Collective Certification UIPATH INC: Plaintiffs File Opposition to Dismissal Bid ULTA BEAUTY: Jurdi Suit Removed to C.D. California UPMC HEALTH PLAN: Delarosa Suit Removed to E.D. New York US BANCORP: Bovenberg Sues Over Communications Interception VALLEY NATIONAL: Sheridan Suit Removed to D. New Jersey VANGUARD GROUP: Court Dismisses Lardizabal Suit Without Prejudice VICTORIA'S SECRET: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says VINSIM PIZZERIA: Quintanilla Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mathiesen Suit Removed to C.D. California WALKER ADVERTISING: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Walz Suit WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 2 WELLS FARGO: Faces Millstein Suit for Aiding and Abetting Fraud WHITE CAP: Lobdell Sues Over Unlawful Paycheck Deductions Under ADA WOODBURY WELLNESS: Desoto Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages [24]7.AI INC: Jarrett Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement ********* 3M COMPANY: Gildersleeve Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Godfrey Gildersleeve; Joseph Albert Arcaini; April Bijak; Kevin Ernest Bohanan; Danny O'neal Crutcher; Dale Danheiser; Michael Francis; Daniel Gerth Jr.; Jeffery Miller; Jean Neuenkirch; Angela Ortega Ortiz; Dale Perino; Johnnie Pettie Jr.; Louis Wayne Steblinski; Tyrone Taylor, and others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, Inc.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), inclusive, Case No. 01-CV-2024-901285.00 was removed from the Alabama Circuit Court, Jefferson County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 4, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03351-RMG. The Plaintiffs, Godfrey Gildersleeve et al., seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") that Plaintiffs allege has resulted in contamination. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the release of those substances into Plaintiffs' drinking water supplies has caused them to sustain personal injuries and bioaccumulation of PFAS in their bodies.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Moca City Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------- City Of Moca, Puerto Rico, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining Ans Manufacturing Company): AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; 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; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; DYNAX CORPORATION; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTONS LP: THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 3:24-cv-01250 (D.P.R., June 3, 2024), is brought against the Defendants alleging theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence, wantonness, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, and strict liability for environmental and economic injuries, contamination and unlawful incursion onto the Plaintiff's land, surface and subsurface soil, sediment, natural resources, municipal and real property caused by releases of fluorinated Class B firefighting foams manufactured with synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or chemicals (collectively and hereafter referred to as "PFAS"). In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid ("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS"). In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams that contains PFOS and/or PFOA (including any of their salt, ionic or acid forms and their precursors or degradation products) manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants for civilian, military and training applications worldwide. PFOS and PFOA are synthetic fluorinated compounds that are particularly useful for controlling and extinguishing aviation, marine, fuel, and other Class B fires because fluorine atoms have extremely persistent and stable physio-chemical properties. PFOS and PFOA are soluble in water, not easily biodegradable, and persistent in the environment. Both are known to be harmful to human health. When AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA is released into the environment; both compounds, their precursors and degradation products, can migrate into soil and groundwater. It has been shown that the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of perfluorinated acids is directly related to fluorination. AFFF is a specialized manufactured foam designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training exercises and live-fire responses. PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic, not easily biodegradable, persistent in the environment and pose a significant risk to animal and human health. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendant designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities, municipalities, or states of the serious environmental, human, and animal toxicity concerns linked to the use and exposure to fluorinated AFFF foams. Because the Defendants knowingly placed defective and dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the stream of commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for causing the release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Aqueduct and its surface and subsurface soil. The Defendants sold, manufactured, and distributed AFFF containing fluorinated surfactants touting the superior firefighting performance for decades and deliberately chose not to warn end users or purchasers of the potential environmental or human toxicity concerns linked to fluorinated compounds. Because the Defendants negligently caused the release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Aqueduct and its surface and subsurface soil they are all jointly and severally liable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the City of Moca, a Puerto Rican municipal corporation, who brings this action on behalf of itself and in its sovereign capacity, as a trustee, for the benefit of its citizens and natural resources. 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: Juan Saavedra-Castro, Esq. Wilma E. Reveron Collazo, Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 290 Ave. Jesus Y. Pinero, Suite 1201 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Email: jsaavedra@wmclaw.com wreveron@wmclaw.com - 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 3M COMPANY: South Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert South, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00597 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 7, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03392-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com 405 HOTEL: Colak Balks at Website's Noncompliance With ADA, NYSHRL ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 405 HOTEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03906 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law in connection with its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of booking a hotel room on May 1, 2024, says the suit. The 405 Hotel, LLC owns and operates a hotel located in Long Beach, NY. The company also owns and maintains the website, www.longbeachhotelny.com, which provides access to customers for online bookings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ABC CORP: Faces Duran Suit Over Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------- ESTEBAN BARBOSA DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC CORPORATION d/b/a EUROPEAN CUSTOM IRON, name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff, and ALIN MARCEL MUNTEANU, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04060 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Esteban Barbosa Duran was employed by Defendants from in or around September 2022 until in or around February 2023. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 63 to 66 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff. Based in Glendale, NY, ABC Corporation is engaged in metal fabrication business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ACCENTURE LLP: Watson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCENTURE LLP, et al. The case is styled as Soraya Watson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. ACCENTURE LLP, Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. CGC24615254 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 6, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Accenture LLP -- https://www.accenture.com/ -- provides management consulting and professional services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D. LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: david@setarehlaw.com ACTION SALES: Galano Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- LESBIA GALANO, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ACTION SALES, LLC d/b/a ACTION SOD & LANDSCAPE GARDENS, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and BARBARA LOPEZ, Individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-22198 (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated landscaping laborers, but allegedly failed to pay them the appropriate overtime pay and regular pay in overtime weeks as required by the FLSA. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendants from February 2022 to November 5, 2023, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate. Additionally, the Plaintiff was paid a day rate which was below the required minimum wage in Florida, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the unpaid back wages owed to her and all other current and former landscaping laborers employed by Defendants at any time during the three-year period before this complaint was filed, up to the present. Plaintiff also demands liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Based in Miami-Dade County, FL, Acton Sales, LLC is engaged in the turf grass industry, offering landscaping products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL: Demaio Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aerogrow International, Inc., Case No. CACE-24-005722 was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-60939-RS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. AeroGrow International -- https://aerogarden.com/home/ -- offers indoor gardening products in multiple models and sizes as well as seed kits, grow lights, and nutrients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Aaron Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 6709 West 119th Street #198 Overland Park, KS 66209 Phone: (913) 213-3064 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com The Defendant is represented by: Christian Tiblier, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4000 Fax: (407) 841-0168 Email: ctiblier@bakerlaw.com AHMED M. FATTOUH: Katz Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forrester Research, Inc. case is styled as Todd Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AHMED M. FATTOUH, BRANDON C. BENTLEY, MINESH K. PATEL, ALAN PINTO, BRIAN Q. PHAM, JEFFREY A. HARRIS, MATTHEW LUCKETT, PIETRO CINQUEGRANA, INTERPRIVATE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT LLC, INTERPRIVATE LLC, AEVA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOROUSH SALEHIAN DARDASHTI, and MINA REZK, Case No. 2024-0598-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., June 3, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Action." Ahmed Fattouh is the Founder & Chief Executive Officer of InterPrivate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 467-2660 - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. Benny C. Goodman III, Esq. Erik W. Luedeke, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. Mario D. Valdovinos, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 525-3990 AIRPORT TAXI LLP: Abreu Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airport Taxi, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Michael Abreu, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Airport Taxi, LLP, Dean Murphy, Case No. 2472CV00233 (Mass. Super. Ct., Barnstable Cty., June 4, 2024). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." Airport Taxi in Hyannis, MA provides reliable transportation services for individuals needing rides to and from the airport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617)723-7700 ALDI INC: Cantwell Sues Over Product's Deceptive Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 712200/2024 (N.Y., Queens Cty., June 10, 2024) arises from Defendant's deceptive labeling and misrepresentations of its Naturally Flavored Cherry Fruit & Grain Soft Baked Bars. Allegedly, the said product uses artificial flavoring in the form of DLMalic Acid to create, simulate, resemble, enhance, and/or reinforce its filling's cherry taste. Thus, the Defendant's misrepresentation that these products do not contain artificial flavoring is false and misleading. As a result of the false and misleading representations, these products are sold at a premium price, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cantwell asserts claims for violations of the General Business Law. Aldi, Inc. operates more than 120 stores in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com ALLIED AVIATION: Mejia Sues Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MEJIA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED AVIATION SERVICES, INC., ABC CORPS. 1-10 (fictitious parties), and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10 (fictitious parties), Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06684 (D.N.J., June 4, 2024) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiff Mejia worked as a fueling supervisor for Defendant Allied Aviation from 2004 through August 2023 at the Newark Airport Facility. During his employment with the Defendant, he was not fully and properly paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and NJWHL for all of their compensable hours worked due to Defendant's unlawful company-wide policies/practices, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in New York, NY, Allied Aviation is a for-profit corporation that provides fueling services for the commercial aviation industry at domestic and global airports. It operates the Newark Airport Facility and services most of the planes at Newark Liberty International Airport. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road, Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com ALLINA HEALTH: Frost and Frost Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allina Health, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02180-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., June 6, 2024) alleges violations of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The class action arises because Defendant's website, www.account.allinahealth.org, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. In addition to the claim under the ADA, Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Allina Health has physical hospitals and clinic locations within and around the State of Minnesota. It offers virtual care options for primary care, specialty visits, and urgent care. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Hudson Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Stephen Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Case No. 650468/2024, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 7, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04364 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's denial of insurance claims in connection with the alleged tobacco smoke damage to his apartment. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company is an insurance firm based in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8200 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: wackerman@rc.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. The deadlines contained in Docket No. 138 relating to Plaintiffs' class certification motion are vacated; and 2. The Court will establish new class certification briefing deadlines when it resolves Amazon's Motion for Coordinated Discovery Schedule and Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Coordinated Discovery Schedule and Cross-Motion to Modify Class Certification Schedule and to Compel Scheduling of 30(b)(6) Deposition. Because both parties seek an extension of the class certification briefing schedule but disagree about the length of the extension the Court should grant, the parties therefore propose that the Court vacate the existing class certification briefing schedule pending the Court's resolution of Amazon's Motion and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion. On May 6, 2024, Amazon filed a Motion for Coordinated Discovery Schedule, which seeks a Court order extending the current class certification briefing schedule. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Motion for Coordinated Discovery Schedule and Cross-Motion to Modify Class Certification Schedule and to Compel Scheduling of 30(b)(6) Deposition, which seeks a Court order extending the current class certification briefing schedule. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jZimCV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Daniel Backman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com Daniel.Backman@kellerpostman.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bahamonde Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Javier Bahamonde, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; AMPLIO LOGISTICS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C2400903 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Nothern District of California on June 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-03333. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Fahy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com - and - Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com AMERGIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, O'Neal Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LESLIE O'NEAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC., f/k/a MAXIM HEALTHCARE STAFFING SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01596-ABA (D. Md., June 3, 2024) arises from the Defendant's practice and policy of misclassifying her and other similarly situated individuals as "exempt" employees and willfully failing to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. From approximately March 1, 2021 to March 29, 2024, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a recruiter at Defendant's office located in Independence, OH. Throughout her employment, she was required to work more than 40 hours per workweek and did not compensate them properly, says the suit. Amergis Healthcare Staffing, Inc. is a healthcare staffing company headquartered in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly E. Cook, Esq. WYLY & COOK, PLLC 1415 N. Loop W, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Graham et al. Sue Over Defective Equipment ---------------------------------------------------------- TAFFEY GRAHAM, SCOTT GRAHAM, CHELSEA MCCRACKEN, and BRANDON MCCRACKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-50204 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2024) asserts claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, breach of express warranties, and for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and several state consumer protection laws in connection with the Defendant's defective lawnmowers and pressure washer engines. The Plaintiffs bring this nationwide class action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers who purchased Honda HRN216 and HRX217K6 Lawnmowers and/or Honda GCV170/200 G5B pressure washer engines for personal or household use and not for resale. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to provide immediate notice of the risks of malfunction or injury associated with continued use and non-use of these products. In addition, the Defendant provides no relief to Plaintiffs and other users or owners of the said products beyond instructing them to seek repairs from an authorized Honda dealer, says the suit. American Honda Motor Co. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells power equipment nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Mason A. Barney, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: 646-417-5967 E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com APELLIS PHARMA: Soderberg Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Judith M. Soderberg, Ray Peleckas, Michigan Laborers Pension Fund, Raul Prado Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cedric Francois, Federico Grossi, Timothy Sullivan, Case No. 1:23-cv-00834was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11470-JEK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Apellis -- https://apellis.com/ -- is a global biopharmaceutical company that develops life-changing therapies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 658-6541 - and - Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Phone: (781) 431-2231 Fax: (781) 431-8726 Email: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Mark T. Millkey, Esq. Robert M. Rothman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Mellville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 367-7100 Email: mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com Email: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC 1204 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 321-5411 Fax: (302) 397-2557 Email: rernst@bk-legal.com - and - Christopher Hamp Lyons, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-2203 Email: clyons@rgrdlaw.com - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 984-3889 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com The Defendant is represented by: Puja Upadhyay, Esq. Nathalie Anne Freeman, Esq. Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. 920 North King St., Ste. 941 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 651-7603 Email: upadhyay@rlf.com freeman@rlf.com dicamillo@rlf.com - and - Chelsea Simpson, Esq. Daniel W. Halston, Esq. Daniel Willey, Esq. Edward Welles Hasen, Esq. Peter J. Kolovos, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (BOS) 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 526-6908 Email: chelsea.simpson@wilmerhale.com daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com dan.willey@wilmerhale.com ted.hasen@wilmerhale.com peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com - and - Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square PO Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 658-6541 ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ramos Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Wally Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01265 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02412-VMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Asbury Automotive Group -- https://www.asburyauto.com/ -- is a company based in Atlanta that operates auto dealerships in various parts of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 844.542.7235 Email: Jibrael@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com Secondary email: mrios@bakerlaw.com - and - Christopher A. Wiech, Esq. Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq. Olivia S. Williams, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404.459.0050 Fax: 404.459.5734 Email: cwiech@bakerlaw.com clamb@bakerlaw.com owilliams@bakerlaw.com AT HOME STORES: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adelina Maldonado, an individual, on behalf of herself as an Aggrieved Employee, and in her representative capacity as a Private Attorney General v. AT HOME STORES LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV13861 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 4, 2024), is brought for the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants regularly failed to properly: pay overtime pay; pay minimum wages; provide uninterrupted off-duty meal periods and/or required premium wages; provide uninterrupted off-duty rest periods and/or required premium wages; maintain adequate records including tracking hours worked; furnish proper and/or accurate wage statements; reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenditures; and timely pay all wages due upon termination, among other things. The Defendants' time records and policies will confirm some of these violations including numerous violations of the PAGA and the California Labor Code, as well as other laws, decisions, orders, or rulings that are enforceable through the PAGA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in October 2021, as a Customer Support Associate. AT HOME STORES LLC is a limited liability company with multiple store locations throughout California, including in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and in various other California locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle C. Worrell, Esq. WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC 1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: (657) 232-1450 Facsimile: (657) 232-143 Email: kcw@worrell-law.com AT&T CORP: Gibbs et al. ERISA Suit Removed to S.D. Miss. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VINSON GIBBS, CLEOTHA GIBBS, JR., JEREMY FIELDS, JERRY FIELDS, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. AT&T CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 24-312, was removed from the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division on June 7, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Mississippi assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00333-DPJ-ASH to the proceeding. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege entitlement to the pension benefits of Joe Ann Gibbs, a former employee of BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, which is an affiliate of AT&T. The benefit plan in question, the AT&T Southeast Program, is part of the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). AT&T Corporation is a telecommunications holding company headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mallory K. Bland, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 4270 I-55 North Jackson, MS 39211-6391 Post Office Box 16114 Jackson, MS 39236-6114 Telephone: 601-352-2300 Facsimile: 601-360-9777 E-mail: mallory.bland@phelps.com AT&T INC: Knight Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sam Knight, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00324 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 6, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01385-E to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 212 W Spring Valley Road Richardson, TX 75081 Phone: (214) 696-1100 Fax: (214) 740-0112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel E. Bryan, III, Esq. Maxwell G. West, Esq. HORNBEEK VITALI & BRAUN PLLC 3711 N Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Phone: (405) 236-8600 Fax: (405) 236-8602 Email: bryan@hvblaw.com west@hvblaw.com ATLAS SAND: Dewitt Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN DEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLAS SAND COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00622 (W.D. Tex., June 6, 2024) to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff Shawn Dewitt has worked for Atlas in Texas since approximately September 2022. During the relevant time period, the Plaintiff allegedly did not receive overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one and half his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, Atlas paid out non discretionary bonuses based on production but failed to include these bonuses in the Plaintiff and putative collective members' regular rates of pay. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Atlas supplies sand and other materials used in the oil production industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com AUDIOCITYWHEELS INC: Dunn Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AUDIOCITYWHEELS, INC. The case is styled as Patrick Dunn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUDIOCITYWHEELS, INC. formerly known as: AUDIOCITYUSA, CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-04686 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Life Protect 24/7 -- https://lifeprotect247.com/ -- manufacture and provides medical monitoring systems to families for emergency support.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com AUTO GLASS: Moore Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO GLASS AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00566 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) arises out of Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Allegedly, the Defendant repeatedly violated the TCPA and/or the FTSA by sending automated text messages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class without having prior express written consent; sending text messages to the Plaintiff and the Class members while their phone numbers were registered on the national do-not-call registry without their prior express written consent; and by continuing to send text messages to the Plaintiff and the Class members even after they had clearly requested to not receive further messages. Headquartered in Orange County, Florida, Auto Glass America provides auto glass, windshield replacement and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (561) 789-4413 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com AVANTOR INC: Johnson Sues Over Alleged Illegal Bylaw Provision -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of AVANTOR, INC. v. AVANTOR, INC., Case No. 2024-0627 (Del. Ch., June 7, 2024) seeks declaration that certain provisions of Defendant's bylaws are invalid. According to the complaint, the provisions at issue relate to the "Irrevocable Resignation Requirement" of Defendant Avantor's amended and restated bylaws which took effect on February 23, 2024. The Plaintiff argues that the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement unduly restricts the stockholder franchise, is inequitable, and violates Delaware law. According to the complaint, a declaratory judgment on these issues will terminate the controversy and clarify conclusively the legal rights, statuses, relations, and obligations of the parties. Avantor, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Robby Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com irene@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. Nathan Abelman, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 333-0674 AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Segura Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kimberly Segura, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situation v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 2024CV30375 was removed from the District Court of Douglas County, in the state of Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on June 6, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01577. The Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against Sedgwick as follows: Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Junk Fee Class); Breach of Contract (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Unauthorized Fee Class); Violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Excessive Late Lee Class); Violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Eviction Class); Breach of Contract (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes); Alternative Claims for Unjust Enrichment (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes); and Declaratory Judgment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Derek C. Anderson, Esq. WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP 2440 Junction Place, Suite 102 Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: (720) 699-1800 Fax: (720) 699-1801 Email: anderson.d@wssllp.com AW WESTSIDE: Payne Sues Over ADA Non-Compliance of Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE PAYNE, Plaintiff v. AW WESTSIDE MEDICAL PARK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60951-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with its failure to make its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Plaintiff Payne has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at Defendant's commercial property and businesses. The barriers have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered her safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit. AW Westside Medical Park, LLC owns, operates, and oversees a commercial property located in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BAKER MOTOR: Basinger Sues Over Wage Theft and Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Basinger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BAKER MOTOR COMPANY OF CHARLESTON, INC., BAKER COMPANY OF MT. PLEASANT, LLC, BAKER MOTOR COMPANY OF SUMMERVILLE, LLC and BAKER MOTOR COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2024CP1002847 (S.C. Ct. of Common Pleas, Charleston Cty., June 3, 2024), is brought for wage theft under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act and common law breach of contract. The Defendants willfully underpaid commissions to its sales employees for a period of over two years. Specifically, unbeknownst to its sales employees, the Defendants changed the amount of the lot fee deduction from what was stated in the written terms of employment, resulting in lower commissions on every sale. The Defendants did not give notice about this change in writing or by any other means. This is a breach of the contract and a violation of the South Carolina and North Carolina wage statutes that amounts to significant wage theft to all sales employees that sold used cars, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in September 2019 as a member of the sales team. The Defendants operate car dealerships in Charleston County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Mangan, Esq. David A. Nauheim, Esq. NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE, LLC 101 Sycamore Ave. Charleston, SC 29407 Phone: (843) 534-5084 Fax: 843 350-3572 Email: josh@nauheimlaw.com david@nauheimlaw.com BANDON FITNESS: Osley Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael E. Osley Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANDON FITNESS (TEXAS) INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00011471-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 6, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00995-MMA-SBC. On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative Class Action Complaint against Defendant alleging the following ten causes of action: Minimum Wage Violations; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Paid Sick Leave Violations; Untimely Payment of Wages; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kirstin E. Muller, Esq. HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP 233 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 9040 Phone: (310) 255-0705 Facsimile: (310) 255-0986 Email: kmuller@hkemploymentlaw.com BARK INC: Continues to Defend Kenville Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Bark Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kenville class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On March 20, 2024, three alleged shareholders filed a putative class action complaint in the lawsuit styled Kenville v. Northern Star Sponsor LLC, et al., Case No. 2024-276, which is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint is brought against (a) certain officers and directors of Northern Star Acquisition Corp. at the time of its proposed acquisition of Legacy BARK, (b) Northern Star Sponsor, LLC, and (c) two of the founders of Legacy BARK. The alleged class consists of Company stockholders who held stock as of the redemption deadline and who elected not to redeem all or some of their stock, and the claims alleged are for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages. Bark Inc. is a dog-specific pet supply company based in New York NY. BEST VACUUM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wahab Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEST VACUUM AND APPLIANCES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04207 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law in connection with the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the vacuum cleaner that she wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. Best Vacuum and Appliances, LLC owns the website, www.bestvacuum.com, which sells vacuum cleaners and provides customers with access to several promotions, including free shipping and 60-day risk trial. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BLST OPERATING COMPANY: Robinson Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Felicia Lum Robinson, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. BLST Operating Company, LLC doing business as: Fingerhut, Case No. 3:24-cv-01784 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02157-KMM-ECW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. BLST Operating Company, LLC doing business as Fingerhut -- https://www.fingerhut.com/ -- is an American catalog/online retailer. Fingerhut was founded in 1948 by William Fingerhut and his brother Manny, selling automobile seat covers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5997 Fax: (612) 584-4470 Email: jalbanese@bm.net BMW OF NORTH: Craft Sues Over Undisclosed Vehicle Defect -------------------------------------------------------- TIM CRAFT, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 1:24-cv-06826 (D.N.J., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices owing to an undisclosed vehicle defect. This consumer class action arises from a latent defect found in certain vehicle models manufactured and sold by Defendants. The defect causes corrosion of interior electrical components, collection of water in body cavities, and water damage to the vehicle's interior. Water infiltration could result in the failure of vital safety equipment, putting the driver and other occupants of the vehicle in danger. Despite their longstanding knowledge of the defect, the Defendants allegedly concealed it to consumers and failed to adequately repair the affected vehicles at no cost to consumers when the defect manifests. The Plaintiff brings this action to seek protection and relief for owners and lessees of the vehicles in question for the harm they have suffered and the safety risks they face from Defendants' breaches of express and implied warranties, the Defendants' unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices, and for common law fraud and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, NJ, BMW of North America, LLC is engaged in the sale and marketing of BMW vehicles in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com C&W FACILITY: Luna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&W Facility Servs., Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Luna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C&W Facility Servs., Inc., Does 1 through 100, Case No. 24LBCV01176 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2024). C&W Services -- https://cwservices.com/ -- is a leading integrated facility services company that provides customized solutions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com CAPITAL VACATIONS: Hudson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HUDSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL VACATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00757-SPM (E.D. Mo., May 30, 2024) arises out of Defendant's violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Allegedly, the Defendant violated TCPA by making pre-recorded telemarketing calls to consumers without consent, including calls to phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff Hudson registered his cell phone number on the Do Not Call registry on December 29, 2023. However, the Plaintiff still received multiple pre-recorded calls from or on behalf of Defendant using a multitude of phone numbers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's unlawful conduct. Capital Vacations is a resort management company headquartered in Myrtle Beach, SC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Cory Nelson, Esq. MCN LAW LLC 12433 Antioch Rd. # 25442 Overland Park, KS 66225 Telephone: (913) 358-5800 - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com CASHE SOFTWARE: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cashe Software, a Minnesota Company, Case No. 0:24-cv-02182-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to provide full and equal website access to blind and visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiffs are legally blind individuals who rely on screen reader technology to navigate the internet. They attempted to access and use Defendant's website, evv.cashesoftware.com, for electronic visit verification purposes. Based on Plaintiffs' experience, Defendant's website allegedly has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important website content and functionality. The Plaintiffs, who intend to continue to access Defendant's website in the future, bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its website to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Plaintiffs also seek damages and a civil penalty under Minnesota law. Based in Oakdale, MN, Cashe Software is a software company providing home care software and home care billing services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CENCORA INC: James Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Private Info --------------------------------------------------------------- KELVIN JAMES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02304 (E.D. Pa., May 30, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and, at least, 540,000 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack. While the Defendants claims to have discovered the breach as early as February 1, 2024, the Defendants did not inform victims of the Data Breach until May 17, 2024. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Conshohocken, PA, Cencora 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: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com CENCORA INC: Lynn Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------- DAVID LYNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02451 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' personally identifiable information and protected health information. Despite these assurances and Defendants' duty to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, the Defendants employed inadequate data security measures to protect and secure the PII and PHI with which they were entrusted, resulting in the data breach and compromise of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI stored within their computer networks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Headquartered in Conshohocken, PA, Cencora, Inc. is a pharmaceutical sourcing and distribution company that provides a wide range of pharmaceuticals, healthcare products, and related services to healthcare providers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com CENCORA INC: Strickland Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cencora, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Erin Strickland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC., THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02448 (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Cencora, Inc. -- https://www.cencora.com/ -- formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American drug wholesale company and a contract research organization that was formed by the merger of Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in 2001.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com CEVA FREIGHT: Tomasevic Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- PREDRAG TOMASEVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEVA Freight, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06663 (D.N.J., June 3, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiff Tomasevic has worked as a delivery driver for CEVA between September 2017 and June 2024. He and other delivery drivers were classified by CEVA as independent contractors. They were allegedly required to buy or lease or own vehicles and to pay for their own fuel and maintenance. In addition, CEVA also took deductions from Plaintiff's and other delivery drivers' pay for items including insurance coverage, an escrow fund, stickers, and truck damage. As a result of these deductions and the expenses delivery drivers are required to incur while working for CEVA, there are many weeks in which their compensation falls below minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA and New Jersey law, the suit alleges. Headquartered in Houston, TX, CEVA Freight, LLC is a Delaware corporation that operates a warehouse in Newark, NJ and has a number of other locations in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq. MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. 317 Delsea Drive PO Box 656 Sewell, NJ 08080 Telephone: (856) 414-1800 E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St. Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com CIRCLE K STORES: Ramos Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- GIVANI RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-01026 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant is engaged in unsolicited text messaging to promote its goods and services. Plaintiff Ramos claims that the Defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant has caused multiple text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 1969. Plaintiff first asked Defendant to stop contacting him on February 4, 2024 but the Defendant continued to send him text messages on multiple occasions including February 7, 2024 and February 10, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Headquartered in Arizona, Circle K Stores, Inc. owns and operates a chain of convenience stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com CITIZENS BANK: Magga Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------ JAMIE MAGGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00218 (D.R.I., May 30, 2024) arises from Defendant's improper fee maximization practices and brings claims for Defendant's breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff also brings a claim for violations of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in the practice of charging overdraft fees on "Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions," or "APSN Transactions." Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time those ASPN transactions are authorized, the Defendant later assesses overdraft fees on those same transactions when they settle days later into a negative balance, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Rhode Island, Citizens Bank, NA provides retail banking services to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 E-mail: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 4204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Joseph Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Endorses Narrowing of Claims in Ortiz ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NASHAILY ORTIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08957-JLR-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein recommends that the motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court recommends granting the CESG Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Nos. 1-12 because (i) Plaintiffs engage in impermissible group pleading in violation of Rule 8's requirements; and (ii) Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege the CESG Defendants were their employers or joint employers Case 1:22-cv-08957-JLR-GS Document 202 Filed 06/07/24 Page 88 of 90 89 under the FLSA and NYLL or (alternatively) a hiring party under FIFA. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, bring fourteen causes of actions against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") or, in the alternative, the Freelance Isn't Free Act ("FIFA"), in addition to common-law claims for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Plaintiffs work, or worked, as "flaggers" or "spotters" at jobsites operated by Con Edison in New York City and Westchester County. Consolidated provides energy-related products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=do26cA at no extra charge.[CC] CONTINENTAL AG: Valenzano Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAMES VALENZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GÉNÉRALE DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN SCA; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-rt-55010-SL, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 10, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-948-JDA to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged antitrust law violations stemming from their price-fixing conspiracy on replacement tires. Headquartered in Hanover, Germany, Continental AG is an automotive parts manufacturing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L Ward, Jr, Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER (MT PL) Telephone: (843) 388-7202 E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com CORE CAMPUS: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core Campus Management, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Brooks, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 v. Core Campus Management, LLC, Aaron Worley, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 24STCV14089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2024). Core Campus Management, LLC -- https://www.core2dev.com/core-campus -- develop student housing that fosters community, collaboration and innovation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafael Yedoyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: refael@tomorrowlaw.com CTR.POINT ENERGY: Ferguson Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ctr.point Energy, Inc. The case is styled as Rashonda Ferguson, Tiffany Orise, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Ctr.point Energy, Inc., Case No. CACE24007866 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 5, 2024). CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- https://www.centerpointenergy.com/en-us/ -- is an American electric and natural gas utility serving several markets in the American states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com DREAMLAND BABY: Fehrenbach Sues Over Sleep Products' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN FEHRENBACH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREAMLAND BABY CO., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03406-LB (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and misleading marketing and advertising of the Dream Weighted Sleep Sack, Dream Weighted Sleep Swaddle, the Dream Weighted Transition Swaddle, and the Bamboo Weighted Transition Swaddle, and a Weighted Toddler Blanket. According to the complaint, Dreamland has labeled and advertised these products with representations about their medical approval and safety, leading reasonable consumers to believe that they are safe for babies, approved by independent and qualified medical professionals, and comply with industry and regulatory standards for baby sleep products. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, these products are not safe and do not meet industry or regulatory guidelines for baby sleep products, says the suit. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all advised against the use of weighted sleep sacks and weighted swaddles on infants, with some of these agencies expressly warning that these baby products are harmful. Dreamland Baby Co. manufactures and sells weighted sleep products for children. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 751-5928 E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com DRIVE SALLY: Hood Sues Over Customer Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ ANTONIO HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRIVE SALLY, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-04772 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach. On May 1, 2024, Defendant Drive Sally discovered a data breach of its systems, during which personally identifiable information belonging to its customers, including Plaintiff and Class members, was compromised. According to the complaint, the data breach was caused by Defendants' failure to adequately protect customer data. Defendants also allegedly failed to promptly notify affected individuals about the data breach and did not disclose any specific details as to when the breach occurred. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, violations of California consumer privacy laws, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Drive Sally, LLC is a car rental company headquartered in Long Island City, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. Dimitrios V. Korovilas. Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com dimitri@wukolaw.com EUSTIS CABLE: Faces Forney Suit Over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- BRENT FORNEY, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUSTIS CABLE ENTERPRISES LTD, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02450 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. From approximately March 2024 through April 2024, Plaintiff Forney has been employed by Defendant as a cable installer at Reading and Danville Pennsylvania job sites. The Plaintiff worked several workweeks in excess of 40 hours but allegedly did not receive overtime premium pay. In addition, the Defendant failed to maintain accurate records of the actual hours that Plaintiff Forney and FLSA Class Members worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek as required by the FLSA, says the suit. Eustis Cable is a full-service communications contractor headquartered in Brookfield, VT. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com FCA US: Dantoni Sues Over Defective Active Head Restraints ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA DANTONI and CHRISTOPHER CARROLL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and GRAMMER INDUSTRIES, INC., a South Carolina corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01463 (E.D. La., June 6, 2024), arises from Defendants' fraudulent concealment of defective active head restraints. The said AHRs are installed in several Chrysler vehicles and share a common, uniform defect. Under normal conditions, the AHR can deploy without warning or external force from a collision, and forcefully strike the back of the occupant's head. The force of the impact can cause serious bodily harm to the head and neck, and further creates a risk of collision when the headrest deploys--suddenly and without warning--while the vehicle is being driven. Despite being aware of the AHR defect, and the potential for harm to human life, the Defendants have failed to notify owners of Class vehicles of the defect, have not recalled affected Class vehicles to replace the defective AHR, and have made no attempt to compensate Class vehicle owners for the diminution in vehicle value. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to notify owners of all affected vehicles of the defect in the AHR; to repair and replace the defective and dangerous headrests; and to compensate them and the Class members for their losses arising from the defect. Based in Auburn Hills, MI, FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company engaged in the business of designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, and supporting automotive vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jim S. Hall, Esq. Matthew Morleand, Esq. 800 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 832-3000 Facsimile (504) 832-1799 E-mail: jodi@jimshall.com mmoreland@jimshall.com FORE ALL LLC: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Nadreca Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FORE ALL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04272 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Outlaw provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.kinonasport.com (hereinafter "kinonasport.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Kinonasport.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs. Yet, kinonasport.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Because the Defendant's website, fishhippie.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Kinonasport.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com FRANCESCO'S ITALIAN: Medina and Reyes Sue Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- GEISER STEVEN MEDINA and FREDYS A. REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRANCESCO'S ITALIAN AMERICAN BAKERY CORP., FRANCESCO'S CAFE & BAKERY INC., P & F BAKERS, INC., and FRANCESCO GUERRIERI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03919 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to properly keep and maintain time records that accurately account for the hours that Plaintiffs worked each day and each week. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Among other things, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs spread of hours compensation at a rate of one additional hour of pay at the statutory minimum wage rate for any day in which they worked longer than 10 hours, says the suit. Francesco's Italian American Bakery, Corp., Francesco's Cafe & Bakery Inc., and P & F Bakers, Inc. jointly own and operate a bakery known as Francesco's Italian-American Bakery located at 640 S. Broadway, Hicksville, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith E. Williams, Esq. The NHG Law Group, P.C 4242 Merrick Road Massapequa, NY 11758 Telephone: (516) 228.5100 E-mail: keith@nhglaw.com FRESH HARVEST: Rubio-Leon et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTONIO RUBIO-LEON, ANGEL DE JESUS ROCHA-RIVERA, DIEGO MARTINEZJIMENEZ, GERARDO LEDESMA-DELGADO and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRESH HARVEST, INC., FARM LABOR ASSOCIATION FOR GROWERS, INC., and SMD LOGISTICS, INC. TAYLOR FARMS ORGANIC GIRL PRODUCE, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-03375 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2024) seeks for prevailing wages and equal pay under the terms of employment contracts, compliance with the terms of the working arrangements, pay for all hours worked at the promised wage rates including California minimum wages and liquidated damages, overtime, reimbursement of necessary expenses, lawful, accurate and complete paystubs, and waiting time penalties as well as asserts retaliation claims under California law and their employment contract, fraud, and Private Attorney General's Act and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 claims. The Plaintiffs were all H-2A workers brought into the United States by Defendants as truck drivers. They and others similarly situated were employed subject to the terms of written contracts. However, during Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants violated the written contracts and the regulations which they incorporated, says the suit. Based in California, Fresh Harvest, Inc. is a produce distribution company that specializes in sourcing and delivering fresh fruits and vegetables. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1808 Sixth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (404) 590-1295 E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01418-L (N.D. Tex., June 10, 2024) arises from Frontier's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' private information. According to the complaint, Frontier investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on April 13, 2024. Moreover, Frontier failed to comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access and to provide timely notice of any security breaches. Frontier was only able to send out data breach letters to Plaintiff and to other data breach victims on or about June 6, 2024. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express and implied contract, intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Frontier is telecommunications company headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com GOODYEAR TIRE: McMiller Alleges Price-Fixing Conspiracy on Tires ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MCMILLER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC.; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04459 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2024) arises from Defendants' alleged conspiracy among the world's largest tire manufacturers to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses sold in the United States. Allegedly, the market for these replacement tires is highly susceptible to collusion because it is highly concentrated and dominated by a handful of companies. In addition, there are significant barriers to entry for new tire manufacturers. These include demand for these replacement tires is inelastic, common membership in trade associations that provides Defendants the opportunity to exchange competitive information, and the tire industry has a history of antitrust violations. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the Class paid higher prices for Class Tires sold by Defendants than they would have in a competitive market, says the suit. Headquartered in Akron, OH, Goodyear manufactures and sells tires under the brands Goodyear, Cooper, Dunlop, Kelly, Debica, Sava, Fulda, Mastercraft, and Roadmaster. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bids to Dismiss Dempsey Suit Nixed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, terminates as moot the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss the lawsuit styled REYNA DEMPSEY, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00425-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff initiated this civil rights class action on Jan. 24, 2024. On April 25, 2024, following multiple stipulations extending their deadline to respond to the complaint, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on grounds including failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court subsequently granted the parties' stipulation to extend the related opposition and reply deadlines, and the Plaintiff's opposition became due on June 6, 2024. On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). Although the Plaintiff did not seek leave to file the FAC and filed it more than 21 days after the Defendants served their motions to dismiss, the Court finds that striking the FAC and requiring that the Plaintiff request leave to file it--which the Court would grant--would be inefficient. The Court, therefore, accepts the FAC as filed, and accordingly, terminates as moot the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss and the related briefing deadlines and hearing date. The Defendants' 21-day deadline to respond to the FAC falls on June 27, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/54aybrp2 from PacerMonitor.com. GROZA BUILDERS: Samblas Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA SAMBLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROZA BUILDERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80703-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Defendant has caused multiple text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 5141. Despite the Plaintiff's request to stop contacting her on September 21, 2023, the Defendant continued to send her text messages on multiple occasions including October 27, 2023, November 27, 2023 and December 15, 2023. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's failure to honor opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant does not maintain written policies and procedures regarding its text messaging marketing, provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, and/or maintain a standalone do-not-call list. Groza Builders, Inc. is a construction company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Manuel S. Hirald, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com GWT ENTERPRISES: Lemache et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS OSWALDO NAJERA LEMACHE, EDGAR RAMIRO NAJERA LEMACHE, and JHONNY FERNANDO SALINAS VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GWT ENTERPRISES INC. and SILVERCUP SCAFFOLDING I LLC and ALAIN LIEBERMANN, ISSAC ADLER, and SAMUEL SOBEL, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04059 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. One of the Plaintiffs, LuisOswaldo Najera Lemache, was employed by Defendants as a scaffolding installer, from in or around November 2021 until in or around November 2023. Although Plaintiff Lemache regularly worked 65 hours or more hours per week from in or around November 2021 until in or around November 2023, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Among other things, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of the NYLL, says the suit. Based in Brooklyn, NY, GWT Enterprises Inc. provides scaffolding rental services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 HANS MENDE: Gera Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hans Mende, et al. The case is styled as Samhita Gera, and others similarly situated v. Hans Mende, Brian Beem, Gary Uren, Jason Grant, Lawrence Clark Jr., Nimesh Patel, William Hunter, Case No. 2024-0616 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 5, 2024). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Hans Mende is a co-founder and executive chair of AMCI Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) (302) 984-3889 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Carmella Keener, Esq. Phone: (302) 984-3813 Fax: (302) 652-5379 HIALEAH DEVELOPMENT: Pardo Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. 1067 HIALEAH DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and ALICIA G, INC. d/b/a EL YAYABO CAFETERIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22125-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2024) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff found Defendant's commercial property and the businesses located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property, and businesses located within the commercial property. Thus, Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility, says the suit. The 1067 Hialeah Development, LLC owns, operates, and oversees a commercial property at 1067 E 25th Street, Hialeah, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com HISMILE INC: Jimenez Sues Over Teeth Whitening Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON JIMENEZ, ROBERT PARHAM, BRITTANY HODGES, and RALPH MILAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HISMILE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04770 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2024) seeks for injunctive relief to stop HiSmile's unlawful and fraudulent advertising, marketing, and sale of its teeth whitening products, which promised instant whitening results. Allegedly, the Defendant has engaged in an aggressive, pervasive, and fraudulent social media marketing scheme, particularly on TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. It drives sales by inundating these social media platforms with a high volume of falsified before-and-after advertisements, misleading celebrity endorsements, and deceptive influencer marketing, thereby distorting perceptions and fueling unrealistic expectations of its products. It furthers this fraud by posting self-sponsored "customer reviews" of its products and having its own employees pretend to be satisfied customers on various social media and shopping platforms. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek a monetary recovery of the price premium and/or full restitution for the amount Plaintiffs and consumers overpaid for the said products that should, but utterly failed to comport with the advertised representations. Headquartered in Delaware, HiSmile, Inc. owns, manufactures, markets, and/or distributes teeth whitening products, including V34 Colour Corrector Serum, Glostik Tooth Gloss, PAP+ Whitening Strips, and PAP+ Whitening Pen. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com HUMANA INC: Faces Iron Workers Suit Over Misleading Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- IRON WORKERS LOCAL 401 ANNUITY FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANA INC., BRUCE D. BROUSSARD, and SUSAN M. DIAMOND, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00655-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2024) seeks remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Humana common stock between July 27, 2022, and January 24, 2024, inclusive. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the company's business and operations. Specifically, the Defendants downplayed pressures on the company's adjusted earnings per share resulting from increased medical costs associated with pent-up demand for healthcare procedures (especially as COVID concerns abated) which, contrary to the company's assurances, resulted in increased utilization rates and costs. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the company's common stock pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, says the suit. Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Humana, Inc. is a health insurance company which common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "HUM." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Jonathan Z. Naji, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com jnaji@ktmc.com - and - Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 E-mail: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com HUSCH BLACKWELL: Oie Sues Over Abusive Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAHLON OIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00672-LA (E.D. Wis., May 30, 2024) arises from Defendant's alleged abusive debt collection practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On or around February 13, 2024, the Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. However, Defendant's Collection Letter provided Plaintiff less than 30 days to dispute or validate the alleged debt, as Defendant's Collection Letter was dated February 1, 2024, and only allowed Plaintiff until February 11, 2024, to either dispute the alleged debt or request validation. Moreover, the Defendant's Collection Letter contains statements and/or omissions that are misleading and confusing to Plaintiff, and contradicted and overshadowed Plaintiff's right to dispute the debt under the FDCPA, says the suit. Based in Milwaukee, WI, Husch Blackwell LLP engages in debt collection activities in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SHIELD LAW, LLC Matthew McKenna, Esq. 237 South St. Unit 110 Waukesha, WI 53186 Telephone: (262) 420-5953 Facsimile: (508) 588-7303 - and - Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 IC SYSTEM: Galloway Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARQUITA GALLOWAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-LKG (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order: 1. Certifying a Class, defined as: "All individuals with addresses in the State of Maryland to whom the Defendant sent a substantially similar or materially identical Undated Collection Letter attempting to collect a consumer debt providing an amount owed based on a particular date certain and "today" without dating the collection letter within the applicable statute of limitations period. 2. Appointing Plaintiff Galloway as the Class Representative. 3. Appointing Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Maginnis Howard as Class Counsel. IC System is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8FYLuU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com tpacheco@milberg.com - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com IGNITE LOGISTICS: Cochran and Welch Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN COCHRAN AND CRYSTAL WELCH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IGNITE LOGISTICS LLC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00161-WHR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, May 30, 2024) challenges the policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiffs Cochran and Welch were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid non-exempt delivery drivers. They were subjected by Defendant to its unlawful practices that include failing to pay them for hours worked prior to the stand-up meetings and deducting one-half hour of compensable hours worked from Plaintiffs for a lunch break, say the Plaintiffs. Ignite Logistics, LLC is a cargo carrier that performs delivery services for Amazon to the greater Dayton region. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A. 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 E-mail: als@bgmillerlaw.com IN YOUR FACE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. In Your Face Skincare, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04344 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its website fully and equally accessible to blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant owns and operates the website, https://www.inyourfaceskincare.com, through which customers can avail of Defendant's products and services. The Plaintiff attempted to access the website and found significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website, says the suit. Based in Largo, FL, In Your Face Skincare, LLC is engaged in the sale and marketing of skincare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com J&S LANDSCAPING: Lopez Seeks Proper Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- LUIS LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&S LANDSCAPING, LLC, and JERRY LAFONTAN, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06766 (D.N.J., June 6, 2024) seeks recovery against Defendants for Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff Lopez worked for Defendants as a full-time landscaper from in or about June 2021, until in or about September 2022. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff was not properly compensated for all overtime hours worked in a work week, says the suit. J&S Landscaping, LLC provides landscape services in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew Glenn, Esq. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com aglenn@jaffeglenn.com JUMP TRADING: Court Refuses to Transfer Kim Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Taewoo Kim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Jump Trading, LLC, and Kanav Kariya, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02921 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy L. Maldonado of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' motion to transfer venue. Plaintiff Taewoo Kim brings this class action against Defendants Jump Trading, LLC, and Kanav Kariya alleging multiple violations of the Commodity Exchange Act based on their purported role in the collapse of the Terra cryptocurrency system. The Defendants have filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Defendants assert that this case should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where a class action under the Securities Exchange Act naming Jump Trading and Kariya as defendants and also relating to the Terra cryptocurrency collapse, has been proceeding for nearly two years. Mr. Kim opposes transfer and argues that the case should continue in the Northern District of Illinois. The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing and denies the Defendants' motion to transfer venue. The Defendants must answer or otherwise plead within 21 days of this order. The class action lawsuit arises from the collapse of the cryptocurrency system of digital assets sold by Do Kwon and his company Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd. ("TFL"). Kwon and TFL began selling various digital assets in 2019, including LUNA, UST, and aUST. According to the Complaint, Defendant Jump Trading, LLC, was an early partner and a primary financial backer of Kwon's TFL and entered into a series of agreements with TFL starting in November 2019 to provide "market-making services" for transactions in LUNA, UST, and aUST assets. Defendant Kariya is the current president of Jump Trading's cryptocurrency arm. Kariya is an Illinois resident, and Jump Trading is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Kwon and TFL intended for LUNA to function much like other well-known digital assets, such as Bitcoin, with a value that fluctuated based on market conditions, supply and demand, and its perceived value. For UST, on the other hand, Kwon and TFL purportedly intended for the asset to function as a so-called "stablecoin," with a constant value "pegged" at $1, in order to be a safe and reliable place to store crypto assets. According to Kwon and TFL, the $1 price of UST would be automatically maintained through an algorithm, which allowed UST to be exchanged for $1 worth of LUNA assets, and vice versa, which would theoretically allow for arbitrage and correct any deviations in the UST price to keep it at the stable price of $1. In addition to providing a purportedly safe and stable crypto-asset, Kwon marketed that owners of UST could deposit their assets back with TFL in a "yield-bearing" savings account. Similar to a traditional savings-and-loan bank, owners of UST would deposit their assets in an account with TFL, and in exchange would receive an aUST token as a "receipt" for their amount of UST deposited. That aUST token could later be redeemed for the original amount of UST assets deposited, plus interest. Starting around May 2021, TFL's algorithm failed to keep the price of UST consistently pegged at $1. The constant $1 value was fundamental to the perceived market value of both UST and aUST, but Kim alleges that rather than publicly acknowledge the inability of the algorithm to maintain the stable price, TFL and Kwon schemed with Jump Trading to manipulate market prices for UST and aUST by making secret coordinated trades to prop up UST to its $1 peg value. Jump Trading purportedly purchased more than 62 million UST tokens in May 2021 to artificially inflate the price of UST to $1 and was allegedly rewarded by TFL and Kwon with more than 61.4 million LUNA tokens at a substantial discount, which Jump Trading then redeemed for more than $1.28 billion in profits. The scheme allowed TFL, Kwon, and Jump Trading to continue to work together to grow the UST and aUST business. But a year later in May 2022, the price of UST dropped dramatically again due to the failure of the algorithm. With no artificial support from Jump Trading this time, the value of UST and aUST plummeted quickly to virtually nothing, leading to the collapse of not only those assets, but also LUNA assets and the entire TFL cryptocurrency system. The collapse destroyed nearly $40 billion worth of market value, including $18 billion in UST and aUST assets. Purchasers of UST, and those who had deposited their UST assets in exchange for aUST receipts on the promise of interest, lost everything. Plaintiff Kim, a New Jersey resident, alleges he was one such individual harmed by the scheme among Kwon, TFL, and Jump Trading. Kim asserts that he made several UST and aUST purchases between November 2021 and April 2022, and that he suffered more than $100,000 in economic losses when those assets collapsed. Mr. Kim filed the instant class action lawsuit on May 9, 2023, alleging that Jump Trading and Kariya, as the head of its cryptocurrency trading apparatus, engaged in an unlawful scheme with Kwon and TFL to manipulate the price of UST and aUST assets and mislead the public about the value and stability of those assets. He brings claims against Defendants under several provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA") for price manipulation and aiding and abetting price manipulation, as well as a state law claim for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who, during the relevant period between May 23, 2021, and May 31, 2022, purchased UST or aUST in the United States and were damaged as a result of the Defendants' alleged price manipulation and scheme with Kwon and TFL. On June 9, 2023, the Defendants responded to Kim's Complaint by filing the instant motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California, based on the pendency of a similar class action in that district court. In June 2022, nearly a year prior to the filing of this lawsuit, another plaintiff, Nick Patterson, initiated a similar class action in the Northern District of California based on the same underlying facts at issue here -- Patterson v. Terraform Labs, Pte. Ltd., No. 3:22-cv-03600 (N.D. Cal. filed June 17, 2022). The original complaint in that case named as defendants Kwon, TFL, Jump Trading, and a number of other entities and individual defendants, who allegedly backed and provided financial support to Kwon and TFL. The complaint asserted claims under multiple federal statutes, including the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as various California state law claims. Pursuant to the statutory provisions for private securities class actions, the Patterson court promptly considered the selection of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. After publicized notice to the potential class members, the court issued an order on Dec. 13, 2022, appointing lead counsel and a lead plaintiff named Michael Tobias. Patterson remained as a named plaintiff and, together with Tobias, filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 23, 2023, repleading the same class claims under federal and state law from the original complaint, as well as adding additional causes of action. Similar to this case, the Patterson plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons, who purchased digital cryptocurrency assets from TFL between May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022, and who were damaged by the collapse of the system. On May 2, 2023--one week before Kim initiated the instant suit in this District--Jump Trading responded to the second amended complaint in Patterson by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), as well as a separate motion to compel arbitration. Those motions were pending as of the time Jump Trading filed its motion to transfer venue in this case, but there have since been several additional developments in Patterson during the time the motion to transfer has been under advisement before this Court. First, in September 2023, the Patterson plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against all defendants other than Jump Trading. Then, on Jan. 4, 2024, the Patterson court issued an order denying Jump Trading's motion to compel arbitration and granting its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Patterson plaintiffs proceeded to file a third amended complaint, which added Kariya, as well as Jump Trading's co-founder William DiSomma, as defendants in that case. The operative third amended complaint brings claims under the Securities Exchange Act and Securities Act and includes the same proposed class action for all individuals, who purchased digital cryptocurrency assets from TFL between May 20, 2021, and May 25, 2022, and who were damaged by the collapse of the system. After the filing of the third amended complaint, Jump Trading filed an appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration to the Ninth Circuit, and the district court subsequently stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal. The appeal will be fully briefed in July 2024, and defendants Jump Trading, Kariya, and DiSomma will have 60 days after the remand from the Ninth Circuit to respond to the third amended complaint. In light of the developments, the Court requested that the parties file supplemental position statements indicating how those developments impacted their arguments for and against transfer, if at all. The Court has now reviewed the parties' supplemental statements and all their associating briefing on the pending motion, and its decision follows. The Defendants move to transfer this case to the Northern District of California, where Patterson is pending, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Defendants argue that jurisdiction and venue in the Northern District of California are proper, and that the relevant private and public interest factors weigh in favor of trying this case in that district court as opposed to the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Kim argues in response that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate that jurisdiction and venue exist in the Northern District of California, and further argues that transfer would not serve the interest of justice, and that California is not a clearly more convenient forum than Illinois. The Court ultimately agrees with Kim that the Defendants have not met their burden to show that transfer would serve the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses. In other words, the Defendants have not established that the Northern District of California is the "clearly more convenient forum." The Court, therefore, need not address the parties' threshold dispute over whether personal jurisdiction and venue exist in the Northern District of California, because even assuming that it does, the Defendants' motion to transfer fails. The Court, thus, finds that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that transfer of this case would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to transfer. The Defendants should answer or otherwise plead in 21 days. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mayteas from PacerMonitor.com. LABORATORY CORP: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN MCDONALD, on behalf of the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Employees' Retirement Plan, himself, and all others similarly situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00680-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file Sur-Reply in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff argues that "Defendant misrepresents facts in an egregious manner pertaining to the compensation the recordkeeper receives from the Plan via float." Specifically, the Plaintiff accuses Defendant's 30(b)(6) witness of providing "false" testimony regarding float. LabCorp is a provider of clinical laboratory services and end-to-end drug development support. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bgZNhQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Samuel I. Levin, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com slevin@groom.com - and - David C. Lindsay, Esq. K&L GATES, LLP 4350 Lassiter at North Hills Avenue, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 743-7300 Facsimile: (919) 743-7358 E-mail: david.lindsay@klgates.com LIVE NATION: Caballero et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- JODI CABALLERO, OWEN CONLAN, BRYAN CURTIS, KELLEY DAVIS, CHARLES FITZGERALD, BRENDAN HEALY, CHRIS RIPPEL, and MICHAEL WALTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and TICKETMASTER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04625 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of similarly situated consumers whose personally identifiable information was stolen by cybercriminals as part of a major cyberattack on Defendants' systems. On or about May 20, 2024, Live Nation detected suspicious activity within Defendants' network containing data from Ticketmaster and thereafter concluded that there was unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and many other individuals' PII. The PII compromised in the breach includes full names, email address, phone numbers, order history, including prior tickets purchased, payment information, including partial credit card numbers, expiration dates, and other sensitive and private data. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's consumer protection statutes, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is a multinational entertainment company which promotes, operates, and manages major live events. It wholly owns Ticketmaster, LLC, a booking and ticketing service provider for the arts and entertainment industries. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com - and - James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - David B. Jonelis, Esq. LAVELY & SINGER PC 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906 Telephone: (310) 556-3501 E-mail: djonelis@lavelysinger.com LYFT INC: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 22, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUAN CHEN, v. LYFT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01330-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management scheduling order as follows: 1. Trial Date: Aug. 17, 2026 2. Final Pretrial Conference: July 9, 2026 3. Last day to file dispositive motions: Nov. 7, 2025 4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: July 11, 2025 5. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 31, 2025 6. Class Certification Hearing: July 22, 2025 8. Further Status Conference: Oct. 17, 2024 Lyft offers mobility as a service, ride-hailing, vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system, rental cars, and food delivery in the United States and select cities in Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PItk5v at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2332: DPPs' Bid for Class Certification in Lipitor Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled IN RE LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2332, Master Docket No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-JBD (D.N.J.). This document relates to All Direct Purchaser Payer Class Actions. All actions in this multidistrict litigation share factual issues arising from allegations that after the generic manufacturer Ranbaxy challenged one or more of the patents covering Pfizer's highly successful Lipitor cholesterol drug, Pfizer and Ranbaxy entered into an illegal agreement to delay the entry of generic versions of Lipitor into the United States market after the expiration of patent protection for Lipitor. The matter is before the Court on the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Here, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (hereinafter, "DPPs") seek class certification on the basis that Defendant Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereinafter, "Ranbaxy" or "Defendant") and Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Manufacturing Ireland, Warner-Lambert Co., and Warner-Lambert Co. LLC (hereinafter, "Pfizer") engaged in challenged conduct, namely a disputed Settlement Agreement, which led to the restraint of generic Lipitor competition and resulted in class-wide antitrust impact in the form of overcharges. This motion was originally filed by both Pfizer and Ranbaxy. In August 2023, when oral argument was tentatively scheduled, DPPs and EPPs announced their tentative settlement with Pfizer. As such, Pfizer no longer participated in the motion practice surrounding this motion. Herein, the Court refers only to the remaining Defendant Ranbaxy although initial briefing was filed by both Pfizer and Ranbaxy. DPPs claim that class members were financially injured in that DPP class members were denied an earlier opportunity to purchase either (1) Ranbaxy's generic Lipitor (meaning that DPP class members paid brand prices longer than they would have absent the challenged conduct) or (2) an alternative generic because Ranbaxy's exclusivity had cornered the generic market. DPPs argue that the Defendant's actions blocked market competition, which resulted in DPP class members incurring substantial overcharges. On Nov. 27 and 28, 2023, oral argument on the present motion, the Motion for Class Certification by the End—Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs, and the Motion for Summary Judgment were heard. In the present motion, DPPs seek to define the following class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Lipitor or its AB-rated bioequivalent generic products directly from any of Defendants at any time during the period June 28, 2011 through May 28, 2012 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the proposed Class are the Defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, all federal governmental entities, and all persons or entities that (i) purchased Lipitor directly from Pfizer for the first time during the Class Period after Nov. 30, 2011, but did not purchase generic Lipitor directly from Ranbaxy during the Class Period; and (ii) all persons or entities that purchased Lipitor directly from Pfizer after Nov. 30, 2011, that did not also purchase generic Lipitor after Nov. 30, 2011. According to DPPs, this definition encapsulates sixty-three members. Judge Sheridan holds that there are two principal reasons why this motion for class certification must be denied. First, the Court granted summary judgment, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the cause of action: causation. Judge Sheridan explains that causation--which is inextricably linked with antitrust injury--prevents the Court from certifying a class where causation cannot be shown. There is no cause of action, and accordingly, there is no class. Second, Judge Sheridan opines, even if summary judgment had been denied, class certification here would still be inappropriate because DPPS have failed to demonstrate that impracticability of joinder as required under Rule 23(a). Given that the Court has previously ruled that DPPs cannot prove essential element of their action, causation, Judge Sheridan denies the motion for class certification. However, even if the Court had not granted summary judgment on causation, class certification would still be denied. This is because, Judge Sheridan explains, after its analysis of the impracticability factors set forth by the In re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation court, the Court finds that DPPs have failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that joinder is impracticable under Rule 23(a)(1). A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye24hpk8 from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r6heah4 from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2332: EPPs' Bid for Class Certification in Lipitor Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned IN RE LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2332, Master Docket No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-JBD (D.N.J.). This Document Relates To: All End-Payer Class Actions. All actions in this multidistrict litigation share factual issues arising from allegations that after the generic manufacturer Ranbaxy challenged one or more of the patents covering Pfizer's highly successful Lipitor cholesterol drug, Pfizer and Ranbaxy entered into an illegal agreement to delay the entry of generic versions of Lipitor into the United States market after the expiration of patent protection for Lipitor. The case is before the Court on End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In this motion, End-Payor Plaintiffs (hereinafter, "EPPs") seek class certification on the basis that Defendant Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereinafter, "Ranbaxy" or "Defendant") engaged in an alleged "reverse payment settlement" with Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner-Lambert Company, and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (hereinafter, "Pfizer") which led to the delayed entry of generic Lipitor. The motion was originally filed by both Pfizer and Ranbaxy. In August 2023, when oral argument was tentatively scheduled, DPPs and EPPs announced their tentative settlement with Pfizer. As such, Pfizer no longer participated in the motion practice surrounding this motion. Herein, the Court refers only to the remaining Defendant Ranbaxy although initial briefing was filed by both Pfizer and Ranbaxy. EPPs claim that the effect of Ranbaxy's agreement is that it blocked generic drug manufacturers from entering the market earlier, causing EPPs to pay for Lipitor at an inflated cost for a period of time. EPPs seek monetary damages. On June 20, 2023, EPPs filed a motion to certify two classes of end payors: a Third-Party Payor (hereinafter, "TPP") Class and a Consumer Class, which has two class periods: the total generic exclusion period (June 28, 2011, to Nov. 29, 2011) and the Generic Overcharge Period (Nov. 30, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2012). Accompanying this motion, EPPs present the reports of two experts: their ascertainability expert, Ms. Laura Craft (hereinafter, "Craft Rep.") and their damages and antitrust injury expert, Dr. Hal Singer (hereinafter, "Singer Rep."). Ranbaxy opposes class certification on several grounds, focusing primarily on ascertainability and predominance. In support of their opposition, Ranbaxy presents the report of their expert, Dr. James Hughes (hereinafter, "Hughes Rep."). In addition to these motions, EPPs filed a Motion to Strike the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by Ranbaxy, or in the alternative, to allow EPPs to file supplemental responses. While Ranbaxy opposed class certification on multiple grounds, because the Court finds that the ascertainability requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not met, the Court limits its analysis to the ascertainability prong of Rule 23. EPPs' proposed classes are vast, encompassing "hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers, and thousands of third-party payors" across over ten million brand and generic Lipitor prescriptions written during the class period. EPPs define their two classes as follows: (1) The Third-Party Payor ("TPP") Class: All entities that, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants or beneficiaries, purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of branded Lipitor or generic atorvastatin calcium, in the Class States, other than for resale, at any time during the period from June 28, 2011, through and until Dec. 31, 2012. The TPP Class excludes: a. Defendants and their subsidiaries and affiliates; b. Federal and state governmental entities; c. Medicare Part D Plans; and d. Medicaid Plans; and (2) The Consumer Class: Total Generic Exclusion Period June 28, 2011, through Nov. 29, 2011). All individuals who purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of branded Lipitor, in the Class States, without the use of a Pfizer co-pay card. Generic Overcharge Period (Nov. 30, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2012). All individuals who purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic atorvastatin calcium, in the Class States. The Consumer Class excludes: a. Judges assigned to this case and their chambers' staff and any members of the judges' or chambers staff's immediate family; b. Defendants' officers, directors and employees; c. Individuals who only purchased through a Medicare Part D or Medicaid Plan; d. Individuals who only purchased branded Lipitor after Nov. 30, 2022, and did not purchase generic atorvastatin calcium; and e. Any "flat copay" consumers who purchased Lipitor only via a fixed dollar copayment that does not vary on the basis of the drug's status as brand or generic. Judge Sheridan says there are two principal reasons why this motion for class certification must be denied. First, the Court granted summary judgment, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the cause of action: causation. Causation--which is inextricably linked with antitrust injury--prevents the Court from certifying a class where causation cannot be shown. There is no cause of action, and accordingly, there is no class. Second, Judge Sheridan opines, even if summary judgment had been denied and the Court had found that there was a genuine issue of material fact, class certification would still be inappropriate because EPPS have failed to show the ascertainability of their proposed class under Rule 23(a). Given that the Court has previously ruled that EPPs cannot prove an essential element of their action, causation, this Motion is, accordingly, denied. However, even if the Court had not granted summary judgment on causation, class certification would still be denied, Judge Sheridan holds. This is because EPPs have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether class members fall within the class definition as required under Rule 23(b)(3). A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tne8pec from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/44fu2p8z from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2332: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Lipitor Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit styled IN RE LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2332, Master Docket No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-JBD (D.N.J.). This Document Relates To: All Actions. All actions in this multidistrict litigation share factual issues arising from allegations that after the generic manufacturer Ranbaxy challenged one or more of the patents covering Pfizer's highly successful Lipitor cholesterol drug, Pfizer and Ranbaxy entered into an illegal agreement to delay the entry of generic versions of Lipitor into the United States market after the expiration of patent protection for Lipitor. The Motion for Summary Judgment is filed by Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereinafter, "Ranbaxy" or "Defendant"). The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers, end payers, and optout retailers of brand and generic Lipitor, a cholesterol medication. The motion was originally filed by both Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner-Lambert Company, and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (collectively, "Pfizer") and Ranbaxy. In August 2023, when oral argument was tentatively scheduled, DPPS and EPPs announced their tentative settlement with Pfizer. As such, Pfizer no longer participated in the motion practice surrounding this motion. Herein, the Court refers only to the remaining Defendant Ranbaxy although initial briefing was filed by both Pfizer and Ranbaxy. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would have approved Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA any earlier--that is, on Nov. 29, 2011--had the Nov. 30, 2011 launch date set forth in the disputed Settlement Agreement been different. For their part, the Plaintiffs argue that there is extensive documentary evidence that Ranbaxy would have obtained FDA ANDA approval earlier than Nov. 30, 2011, if the FDA had had a different launch date to target. They argue that had Pfizer not paid Ranbaxy to delay entry and the generic Lipitor launch date had been earlier than Nov. 30, 2011, it was more likely than not that FDA would have approved Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA on an earlier date. A number of exhibits and two expert opinions--that of Plaintiffs' Expert Kurt Karst and Defendant's Expert, Daniel Troy were submitted in support of this motion. Oral argument on the present motion, the Motion for Class Certification by the Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs, and the Motion for Class Certification by the End-Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs were heard on Nov. 27 and 28, 2023. For reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the Court agrees with the Defendant that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Summary judgment is, therefore, appropriate. In ruling first on this Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court is acting in the interests of judicial efficiency given the fundamental inability of the Plaintiffs to show an integral element of their cause of action: causation. This is because, Judge Sheridan explains, in order to have standing to sue, the Plaintiffs must show that the harm they say they experienced--class-wide overcharges due to the delayed entry of a generic Lipitor--was caused by the delay in the entry date of that generic Lipitor equivalent. The Plaintiffs contend that if FDA approval of Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA had occurred any earlier--even by one day--that it is sufficient to sustain their cause of action with respect to antitrust injury. The elements of the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims are injury, causation, and damages. In order to sustain a cause of action, Judge Sheridan says the Plaintiffs must prove that they suffered an injury caused by the Defendant's conduct. Here, a particular aspect of causation--whether FDA would have approved Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA earlier than it actually did in the real world had the disputed Settlement Agreement provided for a different, earlier entry date, thereby, directly affecting the injury suffered by the prospective classes--is at the forefront. Judge Sheridan finds that Plaintiffs here are unable to show that Ranbaxy would have obtained FDA approval for a generic Lipitor Abbreviated New Drug Application (hereinafter, "ANDA") before Nov. 30, 2011, on Nov. 29, 2011. Although the Plaintiffs claim that Pfizer, the manufacturer of brand-drug Lipitor, delayed competition per a disputed a Settlement Agreement with Ranbaxy (manufacturer of generic Lipitor) which prevented the generic Lipitor equivalent to enter the market until Nov. 30, 2011, the Court agrees with the Defendant, who contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that it was more likely than not that FDA would have completed its review any sooner and approved Ranbaxy's generic drug manufacturer's ANDA earlier than Nov. 30, 2011--even by one day--on Nov. 29, 2011. Judge Sheridan opines that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether FDA would have approved Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA earlier than Nov. 30, 2011, on Nov. 29, 2011. Indeed, the evidence presented to the Court is that FDA may have been able to do so. The Plaintiffs' evidence showing that FDA "may have been able" to approve Ranbaxy's Lipitor ANDA on Nov. 29, 2011, does not meet the summary judgment standard, Judge Sheridan holds. Accordingly, no genuine dispute of material fact as to this question exists. Hence, summary judgment is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j9nxndu from PacerMonitor.com. MERCHANT'S AUTOMOTIVE: JMV Transportation Sues Over Contract Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- JMV Transportation & Logistics, Inc., Plaintiff v. Merchants Automotive Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00155 (D.N.H., May 30, 2024) is a class action asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The class action stems from Merchants Fleet's improper manipulation of pricing and payments for commercial vehicle leases in violation of its Open-End Capital Master Lease Agreement with JMV Transportation & Logistics, Inc. and the Class. According to the complaint, JMV gave notice of lease termination on each of February 22, March 20, 2023, and March 24, 2023, Merchants Fleet refused to take possession of the terminated vehicles within ten days of the respective terminations. Despite its delay in taking possession of these vehicles, Merchant's Fleet continued to charge lease payments notwithstanding the termination and in violation of the agreement. In addition, Merchants Fleet breached its contractual obligations regarding sale of the surrendered vehicles. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the substantial sums Merchants Fleet wrongfully kept for itself by manipulating the surrendered-vehicles sales process, the fees it improperly assessed on JMV and the other Class members in connection with that process, the costs and other damages incurred by customers due to Merchants Fleet's failure accurately to record transfer of surrendered vehicles, as well as all damages authorized by law. Based in Hooksett, NH, Merchants Automotive Group, LLC does business under the trade name Merchants Fleet. The company provides fleet services to businesses and government agencies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. Melody R. Dickson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com mdickson@wcllp.com - and - Edward J. Sackman, Esq. BERNSTEIN, SHUR, SAWYER & NELSON, P.A 670 N. Commercial Street, Suite 108 P.O. Box 1120 Manchester, NH 03105 Telephone: (603) 623-8700 E-mail: nsackman@bernsteinshur.com - and - Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq. Jonathan R. Chally, Esq. COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, LLC 75 Fourteenth Street NE, Suite 2475 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 407-5250 E-mail: JChally@cgc-law.com JGunnemann@cgc-law.com MEYER CORPORATION: Tucker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Tucker, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., Case No. 1:24-cv-04266 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://us.ruffoni.net (the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., operates the Ruffoni online retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Seeks More time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOAMNA RODRIGUEZ, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Case No. 1:24-cv-20269-JB (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time for the Defendant to file a response to the motion to certify class, through and including June 21, 2024. Since the Defendant's counsel first day back in the office was June 3, 2024, the undersigned will not have sufficient time to review, analyze and complete the response to the motion to certify class by the current due date. Because of the time needed to prepare a response and duties on other matters, the Defendant needs an additional ten-day extension of time from the due date to prepare and file the Defendant's response to the motion. Miami-Dade is a county located in the southeastern part of the U.S. state of Florida. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0InTvv at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for Caroline Earle: Elvis J. Adan, Esq. GALLARDO LAW FIRM, P.A. 8492 S.W. 8th Street Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (305) 261-7000 E-mail: elvisadan11@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric A. Rodriguez, Esq. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Stephen P. Clark Center 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634 E-mail: ear2@miamidade.gov MM PRODUCTS: Faces Knowles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MM PRODUCTS INC, Defendant, Case No.1:24-cv-04247 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff Knowles alleges that the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website constitutes violations 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. Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, MM Products Inc. operates the JoyJolt online retail store, provides consumers with access to an array of goods including information about purchasing drinkware, kitchen accessories and other products available online and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies on their website. [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 MONDO A2B: Siguenza Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- JAIME SIGUENZA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDO A2B, LLC. d/b/a MONDO A2B, and NICHOLAS REIMONDO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06889 (D.N.J., June 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid earned wages owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated delivery drivers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. From on or about May 2, 2023, until on or about February 21, 2024, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was subjected to Defendants' policy and practice of deducting one hour daily from the employee's paycheck. As a result, the Plaintiff was not compensated for all hours worked, in violation of federal and state laws. Mondo A2B, LLC is a trucking company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Tovar Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Narcizo Tovar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10966 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04707. The Complaint asserts the following seven causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment; and Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison S. Wallin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: awallin@littler.com - and - Valentina Wilson, Esq. Alvin Arceo, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Fax: 415.399.8490 Email: vwilson@littler.com aarceo@littler.com NDAL MFG INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. NDAL MFG, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04269 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://www.manukaguard.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. NDAL MFG, INC., operates the Manukaguard online retail store, as well as the Manukaguard interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal NESTLE USA: Court Tosses Bid to Modify Case Management Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PRESCOTT, et al., v. NESTLE USA, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-07471-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to modify case management schedule; and -- Extending briefing deadlines related to class certification only. The Plaintiffs have filed an administrative motion to modify the case schedule, asserting that they need an additional three months to complete discovery before filing their motion for class certification, currently due on June 13, 2024. The Plaintiffs ask that all dates in the case schedule, including the hearing date for dispositive motion, the final pretrial conference, and the trial, be extended by three months. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for the requested modification of the case schedule. Plaintiffs’ assertion that they need an additional three months to complete discovery before filing their class certification motion is at odds with the case schedule, which sets the fact and expert discovery cut-offs seven months and nine months after Plaintiffs' class certification motion is due. The Court finds unpersuasive Plaintiffs' assertion that good cause exists because the parties recently completed mediation. The May 17, 2024, mediation deadline was included in the case schedule, and mediation was completed on May 15, 2024. Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f7hXJq at no extra charge.[CC] NEW HYDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Colak Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW HYDE PARK FLORIST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03893 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Allegedly, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. New Hyde Park Florist, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.newhydeparkflorist.com, which offers a wide variety of fresh floral arrangements and gifts for various occasions, such as weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, and sympathy events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Zurich Alleges Unlawful Insurance Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. NICHOLAS FINANCIAL, INC. and JEREMIAH T. GROSS, as assignee of NICHOLAS FINANCIAL, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01410 (M.D. Fla., June 10, 2024) seeks for declaratory judgment pursuant to the Rule 57 of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, for the purpose of resolving a present, real and substantial controversy among the parties concerning the parties’ legal rights, duties, and relationships with respect to insurance policies issued by Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have no duty to defend or indemnify Nicholas Financial, Inc. under the policies relative to the class action, styled Nicholas Financial Inc. v. Jeremiah T. Gross, Case No. 21CY-CV02148, which accused Nicholas for unlawful and deceptive patterns of wrongdoing regarding collection, enforcement, repossession and disposition of collateral, and collection of alleged deficiencies. As set forth in Plaintiffs' September 6, 2022 coverage position letter, the operative pleading in the said class action alleges facts that are not covered by the policies' respective insuring agreements, and are subject to exclusions found in policies issued by Plaintiffs to Nicholas. Nicholas Financial, Inc. is a consumer finance company that purchases and services auto loans made by franchised and independent auto dealers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilana B. Olman, Esq. Nicholas E. Richardson, Esq. SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 200 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1820 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 765-1001 Facsimile: (954) 765-1005 E-mail: iolman@smsm.com nrichardson@smsm.com ibopleadings@smsm.com NISSAN NORTH: Faces Roberts Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- ZACKARY ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00680 (M.D. Tenn., June 4, 2024) seeks to redress Nissan's failure to protect the personal identifiable information of approximately 53,038 individuals that was exposed in a major data breach impacting Defendant's network. The data breach was discovered on or around November 7, 2023 when Nissan noticed suspicious activity on its systems. However, Plaintiff received a breach notification letter from Nissan on or around May 15, 2024. Thus, the Defendant failed to provide timely data breach notice to Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit. Headquartered in Franklin, TN, Nissan North America, Inc. is engaged in research and development, vehicle exports, automotive design, engineering, consumer and corporate financing, sales and marketing, distribution and manufacturing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Wells Suit Seeks to Certify Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA WELLS, JEANNETTE HOLLAND, and MARTIN MCCRAY individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORPORATION, JENNIFER CULLEN, and HILARY JACOBS, Case No. 1:24-cv-11256-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting step-one notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the following collective so that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All individuals currently or formerly employed by Northeast Behavioral Health Corporation in Massachusetts as hourly employees who were subject to its policy of deducting wages for meal breaks;" 2. Directing the Defendants to, within 30 days, produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all potential class members; 3. Approving the issuance of the Notice and Consent To Join Form; 4. Allowing individuals 90 days from the date of mailing of the Notice to opt-in to the collective action and authorizing a reminder notice to be sent 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in period; and 5. Granting and other relief the Court deems just Northeast is a detox and inpatient drug and alcohol rehab center. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DRnOdX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com O'REILLY AUTO: Class Settlement in Pipich Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY PIPICH, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of all other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation d/b/a Express Employment Professionals; and DOES 2-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01120-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and the Settlement Class based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement filed as an Exhibit to the Motion for Preliminary Approval. -- For purposes of this Preliminary Approval Order, the "Settlement Class" means all individuals employed by Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees, either directly or indirectly through staffing agencies, at one of Defendant O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC's distribution centers in California at any time between July 5, 2018 and May 22, 2024. -- Based on its records, Defendants estimate that, as of November 30, 2023, (1) there are 5,750 Class Members and 289,537 Total Workweeks during the Class period; and (2) there were 4,312 Aggrieved Employees who worked 78,609 Workweeks during the PAGA Period. -- The Court approves, for settlement purposes only Berger Montague PC, The Spivak Law Firm, and United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel. -- The Court approves, for settlement purposes only, Jeffrey Pipich, Eve Storm, Gary Cull, Melissa Kolakowski, and Daniel Lopez as the Class Representatives. On June 16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against the Defendant, styling his claims as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and alleging that the Defendant had failed to provide proper payment of all wages to the Plaintiff and other employees who were putative collective members by requiring them to undergo COVID-19 screenings and security inspections each day without pay, including during meal breaks, rest breaks, and off-the-clock pre-shift and post-shift time. On Feb. 21, 2024, the parties settled the case during a Mandatory Settlement Conference conducted by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. O'Reilly is an American auto parts retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ot4ygC at no extra charge.[CC] ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Olney Sues Over Unlawful Foreclosure Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE H. OLNEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00742-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., June 4, 2024) arises from Defendant's retention of Plaintiff's residual equity, in excess of Plaintiff's unpaid taxes and utility charges. The class action seeks to redress the unconstitutional windfall that Defendant received when it foreclosed on Plaintiff's house in the Town of Geddes, County of Onondaga, New York, recovering approximately $75,000 based on $22,000 in tax arrears. The Defendant's windfall of $53,000 violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County and the New York State Constitution. Plaintiff Oley claims that the Defendant did not offer to pay just compensation to her based on the value of her house compared to the tax and utility arrears before, during or after taking her property. Onondaga County is a political subdivision of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Denlea, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Craig M. Cepler, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 331-0100 Facsimile: (914) 331-0105 E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com jcarton@denleacarton.com ccepler@denleacarton.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.W., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Orlando Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-01068 (M.D. Fla., June 10, 2024) arises from address Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, Google, Inc., LinkedIn, Snapchat, Adobe, Pinterest, and TikTok without consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's websites. The Defendant owns and controls www.orlandohealth.com, which it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating specific physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, conditions, and treatments via the search bar and related webpages, signing up for events and classes, and more. Unbeknownst to its patients, Defendant installed tracking technologies onto its website, including the MyChart Sign In/Sign Up page on Defendant's website that navigates to the login page for the MyChart Portal. These tracking tools intercept, record, and disseminate patients' communications with Defendant via its website. Operating as designed, these tracking tools commandeer patients' web browsers and surreptitiously disclose their private communications to third parties even without prior written consent of patients, says the suit. Orlando Health, Inc. is a not-for-profit healthcare organization headquartered in Orlando, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com OUTLAW SOAPS: Bullock Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OUTLAW SOAPS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04271 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Outlaw provides to their non-disabled customers through www.liveoutlaw.com (hereinafter "liveoutlaw.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Liveoutlaw.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs. Yet, liveoutlaw.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Because Defendant's website, fishhippie.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Outlaw's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Outlaw provides to the public a website known as liveoutlaw.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including, the ability to take a Scent Finder Quiz to find the right fragrance and the ability to view the wide range of handmade personal care and fragrance products intended to offer a portfolio of outdoor smell profiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com OXFORD HEALTH: Molly ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY C. AND NAOMI L., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10144-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification and appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs propose the following Class Definition in this case: "All persons who were covered under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) group health plan underwritten and/or administered by the defendant Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., which was issued, amended, or renewed in the State of New York and (1) who were diagnosed with (a) anorexia nervosa, (b) bulimia nervosa, (c) eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS), (d) binge eating disorder (BED), or (e) avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and (2) received outpatient Nutritional Counseling from Nov. 30, 2015 to the present, and (a) submitted claims for Nutritional Counseling which were denied by Oxford on the grounds that they were not covered benefits (the "Denied Claims") or (b) did not submit claims (the "New Claims"). The case is an ERISA class action brought by Plaintiffs Molly C. and Naomi L. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking equitable relief against Defendant Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., the insurer and/or claims administrator of the applicable health plans, for violation of the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act ("Parity Act"). The Oxford health plans, on their face, failed to provide coverage for outpatient nutritional counseling for members with an eating disorders diagnosis, but provided coverage for outpatient nutritional counseling for members with a diabetes diagnosis. This coverage inconsistency is a quantitative violation of the Parity Act. In November of 2018, Molly was diagnosed with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). In February of 2019, Molly began outpatient nutritional counseling with nutritionist Laura Pumillo at "Nutrition for Every Body." Oxford is an insurance company which provides health insurance through ERISA group health plans in the State of New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2JTnkR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Killian, Jr., Esq. THE KILLIAN FIRM, P.C. 48 Wall Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (732) 912-2100 - and - Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 - and - Kathryn M. Trepinski, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN TREPINSKI 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 333 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 201-0022 - and - Elizabeth K. Green, Esq. GREEN HEALTH LAW, APC 201 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 722-1164 OXFORD HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY C. AND NAOMI L., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10144-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion requesting Court approval for the filing of certain documents under seal or redacted in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Motion discusses the history and treatment of Plaintiffs' eating disorders based upon information from their medical records, which were produced to Oxford in discovery. The Plaintiffs have attached the cited medical records to the concurrently filed First Declaration of Elizabeth K. Green in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification as Exhibits B (Plaintiff Molly C.) and C (Plaintiff Naomi L.). The Plaintiffs' medical records contain Protected Health Information (PHI) pursuant to 45 C.F.R. Section 160.103 and are subject to the protections of the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 C.F.R. Parts 160-164. Therefore, the publicly filed Green Declaration notes that Exhibits B and C have been filed under seal. The Plaintiffs request that the Court approve of the filing of those exhibits under seal. The parties entered into a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, on January 4, 2023. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Protective Order, a party may designate as "Confidential" certain previously non-disclosed documents or information. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Protective Order, a party may designate as "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" documents or information: that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of extremely sensitive information, disclosure of which to another party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. Oxford is an insurance company which provides health insurance through ERISA group health plans in the State of New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jYnqAT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Killian, Jr., Esq. THE KILLIAN FIRM, P.C. 48 Wall Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (732) 912-2100 - and - Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 - and - Kathryn M. Trepinski, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN TREPINSKI 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 333 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 201-0022 - and - Elizabeth K. Green, Esq. GREEN HEALTH LAW, APC 201 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 722-1164 OXFORD HEALTH: Seeks to File Portions of Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY C. AND NAOMI L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10144-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order approving the filing under seal of the redacted portions of Exhibits 1, 5, 7–8, and 10–16 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Lauren Nunez. Oxford provides health benefit plans. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UVdtQn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Flynn, Esq. Lauren Nunez, Esq. Payal Nanavati, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004-2595 Telephone: (202) 624.2500 E-mail: cflynn@crowell.com pnanavati@crowell.com lnunez@crowell.com - and - Sarah Michelle Gilbert, Esq. Andrew Holmer, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 E-mail: sgilbert@crowell.com aholmer@crowell.com PENN PINES: Commercial Property Inaccessible to Blind, Gil Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS GIL v. EMANUEL VASILIADES, Case No. 2:24-cv-02502 (E.D. Pa., June 7, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make his commercial property accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Defendant owns and operates the "Penn Pines Shopping Center", a commercial property located at 500 E. Providence Road, Aldan, Pennsylvania 19018. The Plaintiff, who suffers from cerebral palsy, is visually-impaired, and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate, has visited the commercial property on several occasions, including, without limitation, February 24, 2024. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple violations of the ADA, including architectural barriers that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the goods and services offered to the public at the property. The said barriers allegedly pose a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and other disabled customers, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, brings claims for injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA. Emanuel Vasiliades is the individual owner and operator of the Penn Pines Shopping Center in Delaware County, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Koson Kuroda, Esq. 16 Robin Lake Drive Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: 609-332-071200 E-mail: gregkuroda@gmail.com - and – George W. Wickhorst, Esq. R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. ADAdvocates LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305.481.9809 E-mail: george@adadvocates.org Ed@adadvocates.org PERDUE FOODS: Tripp Seeks Conditional Collective Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barbara Tripp, individually and on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Perdue Foods LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00987-JMC (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the following collective: "All individuals nationwide who currently grow or formerly grew chickens for Perdue under a Perdue Poultry Producer Agreement at any time between April 4, 2021 and the present." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court permit notification to potential class members of the existence of this lawsuit, thereby providing the potential class members with the opportunity to opt-in to this litigation. The Court should also authorize service of Plaintiff’s Proposed Notice, Opt-In Consent Form, and Proposed Reminder Notice to members of the proposed collective and instruct Perdue to provide sufficient information to Plaintiff to permit them to provide such notice. No individualized inquiry is required into the circumstances unique to proposed collective members. Perdue is a food production company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LWrNu8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER AND GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com rtucci@zagfirm.com - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (617) 721-3587 E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com - and - Charles Gerstein, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 670-4809 E-mail: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com PHARMACOPIA INC: Competello Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PHARMACOPIA, INC., d/b/a PHARMACOPIA NATURAL BODYCARE, Case No. 1:24-cv-04360 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to provide full and equal website access to blind and visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. Defendant owns and maintains the website, https://www.pharmacopia.net, through which customers can purchase Defendant's products. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff brings claims for Defendant's alleged violations of the ADA, the New York Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, and also seeks declaratory relief for Defendant's alleged misconduct. Based in San Francisco, CA, Pharmacopia, Inc. sells bath and body care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com PORT BROKERS: Karim Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Wazim Karim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Port Brokers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03905 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid warehouse worker from on or about August 15, 2023 to on or about May 9, 2024. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff allegedly did not receive uninterrupted meal breaks. As a result, the Plaintiff is owed overtime wages for about five to six overtime hours worked each week. However, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for each and all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week. Among other things, the Defendant also failed to provide wage notices and accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, in violation of the New York Labor Law, says the suit. Based in Jamaica, NY, Port Brokers, Inc. provides warehouse and shipping services to its client within the State New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com PRESTIGE PROTECTIVE: Mercado Suit Seeks PAGA Civil Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------ VENANCIO MERCADO, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24LBCV01145 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2024) seeks civil penalties under Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 in connection with Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Mercado was employed by Defendants in an hourly-paid security guard at Defendants' location in Los Angeles County from in or around December 2020 until on or about May 2023. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was subjected to Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay and failing to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages. Among other things, Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff timely pay earned wages during his employment and all wages due upon separation of his employment. Prestige Protective Services, Inc. provides security services throughout California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Esq. Ashly Valenzuela, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jschwartz@lelawfirm.com avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com PRIMARY ARMS: E.D. Pennsylvania Grants Bid to Stay McQueen Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen S. Marston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's motion to stay the lawsuit entitled KENNETH MCQUEEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMARY ARMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00725-KSM (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiff Kenneth McQueen accuses Defendant Primary Arms of surreptitiously collecting information about visitors to its website in violation of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping Act and Uniform Firearms Act. However, there is a dispute as to whether McQueen has standing to pursue this lawsuit because that issue is on appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar action. Primary Arms has moved to stay this case pending the outcome of that appeal. Mr. McQueen brings this putative class action against Primary Arms "on behalf of all Pennsylvania residents who have purchased firearms from www.primaryarms.com." Primary Arms' website uses code from a company called Listrak, which is a customer engagement platform that allows companies to build customer profiles. Listrak's code intercepts information about consumers' visits to Primary Arms' website, matches that information to Listrak's consumer profiles, and uses those consumer profiles for advertising purposes. Listrak's code allegedly collects information about both website visitors' "personally identifiable information" ("PII") and the items visitors purchase. Mr. McQueen argues that this violates the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act and the confidentiality provisions of Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act. Primary Arms asks the Court to stay this action pending the outcome of an appeal from the Honorable Mark A. Kearney's dismissal of a similar action, namely In re BPS Direct, LLC, and Cabela's, LLC, Wiretapping, No. 23-md-3074, 2023 WL 8458245 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2023). The plaintiffs in the multidistrict BPS Direct litigation averred, among other things, that Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act by using code on their websites to collect website visitors' information, including personally identifying information and items purchased. The central holding of Judge Kearney's opinion was that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they failed to allege the disclosure of "highly sensitive personal information such as medical diagnosis information or financial data from banks or credit cards." Judge Kearney found that there was no concrete injury for standing purposes where the plaintiffs merely alleged that the defendants' websites captured their "shopping activity" and "basic personal information," neither of which is "sufficiently private to confer standing." Moreover, Judge Kearney considered the disclosure of a Pennsylvania plaintiff's gun purchase to Facebook, finding that the information Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's allegedly disclosed to Facebook--name, address, Facebook ID, and gun purchase--is not sufficiently private to confer standing. The plaintiffs in BPS Direct appealed Judge Kearney's dismissal. The appellants describe the question presented by that appeal as follows: "Do plaintiffs suffer a concrete injury-in-fact when their electronic communications with a website operator are intercepted by a third party without their consent, in violation of federal and state wiretapping acts, which protect against privacy harms that are similar in character to harms traditionally and historically recognized at common law?" Judge Marston opines that the answer to this question is relevant to whether Mr. McQueen has standing to bring the present action. Because the outcome of the BPS Direct appeal is very likely to have a substantial and possibly dispositive impact upon this case, the Court grants Primary Arms' motion to stay. Granting a stay would further the interests of judicial economy, Judge Marston points out. Without a stay, the Court and the parties would be forced to dedicate resources to litigating matters that may not even be properly before the Court because Mr. McQueen may lack standing. Accordingly, the Court grants Primary Arms' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Third Circuit Appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mp3tfu8t from PacerMonitor.com. PRIMARY ARMS: McQueen Suit Stayed Pending BPS Direct Appeal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Third Circuit Appeal in the lawsuit titled KENNETH MCQUEEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMARY ARMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00725-KSM (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiff Kenneth McQueen accuses Defendant Primary Arms of surreptitiously collecting information about visitors to its website in violation of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping Act and Uniform Firearms Act. However, there is a dispute as to whether McQueen has standing to pursue this lawsuit because that issue is on appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar action. Primary Arms has moved to stay this case pending the outcome of that appeal. For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum and for good cause shown, the Court orders as follows: 1. Primary Arms' Motion to Stay Pending Third Circuit Appeal is granted; 2. All proceedings in the this matter are stayed pending a final decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re: BPS Direct LLC (3d Cir. Case No. 23-3235); and 3. The parties will, within five (5) days of the filing of a final decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re: BPS Direct LLC, et al., submit a joint status update alerting the Court to the appellate court's final decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/uk8m3hmr from PacerMonitor.com. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Jones Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Resolution ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC JONES and HERBERT BOWENS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASULATY COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00364-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to stay and closing case administratively. -- The court grants the defendants' motion to stay pending the Seventh Circuit's resolution of related appeal. -- The court removes the hearing scheduled for June 26, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. from the hearing calendar. -- The court orders that this case is administratively closed during the appeal of the Schroeder case. Either party may file a motion asking the court to reopen and lift the stay within thirty days of the Seventh Circuit's decision in Schroeder. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sJInM1 at no extra charge.[CC] RACHAEL GODDARD: Monroe Sues Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------ CATHERINE MONROE, Plaintiff v. RACHAEL GODDARD, a natural person; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV14062 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2024) is a class action arising out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, and the California Business and Professions Code. On approximately March 28, 2022, the Defendants began to employ Plaintiff in Los Angeles in the position of design assistant. The Defendants continuously employed her in that capacity until on or about June 9, 2023 when her employment ended. Throughout her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff did not receive proper wages for all hours worked. Among other things, the Plaintiff was not provided with all required 30-minute duty free meal periods in accordance with the Wage Order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, restitution, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, and related relief through this class action. Rachael Goddard is a natural person and also a citizen of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Glenn Spivak, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Bl PMB 42554 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 725-9094 Facsimile: (213) 634-2485 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com REGULATORY DATACORP: Court Extends Stay of Carr Proceedings ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY N. CARR, SR., on behalf of himself And all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY DATACORP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02139-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia Perez entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend stay of proceedings. The matter is stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's forthcoming petition for permission to appeal this Court's class certification decision. Regulatory provides comprehensive risk and compliance protection services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PfRgeX at no extra charge.[CC] RIVER STREET: Fails to Proper OT Wages, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------ Jose Hernandez, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. River Street 102, LLC d/b/a River Street Tavern, Tina Anton, and Loren Rattner, Case No. 1:24-cv-04749 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant River Street in or before February 2022 until June 2024, tasked with food preparation. Throughout his employment, the Defendants regularly required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime compensation as mandated under the FLSA and the IMWL. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to keep proper time records tracking his total work hours, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages in the same amount, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. River Street 102, LLC is a restaurant business located in East Dundee, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. DORE LAW OFFICES LLC Daniel Schlade, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL I. SCHLADE 6232 N. Pulaski Rd., 3rd Floor Chicago, IL. 60646 Telephone: 773-415-4898 E-mail: james@dorelawoffices.com S.C. JOHNSON: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04340 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York human rights laws by failing to provide full and equal website access to blind and visually-impaired customers. The Defendant controls and operates the website, https://ziploc.com/en-us, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's Ziploc brand plastic food storage bags and other types of goods. The Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person who relies on screen reading software to read website content using the computer, visited Defendant's website on separate occasions, the last occurring on April 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase sandwich and snack bags. The Plaintiff allegedly encountered multiple access barriers that denied her the full enjoyment of the goods and services offered by the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demands preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to ensure compliance with website accessibility requirements, as well as compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. is a manufacturer of household supplies headquartered in Racine, WI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal SABA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND R3 EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12002-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3); (ii) appointing her as class representative pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3); and (iii) appointing Maynard Nexsen PC, the National Student Legal Defense Network, and Berman Tabacco as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). In support of this motion, Ms. Ortiz relies on the contemporaneously filed: Memorandum of Law in Support of her Motion for Class Certification, the Declaration of Natalia Ortiz Lopez, the Declaration of Margaret M. Siller and all attached exhibits, the Declaration of Alexander S. Elson, and the Declaration of Patrick T. Egan and the exhibit attached to it. Saba is a private for-profit offshore medical school. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OaFvLn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick T. Egan, Esq. Christina L. Gregg, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com cgregg@bermantabacco.com - and - Margaret M. Siller, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 1131 4th Avenue South, Suite 320 Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (629) 258-2253 E-mail: msiller@maynardnexsen.com - and - Alexander S. Elson, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: alex@defendstudents.org SANGAMO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Sell Stockholder Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR SELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER D. MACRAE, COURTNEY BEERS, ROBERT F. CAREY, KENNETH J. HILLAN, MARGARET A. HORN, JOHN H. MARKELS, JAMES R. MEYERS, H. STEWART PARKER, KAREN L. SMITH, and SANGAMO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0593 (Del. Ch., June 3, 2024) alleges violations of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of himself and other Sangamo stockholders against the Board in connection with the Sangamo's solicitation of stockholder approval of a proposed amendment to the Seventh Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that, if approved, would increase the number of shares of Sangamo common stock authorized for issuance by 50% from 640,000,000 to 960,000,000. The Plaintiff alleges that the Board, which is seeking to amend the Certificate, has not only incorrectly informed stockholders that the inapplicable votes-cast standard applies to the proposed amendment, but has compounded its errors by repeatedly rejecting his entreaties to correct its material misstatements. Moreover, the Plaintiff claims that the proxy statement filed by Sangamo with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2024 contains materially false and misleading disclosures concerning the threshold of affirmative votes necessary for approval of the Certificate Proposal. Headquartered in Richmond, CA, Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops medicines for neurological diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo F. Bruckner Samuel J. Adams Ankita Sangwan POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com sjadams@pomlaw.com asangwan@pomlaw.com - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 E-mail: wfields@fksfirm.com ckupka@fksfirm.com sshukurov@fksfirm.com - and - F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com SHOREFRONT OPERATING: All Pretrial Deadlines in Skolkin Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skolkin v. Shorefront Operating LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07664 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order staying all pretrial deadlines in light of the anticipated renewed class certification motion or motion for reconsideration of the Court's Sept. 26. 2023 Order denying class certification in the related case Chow v. SentosaCare, LLC , Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC. -- By Oct. 7. 2024 , the parties shall file a joint status report. The nature of suit states Contract -- Diversity-(Citizenship).[CC] SKULLCANDY INC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Lunique Agostini, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04353 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Walker Brothers provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.skullcandy.com (hereinafter "Skullcandy.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). The Website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Because Defendant's website, Skullcandy.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Walker Brothers' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Skullcandy.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Skullcandy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com SUNSET & 97: Brito Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities --------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. SUNSET & 97 LTD. and RINCONCITO LATIN CAFE INC d/b/a RINCONCITO LATIN CAFE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22233-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at Defendants' commercial property and businesses located within that property. Moreover, the barriers have likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. These barriers include curb ramps that contain excessive slopes, says the suit. Sunset & 97 Ltd. owns and operates a commercial retail plaza located at 9600 SW 72nd Street, Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com SURGE STAFFING: Bunger's Bid for Court-Facilitated Notice Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs filed in the titled JENNIFER BUNGER, Plaintiff v. SURGE STAFFING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02113-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio). The matter is before the Court on Named Plaintiff Jennifer Bunger's Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. Defendants Surge Staffing, LLC and Daily Services, LLC (collectively, "Surge") opposed the Motion, and Ms. Bunger replied. The Court grants the Motion. However, the proposed Notice is not approved and must be modified within seven days. Surge is a recruiting and staffing firm that specializes in workforce management, including the recruitment and placement of temporary workers. It works with clients across all 50 states to annually place approximately 122,000 individuals seeking temporary work. To facilitate the placement of temporary workers, Surge employs Staffing Specialists in 177 different branches in 23 states. Ms. Bunger worked as a Staffing Specialist from November 2021 to July 2022 at two Ohio branches. She was responsible for reviewing resumes and job applications; interviewing and assessing applicants to match their skills with clients' needs; training, coaching, and counseling temporary workers; and developing and retaining business with Surge's clients. When a client had a staffing need, she would discuss the staffing position and duties with the client then she would review a pool of applicants to provide a list of candidates to the client. She did not make final hiring decisions; she needed her supervisor's approval. Ms. Bunger alleges that, throughout her employment, Surge paid her a "salary," and did not pay her overtime when she worked more than forty hours in a workweek. Nonetheless, her paycheck varied and depended on the number of hours she worked; if she missed work, or had to leave during the day, Surge reduced her pay by the number of hours she was absent. Because of these reductions, Ms. Bunger received less than $684 during some pay periods. When she discussed these reductions with her manager, she was told that the deductions were because of her time off from work. On June 30, 2023, former Plaintiff Rebecca Green filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees of Surge to recover unpaid overtime; she then filed a First Amended Complaint in September 2023. When Ms. Green died, Mr. Nathanial Green was substituted for his wife, and Ms. Bunger was substituted as named plaintiff. Ms. Bunger filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging that Surge failed to pay her and other Staffing Specialists overtime wages and seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (OPPA). She alleges that Surge misclassified Staffing Specialists as exempt from overtime pay and paid them a "salary" that varied based on the number of hours worked each week even though she and other similarly situated employees were primarily engaged in non-exempt duties. To date, 14 people have filed consent forms to join this action as opt-in plaintiffs. Ms. Bunger filed the present motion for court-facilitated notice to notify others of this action. She claims that Surge misclassified her as an exempt employee to avoid paying her overtime. She argues that she and other Staffing Specialists were entitled to a guaranteed weekly pay of not less than $684 and that such salary should not be subject to reductions based on the number of hours worked or work quality, but that Surge reduced her and others' weekly pay based on hours worked. In a footnote, Surge asserts that the Court should deny Ms. Bunger's Motion because her class action OPPA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and her FLSA action are incompatible. Surge makes no further attempt at this argument, so the Court will not address it. Judge Morrison finds that Ms. Bunger has demonstrated that she is similarly situated to other employees. Ms. Bunger asks the Court for permission to send notice of this lawsuit to the following: All current and former Staffing Specialists and Talent Advisors employed by Defendants who worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one or more workweek(s), beginning three (3) years before the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case. Under penalty of perjury, Ms. Bunger has declared that (i) when she worked more than forty hours in a workweek, Surge did not pay her overtime, (ii) Surge paid her a "salary" but routinely deducted her compensation based on the hours worked causing her pay to be less than $684 some weeks; (iii) her manager called these deductions "unpaid time," and (iv) she did not exercise independent judgment in her primary duties and needed approval from her supervisors before a decision was final. Judge Morrison notes that the declarations from current opt-ins lay out key commonalities with Ms. Bunger's testimony. Judge Morrison points out that this evidence establishes a strong likelihood that Ms. Bunger, the current opt-ins, and the other Staffing Specialists performed the same tasks, were subject to the same policies, and are unified by a common theory underlying their causes of action. Surge disputes Ms. Bunger's showing of similarly situatedness and establishes that at least some employees are not similarly situated to her. Surge raises several arguments that Ms. Bunger has not met her burden, asserting that Ms. Bunger has failed to show 1) that there was a common unlawful policy, 2) that there is common proof in the evidentiary record, 3) that the "collective" litigation would be efficient, and 4) that notice should be issued to employees, who have signed arbitration agreements after this litigation commenced. Judge Morrison holds that Ms. Bunger has demonstrated a strong likelihood that she is similarly situated to the potential opt-ins. Surge's arguments about the validity of the salary basis test go to the merits of the claims and will be equally applicable to all Staffing Specialists. And its contentions that salary reductions were based on PTO can be addressed later, Judge Morrison points out. The Court rules that the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form must be revised. The proposed Notice and Consent to Join form currently state that potential opt-ins must respond within ninety days, but the Court sets a forty-five day response deadline. The Court also holds, among other things, that the use of third-party administrator to handle notice is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court grants Ms. Bunger's Motion for Court-Appointed Notice and approves her distribution plan. However, her proposed Notice and Consent to Join are not approved. Ms. Bunger is ordered to file a motion to approve a revised proposed Notice and Consent to Join form, within seven days. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hr8pvcp from PacerMonitor.com. SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE: Faces Johnson Data Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------- GRANT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a EQUALIZERCM AND 1ST CREDENTIALING, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00623 (W.D. Tex., June 6, 2024) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems between June 3, 2023 and June 18, 2023. The compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that private information caused widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed members. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: invasion of privacy; theft of their private information; lost or diminished value of private information; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract. Headquartered in Austin, TX, SysInformation Healthcare Services, LLC provides outsourced revenue cycle support to medical billing companies, central business offices, hospitals, and other healthcare entities throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TAMAQUA TRANSFER: Youmans Seeks Proper Wages for Drivers -------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR YOUMANS, individually and on behalf of others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TAMAQUA TRANSFER AND RECYCLING INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00949-JKM (M.D. Pa., June 10, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Youmans is a former of Defendant who was employed in the position of waste disposal driver. During the course of his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff was not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times of his regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Tamaqua Transfer and Recycling, Inc. is a municipal solid waste collection and disposal company in Tamaqua, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 200 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY MONTGOMERY and YESENIA ALBA, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-04924-JGB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order granting stipulated request to re-set dates related to plaintiffs' motion for class certification and modify civil trial scheduling order: -- Deadline for initial designation of Nov. 11, 2024 pre-certification expert witnesses: -- Deadline for designation of rebuttal Nov. 12, 2024 pre-certification expert witnesses: -- Last day to file motion for class Jan. 13, 2025 certification: -- Last day to file opposition to Feb. 24, 2025 motion for class certification: A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jd2QCD at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Hill-Horse Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled Selina Hill-Horse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc., Case No. ________, was removed from the Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, in the State of Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 7, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02197-JWB-DLM to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' failure to warn consumers about their benzoyl peroxide acne drugs, which contained or might contain benzene. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, MN. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Hammargren, Esq. Ann E. Motl, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 90 South 7th St., Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 259-9700 E-mail: Laura.Hammargren@gtlaw.com Ann.Motl@gtlaw.com - and – Rick L. Shackelford, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Telephone: (310) 586-3878 E-mail: shackelfordr@gtlaw.com TARGET CORP: Krysinski Sues Over Refill Bags' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------- KATHRYN KRYSINSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00947-CAB-VET (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged mislabeling of its Up & Up brand 8-pack diaper pail refill bags. Allegedly, the Defendant falsely labels its refill bags with the advertisement "1 YEAR SUPPLY," even though these products are incapable of holding the number of diapers that all but the smallest minority of babies go through in a year. The vast majority of consumers that use Defendants' refill bags do not receive a one-year supply even when following all stated instructions and using them as intended. In addition, the Defendant also labels these refill bags with "Holds Up To 2176 Diapers," which Plaintiff claims to be false and misleading to consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief for Defendant's violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and for breach of express and implied warranties, and fraud. Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, Target Corporation operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com TECH GROUP: Sloan FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Adam Sloan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tech Group Grand Rapids, Inc. doing business as: West Contract Manufacturing, Case No. 1:23-cv-01096 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 4, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02454-MAK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tech Group Grand Rapids, Inc. doing business as West -- https://www.westpharma.com/services/contract-manufacturing -- provides contract manufacturing services for drug packaging and delivery systems, including design, development, manufacturing, and packaging..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Christopher Newberg, Esq. KUIPER KRAEMER PC 180 Monroe Ave., NW, Ste. 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Phone: (616) 454-3700 The Defendant is represented by: Neil Bryan Pioch, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC (DETROIT) 500 Woodward Ave., Ste. 2600 Detroit, MI 48226-3416 Phone: (313) 446-6400 THOMAS J. VILSACK: Chavez Files Suit in D. New Mexico ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas J. Vilsack, et al. The case is styled as Guadalupe Chavez, Lorenza Romero, Alice Sanchez, Susie Trujillo, Petra Velarde, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Villas De Avenida Canada, LLC, Bosley Management, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00572-JFR-KK (D.N.M., June 6, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. Thomas James Vilsack is an American politician serving as the 32nd United States secretary of agriculture in the Biden administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria T. Griego, Esq. NM CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY 924 Park Avenue, S.W., Suite C Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 255-2840 Email: maria@nmpovertylaw.org - and - Wolfgang Jared Bomgardner, Esq. NEW MEXICO CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY 301 Edith Blvd NE Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 305-0222 Email: wolf@nmpovertylaw.org TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Curry and Freifeld Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES CURRY and DAVID FREIFELD, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. TICKETMASTER, LLC and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04773 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of data security failures. A third-party cloud database environment containing data from Defendant Ticketmaster LLC became the target of a recent cyberattack carried out by ShinyHunters, during which the private information of 560 million customers, including confidential data belonging to Plaintiff, was illegally accessed and obtained and put up for sale on the dark web for $500,000. According to Plaintiffs, the data breach occurred because of Defendants' failure to fulfill their obligations to keep customer information confidential and secure. As a result, affected customers are now at an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. This complaint asserts claims for negligence and negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of express contracts, breach of implied contracts, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and Defendants' alleged violations of California and Illinois consumer protection laws. A wholly owned subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment Inc., Ticketmaster LLC is a ticket distribution company headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com.com TORRID HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Torrid Holdings Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02046-DSD-DTS (D. Minn., May 30, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. Plaintiff Dalton alleges that the Defendant violated both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Headquartered in City of Industry, CA, Torrid Holdings Inc. offers plus size women's clothing and accessories for sale through its physical stores and its website, www.torrid.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com TORRID MERCHANDISING: Clemens Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE CLEMENS, Plaintiff v. TORRID MERCHANDISING INC. (a California corporation) DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV13845 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and of committing a wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an e-commerce fashion stylist from September 7, 2021, until October 19, 2023 and was allegedly misclassified as exempt by the Defendants. Without regard to the number of hours she worked, the Defendants committed a host of Labor Code violations including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages due upon termination. Torrid Merchandising, Inc. is a plus size clothing store in City of Industry, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy S. Ramsey, Esq. ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C. 21 Miller Alley, Suite 56 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 310-0100 Facsimile: (626) 310-0103 E-mail: aramsey@advantage-law.com TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA: Dudley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Crystal Dudley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24-2-03434-31 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Snohomish, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00810. The Complaint asserts one cause of action against Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and a proposed class for alleged violations of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. SCHLEMLEIN FICK & FRANKLIN PLLC 66 South Hanford Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98134 Phone: (206) 448-8100 Fax: (206) 448-8514 Email: bkk@soslaw.com TRC STAFFING: Davis Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- LATOYA DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRC STAFFING SERVICES, INC., D/B/A TRC TALENT SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02481-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding individuals' sensitive personal data on a massive scale. On or about April 12, 2024, the Defendant first learned that cybercriminals obtained access to its systems and copied a number of files out of its network. The breach occurred between March 25, 2024, and April 12, 2024. However, the Defendant only recently notified Plaintiff and putative Class members that the data breach involved this highly sensitive employee data. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, and breach of fiduciary duty; Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, as well as all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. TRC is a nationwide staffing company headquartered in Atlanta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq. SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL, LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 593-0020 Facsimile: (888) 501-9536 E-mail: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com TRC STAFFING: Peintner Sues Over Customers' Unsecured Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany R. Peintner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRC Staffing Services, Inc. d/b/a TRC Talent Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02431-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 4, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of its current and former customers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act. TRC Staffing Services is a Georgia-based staffing solutions company that provides talent solutions to businesses and employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Hungeling, Esq. Adam S. Rubenfield, Esq. HUNGELING RUBENFIELD LAW Peachtree 25th, Suite 599 1718 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 574-2466 Facsimile: (404) 574-2467 E-mail: david@hungelinglaw.com adam@hungelinglaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 TRIONFO SOLUTIONS: Neufeld Sues Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- ALISSA NEUFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIONFO SOLUTIONS, LLC and GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04612 (N.D. Ill., June 4, 2024) seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for Plaintiff and the putative class in connection with the Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained, and for its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff brings this data breach class action brought on behalf of consumers whose sensitive personal information was stolen by cybercriminals in a massive cyberattack on Trionfo's computer systems between December 4, 2023, and December 6, 2023. The Plaintiffs asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. Based in Itasca, IL, Trionfo is a technology company that creates software for the insurance industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com TRIVAGO GMBH: Bid to File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Echevarria, et al., v. TRIVAGO GMBH, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-22621 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 24, 2019), the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno entered an order denying motion for leave to file exhibits under seal relating to the motion for partial class certification. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 6/7/2024. (mmd) The suit alleges violation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. Trivago provides online booking services for hotel reservations.[CC] TRUCADENCE LLC: Roberts and Garcia Sue Over BIPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- KAREN ROBERTS AND HAZEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUCADENCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2024LA000672 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., June 3, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. As part of the operational protocols set in place by Defendant, the Plaintiffs are required to clock in and out of work using their fingerprints. Though Defendant collected, stored, and used Plaintiffs' biometrics for timekeeping access purposes, Defendant never provided Plaintiff with any written disclosures informing Plaintiff that it was collecting, storing, and using biometrics or explaining the purpose or length of term for which the biometrics were being collected and stored. In addition, Defendant never sought, nor has Plaintiff ever provided, any written consent relating to Defendant's collection, use, or storage, or dissemination of the biometrics. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this class action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result of Defendant's conduct in violating their state biometric privacy rights. Based in DuPage County, Illinois, Trucadence LLC provides consulting, recruitment, and staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Hammervold, Esq. HAMMERVOLD LAW, LLC 155 S. Lawndale Ave. Elmhurst, IL 60126 Telephone: (405) 509-0372 E-mail: mark@hammervoldlaw.com TWITTER INC: Zeman Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ZEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-01786-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying and authorizing the issuance of notice to the proposed collective in this case, which is defined as all employees across the United States age 50 or older who lost their jobs at Twitter following Elon Musk's acquisition of the company. Mr. Zeman brought this suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated older employees at Twitter who were laid off as part of a massive reduction-in-force ("RIF") following billionaire Elon Musk's purchase of the company in 2022. All individuals who comprise Zeman's proposed collective (1) were employed by Twitter; (2) lost their jobs after Elon Musk purchased the company as part of the RIF; and (3) were age fifty (50) or older at the time they were separated from the company. Zeman alleges that he and all members of the collective suffered from the same unlawful age discrimination, which permeated all aspects of the RIF process and disproportionately affected older employees. Accordingly, Zeman seeks conditional certification of a collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, to provide notice of this action to the following group of individuals: All Twitter employees across the United States age fifty (50) or older who have lost their jobs since Elon Musk acquired the company. As set out below, Zeman has satisfied the “lenient standard to determine whether the ADEA proposed collective action should be conditionally certified and given notice.” Zeman filed this collective and class action lawsuit on April 13, 2023, asserting collective claims for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, and class claims under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), for employees who worked in New York. Zeman alleges that Twitter's mass layoff impacted employees age 50 and older more than employees younger than 50. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BR625k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com UIPATH INC: Plaintiffs File Opposition to Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------- UiPath 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 3, 2024, that the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class suit on May 21, 2024. On September 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, then Co-CEO Daniel Dines, and CFO Ashim Gupta, captioned In re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities Action"). The initial complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results. On January 26, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Action filed an amended complaint, and on March 26, 2024, filed a further amended complaint, which alleges Securities Act claims under Sections 11 and 15 as well as Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a). In support of the Securities Act claims, the plaintiff alleges material misstatements and omissions in UiPath's April 2021 Registration Statement, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results. The operative complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath common stock between April 21, 2021 and September 27, 2022. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 23, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on May 21, 2024. UiPath, Inc. is a global provider of robotic process automation software.[BN] ULTA BEAUTY: Jurdi Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lillian Jurdi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., an Illinois company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11049 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 4, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04657. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for violation of California Penal Code arising from Ulta's alleged installation of software on its consumer-facing website, https://www.ulta.com.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: +1 310 203 4000 Facsimile: +1 310 229 1285 Email: victor.sandoval@faegredrinker.com UPMC HEALTH PLAN: Delarosa Suit Removed to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sahara Delarosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPMC HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No. 512678/2024 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04098. The Complaint, with no specifics, alleges that actors gained unauthorized access to "Defendant's database," allegedly compromising Plaintiff's personal information. The Plaintiff alleges two counts: Negligence, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212.326.8321 Email: ktobitsch@jonesday.com - and - Rebekah B. Kcehowski, Esq. James T. Kitchen, Esq. JONES DAY 500 Grant St., Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-3939 Fax: (412) 394-7959 Email: rbkcehowski@jonesday.com jkitchen@jonesday.com US BANCORP: Bovenberg Sues Over Communications Interception ----------------------------------------------------------- Parker Bovenberg, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. U.S. BANCORP, Case No. 5:24-cv-03371-SVK (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2024), is brought on behalf of all California residents who applied for a credit card on U.S. Bank's website, usbank.com (the "Website") as a result of the Defendant's aiding, employing, agreeing, and conspiring with Facebook to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing sensitive financial information. The Defendant assisted Meta with intercepting Plaintiff's communications on the Website, including those that contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and sensitive financial information. Specifically, in or about February 2024, Plaintiff applied for a credit card on usbank.com. As part of the application on the Website, Plaintiff provided Defendant with multiple pieces of sensitive information, including but not limited to his social security number and his total gross annual income. In April 2024, Plaintiff was informed that his application was rejected. The Defendant used the Facebook Tracking Pixel on the Website to send all of this information to Meta without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. By failing to receive the requisite consent, Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has an active Facebook account that he has maintained for numerous years. The Defendant is one of the largest banking institutions in the United State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com VALLEY NATIONAL: Sheridan Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Asia Sheridan, and Shanema Davis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 2024CV30375 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Middlesex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 6, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06791. On March 29, 2024, Sheridan and Plaintiff Shanema Davis filed an amended complaint on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated ("Amended Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott S. Christie Matthew A. Sklar McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 622-4444 Fax: (973) 624-7070 Email: schristie@mccarter.com msklar@mccarter.com VANGUARD GROUP: Court Dismisses Lardizabal Suit Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants, without prejudice, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned AIDAN LARDIZABAL and MAYRA ALEJANDRA PUENTES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01577-MMB (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs Aidan Lardizabal and Mayra Alejanda Puentes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring a class action lawsuit against Defendants The Vanguard Group, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, alleging violations of California Civil Code Section 1670.8. Defendant Vanguard (hereafter "Defendant") moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs are consumers and all other similarly situated consumers, who are residents of California and who used, visited, and/or engaged in transactions via the Defendants' website, investor.vanguard.com (the "Site"). The Defendant is in the business of advertising, promoting, marketing, and selling financial products and services through the Site. To use the Defendant's Site, visitors and users of the Site are informed that they must agree to Vanguard's Online Terms of Use. The Online Terms of Use state that "[b]y using this Site, you agree to follow and be bound by these Terms of Use, which govern your use of the Site. . . . If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, do not use this Site." According to the Plaintiffs, through the provisions of the Online Terms of Use, the Defendant seeks to have Site users waive their right as consumers to make negative statements regarding the Defendants, their employees, their products or services, or any of their materials. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' effort to silence their customers and prospective customers is prohibited by California law, and in particular, California Civil Code Section 1670.8. The Plaintiffs allege that each of the named Plaintiffs--and millions more similarly situated persons in the State of California--have used the Site as consumers or potential consumers, and thus have ostensibly been subjected to the unlawful Online Terms of Use. The Plaintiffs' proposed class includes "[d]uring the fullest period allowed by law, all persons residing in California who visited or used the Site or completed transactions on the Site ('Class')." The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Dec. 20, 2023, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego. On Jan. 25, 2024, the Defendant removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On Feb. 16, 2024, the Defendant filed (1) a Motion to Change Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and (2) a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. On March 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. On March 26, 2024, the Defendant filed a Reply. On April 15, 2024, this case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Baylson. The Defendant makes four principal arguments in its Motion to Dismiss. First, the Defendant argues that Vanguard's Online Terms of Use are not a contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services, which is a threshold requirement for the Plaintiffs to state a claim for relief under Cal. Civ. Code Section 1670.8. Second, the Defendant argues that, even if the Online Terms of Use are a contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services, no provision contained therein waives the Plaintiffs' right to make statements regarding Vanguard. Third, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack statutory standing because they are not in the "zone of interest" protected by Section 1670.8. Fourth, the Defendant argues, to the extent the Plaintiffs bring a claim pursuant to Section 1670.8(a)(2), the Plaintiffs' claim must fail because they do not plead that Vanguard ever attempted to enforce the Online Terms of Use against them or others. Under the clear terms of the statute, Judge Baylson opines that Section 1670.8 applies only to contracts or proposed contracts for the sale or lease of goods or services. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's Online Terms of Use violate Section 1670.80, but the Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts that show that the Online Terms of Use constitute a "contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services" under Section 1670.8. The Online Terms of Use govern the use of the website itself as opposed to the "sale or lease of goods," as required by Section 1670.8, Judge Baylson explains. The Online Terms of Use do not apply exclusively to those customers entering a contract or proposed contract with Vanguard; anyone who visits Vanguard's Site, including those who peruse the Site for informational purposes, is subject to these Online Terms of Use. Since the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege that Section 1670.8 applies here, this case must be dismissed, Judge Baylson holds. The Plaintiffs may amend their Complaint to replace their Online Terms of Use claims with Brokerage Account Agreement claims unless the Plaintiffs are required to submit such claims to arbitration--as the Defendant contends they are--thereby, rendering amendment futile. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxa37w5 from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zbb53v8 from PacerMonitor.com. VICTORIA'S SECRET: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Victoria's Secret & Co., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02174-KMM-DLM (D. Minn., June 6, 2024) alleges violations of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations in connection with the Defendant's failure to make its website to be fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Headquartered in Reynoldsburg, OH, Victoria's Secret & Co. owns and maintains the website, www.victoriassecret.com, which offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, bras, panties, sleepwear, lingerie, swimwear, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com VINSIM PIZZERIA: Quintanilla Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- WILSON QUINTANILLA, Plaintiff v. VINSIM PIZZERIA INC. and VINCENT VACCHIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04009 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2024) is a class action arising out of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or about 2022 to in or about April 2024. He performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants including preparing food, cooking, washing dishes and cleaning the premises. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff's spread-of-hours pay for each day in which their spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, says the suit. Vinsim Pizzeria Inc. operates a restaurant and bar in the County of Nassau and State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mathiesen Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tara Mathiesen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AUDI OF AMERICA, Case No. 30-2024-01398061-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 6, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01223 DOC-ADS. The Plaintiff alleges a defect in the 220V/240V compact/portable charging cables in certain model year 2019-2024 Audi electric vehicles that are subject to an existing voluntary recall. The Plaintiffs claim that the alleged defect renders the affected vehicles unable to be charged fully and/or in the proper amount of time, and to be driven for the amount of miles on a full charge as was advertised or represented, allegedly resulting in damages to Plaintiff and all U.S. owners and lessees of said vehicles. Plaintiff further claims, among other things, that the vehicles that are subject to the recall were marketed and distributed in an improper manner, and that Defendant allegedly committed acts and omissions that were fraudulent and violative of various statutes. Plaintiff seeks an array of economic damages and equitable relief, on behalf of herself and putative nationwide and statewide classes of all persons and entities who purchased or leased the subject vehicles, under causes of action sounding in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach of contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Mallow, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars 14th Floor, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 PHONE: 424.285.8330 Fax: 424.204.9093 Email: mmallow@shb.com - and - Amir M. Nassihi (Bar No. 235936) SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission St., Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 PHONE: 415.544.1900 Fax: 415.391.0281 Email: anassihi@shb.com WALKER ADVERTISING: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walker Advertising, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Micah Scott on behalf of himself and other similarly situatedv. Walker Advertising, LLC, John Doe, Case No. 4:24-cv-00934-MWB (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Walker Advertising -- https://www.walkeradvertising.com/ -- is a specialty company focusing on branded merchandise which includes a wide range of products but can be categorized as Promotional Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Bower, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jbower@bower-law.com WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Walz Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, in the lawsuit titled JOSHUA WALZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06083-BHS (W.D. Wash.). The matter is before the Court on Defendants Walmart Inc., Delivery Drivers Inc., and Ashley Hatfield's motion to compel arbitration. Because the arbitration agreement between Walmart and Plaintiff Joshua Walz is enforceable and requires Walz's claims to be arbitrated on an individual basis, the Court grants motion. In June 2021, Joshua Walz contracted with Walmart to be a delivery driver for "Spark Driver"--a mobile application owned by Walmart and which enables customers to order groceries and other merchandise from Walmart stores and have those products delivered to their residences. Each product that a customer purchases through Spark Driver is "taken off the shelf in that store and bagged for delivery" by Walmart employees before being delivered. Delivery Drivers Inc. (DDI) is the "administrator of driver management" for Spark Driver. It recruits delivery drivers, conducts background checks on potential drivers, ensures that drivers have automobile insurance, and performs accounting and payroll services. Mr. Walz's contract with Walmart classified him as an independent contractor. He was required to use his own vehicle and pay for his own gasoline, tires, automobile maintenance, automobile insurance, cellphone usage, and other expenses. For each delivery he completed, he was compensated a flat rate of pay, which was determined by an algorithm formulated by Walmart and not shared with delivery drivers. The Plaintiff claims that, when drivers picked orders up from Walmart stores, Walmart employees prepared the orders and Walmart "prohibited" drivers from loading the orders into their own vehicles "unsupervised." He alleges that Walmart also "required a specific methodology for where orders were placed in the drivers' vehicles." He asserts that Ashley Hatfield--Walmart's department manager for e-commerce at its store in Tumwater, Washington--"directed" Walz and other delivery drivers on how to pack products into their vehicles. He claims that Hatfield also provided him with "written guidelines" on how to interact with Walmart employees and, on certain occasions, cancelled some of Walz's orders, which resulted in him not getting paid for all hours that he worked. The contract between Walz and Walmart contains an arbitration agreement and class action waiver: "Any dispute between the Parties shall be brought in arbitration on an individual basis only, and not on a class, collective, mass, or representative basis, or in any other manner that sacrifices the principal advantages of individual arbitration." The arbitration agreement also applies to "any and all" disputes between Walz and Walmart or its employees, including any disputes related to Walz's classification as an independent contractor. The contract further provides "any entity with whom Walmart or Contractor used to administer the relationship between the Parties or facilitate payment between Walmart and Contractor... is an intended third party beneficiary of this Arbitration provision." Despite these arbitration provisions, the contract requires any dispute concerning the enforceability of the class action waiver to proceed in court. Mr. Walz sued in Pierce County Superior Court on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, claiming that Walmart and DDI failed to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked, including overtime pay, accounting for necessary expenses; failed to pay all tips and gratuities given by customers; failed to provide required rest and meal periods and compensate for missed periods; and failed to provide paid sick leave. Mr. Walz asserts violations of Washington's Industrial Welfare Act, Minimum Wage Act, Wage Payment Act, and Wage Rebate Act. He seeks damages for unpaid wages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees and costs. The complaint defines the putative class as all individuals currently or formerly contracted directly by the Defendants to provide delivery services to Walmart in Washington at any time since Oct. 23, 2020, and paid in whole or in part on a piecework commission, or other productivity basis. Walmart removed to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Walmart and Hatfield move to compel this matter to arbitration, asserting that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the arbitration agreement between Walz and Walmart and that the agreement requires any claim related to Walz's classification as an independent contractor to be arbitrated. They contend that Hatfield and DDI are third-party beneficiaries of the agreement, so Walz's claims against those Defendants must also be arbitrated. Mr. Walz does not dispute that Hatfield and DDI are third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. He also does not dispute that the plain terms of the arbitration agreement encompass claims concerning his classification as an independent contractor. He nevertheless opposes arbitration, asserting that the agreement is exempt from the FAA under 9 U.S.C. Section 1 because he worked as a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff contends that, because the FAA does not apply to the arbitration agreement, "state law controls whether this case should be arbitrated." He argues that, under Washington law, the agreement's class action waiver is substantively unconscionable and that the agreement's own terms require the class action to remain in this Court. Judge Settle finds that the contract between Walz and Walmart is not exempt from the FAA. At most, Walz plausibly alleges that he and some other Spark Driver workers have only occasionally delivered products across state lines. This does not demonstrate that he belongs to a class of transportation workers that is defined by its engagement in interstate commerce. Walz, accordingly, fails to establish that his contract with Walmart is exempt from the FAA under Section 1. Judge Settle also finds that the arbitration agreement's class action waiver is enforceable under federal law. Because the FAA applies to the contract between Walz and Walmart, the Court is bound by Supreme Court precedent defining the scope of Section 2's saving clause. Under this precedent, the contract's class action waiver is not unconscionable, and the state-law unconscionability defense announced in Oakley v. Domino's Pizza LLC, 23 Wn. App. 2d 218 (2022), is inapplicable. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. This proceeding is stayed pending the parties' arbitration. The parties will promptly notify the Court of any relevant developments resulting from the arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 6, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kn7ax7z from PacerMonitor.com. WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 2 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Unauthorized Products Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01223-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered case management and scheduling order follows: 1. Trial Date: Aug. 31, 2026 2. Final Pretrial Conference: July 2, 2026 3. Last day to file dispositive motions: Feb. 12, 2026 4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 15, 2025 5. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 24, 2025 6. Motion For Lead Counsel Hearing: July 16, 2024 7. Class Certification Hearing: July 2, 2024 8. Further Status Conference: Oct. 31, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbtwID at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Faces Millstein Suit for Aiding and Abetting Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- FANNY B. MILLSTEIN, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22142-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) is a class action seeking damages against Wells Fargo for aiding and abetting a massive Ponzi scheme resulting in the loss of over $300 million by more than 1,000 investor victims, including Plaintiff, most of whom were elderly and lost substantial life savings. From 2011 until 2021, Wells Fargo allegedly possessed actual knowledge of the scheme and substantially assisted the scheme's perpetrators Marshal Seeman, Eric Holtz, and Brian Schwartz. Wells Fargo also knew and observed that many of the same Stranger-Originated Life Insurance policies that were represented to Plaintiff and the Class to serve as collateral for their promissory notes were instead fraudulently pledged as security or transferred to other lenders through the Centurion Companies. But rather than reporting or taking any action to stop this ongoing and ever-expanding fraud, Wells Fargo instead chose to substantially assist and profit from it, says the suit. Headquartered in Sioux Falls, SD, Wells Fargo is a nationally chartered bank that provides banking products and services to businesses, customers, and institutions in all 50 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Miles, Esq. David M. Buckner, Esq. Brett E. von Borke, Esq. BUCKNER + MILES 2020 Salzedo Street, Ste. 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 964-8003 Facsimile: (786) 523-0585 E-mail: seth@bucknermiles.com david@bucknermiles.com vonborke@bucknermiles.com - and - James D. Sallah, Esq. Joshua A Katz, Esq. SALLAH ASTARITA & COX, LLC 2255 Glades Rd., Ste. 300E Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 989-9080 Facsimile: (561) 989-9020 Email: jds@sallahlaw.com jak@sallahlaw.com - and - Scott L. Silver, Esq. Ryan A. Schwamm, Esq. Peter M. Spett, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com rschwamm@silverlaw.com pspett@silverlaw.com WHITE CAP: Lobdell Sues Over Unlawful Paycheck Deductions Under ADA ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW LOBDELL, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE CAP, L.P., a Florida Limited Partnership (f/k/a HD Supply Construction Supply); WHITE CAP SUPPLY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11450-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 3, 2024) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In or around June of 2020, the Plaintiff was hired to work as a licensed commercial driver for CSI Geoturf, which was acquired by White Cap in 2022. Throughout 2023, the Plaintiff was subjected to biweekly financial penalties of $62.84 for rejecting Defendants' request that he submit to medical examinations. The Plaintiff again refused to submit to medical examinations in 2023, resulting in per paycheck deductions of $131.96 in 2024. Accordingly, he brings this class action on behalf of Defendants' current and former employees who are or were required to participate in annual physical and biometric testing to avoid a financial penalty. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees. Based in Oakland County, Michigan, White Cap, L.P. is a supplier of concrete formwork and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shereef H. Akeel, Esq. Adam S. Akeel, Esq. AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC 888 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 350 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 269-9595 E-mail: shereef@akeelvalentine.com adam@akeelvalentine.com WOODBURY WELLNESS: Desoto Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- TERESA DESOTO, individually and for others similarly situated v. WOODBURY WELLNESS CENTER, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-00464-BO (E.D.N.C., June 7, 2024) seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid CNA in Hampstead, North Carolina from approximately May 2021 until June 2023. Throughout her employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week but Defendant allegedly failed to properly pay her and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including overtime, due to Defendant's automatic meal break deduction policy. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant engaged in a common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from her and other CNAs' recorded work time for so-called meal breaks, despite requiring them to remain on-duty and perform work throughout their shifts, including their unpaid meal breaks. Plaintiff claims that the unpaid time is compensable and the FLSA and the NCWHA. Woodbury Wellness Center, Inc. is a short-term rehabilitation and skilled nursing facility located in Hampstead, NC. [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 - and – Bert J. Miano, Esq. MIANO LAW PC 1213 West Morehead Street Fifth Floor, Unit #99 Telephone: (704) 275-7199 Facsimile: (704) 630-7199 E-mail: bmiano@mianolaw.com [24]7.AI INC: Jarrett Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANNA JARRETT and MARY NGETHE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. [24]7.AI, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00677-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs requests entry of an order: (1) preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and conditionally certifying an FLSA collective for settlement purposes under 29 U.S.C. section201., et seq.; (2) preliminarily approving the Parties' Settlement/Agreement and all terms in it; (3) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Adrianna Jarrett and Mary Ngethe as Class Representatives for the Class/Collective and Sommers Schwartz, P.C. as Class Counsel; (4) approving the form and content of the Parties' proposed Class Notice; (5) approving the appointment of Settlement Administrator; and (6) scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the Settlement and approval of the application of Class Counsel and Plaintiffs for their requested attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and service awards. Under the Settlement Agreement, "Class Members" are defined as: "all non-exempt customer service representatives ("CSRs") engaged by Defendant during the Class Period, as follows: (i) the 848 non-exempt CSRs, including Plaintiffs, who joined this Action by submitting opt-in consent forms following Court approval of pre-discovery conditional certification in this Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) ("Collective Opt-in(s)"); and (ii) all non-exempt CSRs who were engaged by Defendant during the Class Period (estimated at 3,133 individuals by the Parties) but who did not submit opt-in consent forms during the pre-discovery conditional certification period. ("Rule 23 Member(s)")." Further, "Settlement Class Members" are defined as: (i) the Collective Opt-Ins (i.e., the 848 non-exempt CSRs, including Plaintiffs, who joined this Action by submitting opt-in consent forms following Court approval of pre- discovery conditional certification in this Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)); and (ii) the 3,133 non-exempt CSRs who were engaged by Defendant during the Class Period who do not timely file Opt Out Requests and consent to the terms of the Settlement by negotiating checks in the gross amount of their Individual Settlement Payments. The case is a FLSA and common law wage-and-hour hybrid collective/class action. The Plaintiffs Adrianna Jarrett and Mary Ngeth have settled this litigation on behalf of approximately 3,981 hourly, non-exempt customer service representatives engaged by Defendant [24]7.ai, Inc. On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") asserting the following causes of action on a collective and class basis against Defendant: (1) failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (collective action); (2) failure to pay wages – breach of contract (Rule 23 nationwide class action); and (3) failure to pay wages – unjust enrichment (Rule 23 nationwide class action). The Defendant is a customer service software and services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3HmZrV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J, Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 746-4001 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.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 ***