/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240624.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 24, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 126 Headlines 2390 CRESTON: Court Dismissed Garcia Amended Complaint 2U INC: Beaumont Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit 2U INC: Beaumont Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities 3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Eddins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Gander Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Gray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Gruen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: McComas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: McConnell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Monpremier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Morrow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 84 LUMBER: Runciman Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA 9W HALO: Bid to Continue Trial & Related Deadlines in Butt Granted A&A SERVICES: Faces Santizo Suit Over Data Security Failures ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Says AFLAC INC: Kuffel Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Bid to Certify Class Due Sept. 19, 2025 AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Taylor Class Action AMBER PHILLIPS: Hooks Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification AMERCABLE CORP: Holmes Seek to Certify PPE-Equipped Employee Class AMERICAN STRATEGIC: M&A Investigates Tender Offer From Bellevue APPLE INC: Female Employees Sue Over Unfair Labor Practices ASCENSION HEALTH: Willis Sues Over Private Data Breach ASHLAND INC: Smith Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement ASPEN GROUP: Spegal Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Brown Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement AVENTURA INVESTORS: Chavarria Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation AVIS BUDGET: Faces Kaynaroglu Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. New Jersey BCE-MACH III: Parties Seek to Extend Amended Scheduling Order BLUE BUFFALO: Frost and Frost Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Yanchunis Appointed as Interim Class Counsel CAL. DEL.: Class Settlement in Orin Suit Gets Initial Nod CARTER'S INC: Deploys TikTok Tracing Process, Jurdi Suit Alleges CENCORA INC: Smith and Skibinski Sues Over Alleged Data Breach CENCORA INC: Webb Sues Over Data Security Failures CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud CHICAGO, IL: Court Certifies “Mass Traffic Stop Program" Class Suit CHRISTIE'S INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Colley Alleges CHURCH & DWIGHT: Aguilar Sues Over False Product's Ads and Labels CITIZENS DISABILITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 8 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Nicklin COSTCO WHOLESALE: Song Sues Over Deceptive Pricing on Website DELL INC: Truss Sues Over Unprotected Private Information DIGESTIVE DISEASES: Cook Seeks Proper Overtime Wages DM CONTRACTING: Merlo et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches DMC DETROIT: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages Under FLSA, Lane Says DOLLAR GENERAL: Burns Sues Over Unjust Enrichment in Fuel Card Use DOLLARAMA INC: Judge Dismisses $2.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement DOUGH BROOKLYN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Apostolakis Alleges DRG HOSPITALITY: Morais Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers DRIVER PROVIDER: Class Settlement Deal in Salazar Gets Initial Nod DUFRESNE SPENCER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ED'S LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL EKSTER INC: Purscelley Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ENROLLMENT CONFIDENTLY: Voelker Sues Over Data Security Failures ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Parties Seek Extension of Case Deadlines EPOCH EVERLASTING: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid EXXON MOBIL: Must File Class Cert Opposition by August 22 FAT BRANDS: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Kates Suit Claims FCA US LLC: Stryker et al. Sue Over Undisclosed Car Security Defect FEDEX GROUND: Court Vacates Briefing Sched on Issues of Misjoinder FIGURE LENDING: Imposes Excessive Loan Fees, Ward Says FINANCE OF AMERICA: Sapan Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack FOR LIFE: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing to August 15 FORD MOTOR: Court Expands Class Definition in Water Pump Suit FORD MOTOR: Martin Can File Portions of Class Cert Under Seal FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Cyberattack FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilson Sues Over Private Data Breach FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Website Posted False Bargain Price, Broomes Says FUTUREFUEL CORP: Rosen Law Probes Possible Securities Claims GEICO INDEMNITY: Class Settlement in Malcom Gets Final Approval GEICO: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice GEICO: Combined Dispositive Bid Denied In MAO-MSO Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt Owners Advised to Opt-out Settlement GENERAL MOTORS: Lima Sues Over Invasion of Privacy GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert Deadline Modified to Oct. 10 GERMANY: Class Action Law Reform Includes Rating Agencies, Auditor GRAND CANYON: Smith and Wang Sue Over Alleged Fraud GRITSTONE BIO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Seals Seeks to Certify FLSA Settlement Class HAIKU ASIAN: Hong Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification HALO INNOVATIONS: Bender Sues Over Defective Infant Sleeper HAPPY HOUR: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines HAPPY HOUR: Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Experts Due Nov. 21 HCA HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1, 2025 HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE: Johnson Sues Over Info Disclosure to Meta HONDA MOTOR: Booloki Seeks Leave To File Docs Under Seal HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to Oct. 30 HONDA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal ICHIBAN GROUP: Bid for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Tossed ILLUMINATI LABS: Watkins & Accardi Sue Over Toothpaste's False Ads JOHN BURLEW: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action JOS. A. BANK: Liz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store JRK PROPERTY: Perrault Suit Seeks Class Certification KALAMAZOO COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Alleges KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 18 KENDALL CREDIT: Foster Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Final Approval of Class Settlement Nixed KNOX COUNTY, IL: JBH Suit Files Amended Bid for Class Certification KROGER CO: Kirkbride Suit Seek to Permanently Seal Exhibits KROGER CO: Leyman Sues Over Mixed Fruit Juice's Deceptive Labels KROGER CO: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition LAMB WESTON: Cleveland Bakers et al. Sue Over False Statements LAMB WESTON: Faces Securities Class Action Over New ERP System LGI HOMES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in McAlister LIFT STATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Torres Alleges LIVEPERSON INC: Steffens Sue Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties MANHATTAN BEER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Swanson Due Dec. 30 MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit on Crypto Accounting Practices MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Disabled Can't Access Property, Gil Claims MDL 3083: Okeke Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info MEMORIAL HERMANN: Breaches Fiduciaries Duty, Jones Class Suit MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Summary Judgment Bids in Monopoli Due July 12 MERRILL GARDENS: Court Certifies Class of Non-Exempt Employees METHODE ELECTRONICS: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claim MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply MONTE'S TRATTORIA: Faces Restrepo Suit Over Labor Law Violations MULTIPLAN INC: Anesthesia Care et al. Sue Over Price Fixing MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Espanol Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages NBME: Seeks to Dismissal of Giri First Amended Complaint NEBRASKA: Filyaw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action NESTED BEAN: Sells Dangerous Baby Sleepwear Products, Massari Says NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery Completion Due July 26 in Dorce Suit NEW YORK, NY: Smokes Shops Fight Back With Class Action Lawsuit OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks to File Declaration of Class Member PATINA ORLANDO: Cosme Suit Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Briefing PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Sues Over Funding for Public Defense System PERDUE FOODS: Tripp Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification PERMIAN RESOURCES: Short Sues Over Price Fixing of Crude Oil PERMIAN RESOURCES: Strupp et al. Sue Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Securities Suit Over 11.46% Stock Price Drop PLAINSCAPITAL BANK: Burks Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice PPG INDUSTRIES: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Class Discovery PREGIS LLC: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Bazinett PRIVATE NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Processors' OT Wages Under FLSA PRO CUSTOM: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 8 PRO CUSTOM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Walters Extended to July 8 PRO VACATION: Stone Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification PROENTEL INDY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Pinell et al. Suit Say PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Henson Loses Bid for Class Certification PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boyd Alleges PURDUE PHARMA: Court Refuses to Stay $150MM Opioid Settlement RAYTHEON: Job Ads Amount to Age Discrimination, Class Suit Says RED LOBSTER: Parket Named as Plaintiff in WARN ACT Class Action RETRO SNACKS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Reid Suit Claims REVLON INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Givens Due Dec. 10 RISEWELL LLC: Faces False Ads Class Action Over Toothpaste Safety RIVERDALE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges ROBERT HALF: Williams Balks at Irrevocable Resignation Requirement ROBERT LUNA: Class Cert Hearing in Stewart Continued to August 26 ROBLOX CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements ROLLIN'R TRUCKING: Cartagena Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Filing of Fourth Amended Complaint Partly OK'd RXO INC: Smith Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement SAINT LUKE'S: Fails to Pay Nurse's OT Wages, Kaiser Says SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Homeless Mistreatment SANDRA ROPKA: Initial Disclosures in Intact Suit Due July 17 SANTA MONICA, CA: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought SCISSORTAIL ENERGY: Reps Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement SCOTT SEMPLE: Vega Allowed to File Renewed Class Cert Bid SELECT REHABILITATION: Scott Hardt Named as Class Representative SHOWS CALI: Court OKs Renewed Bid for Class Certification SILVERBOW RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Crescent SIRUSXM CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Subscription Pricing Details SMG FOOD: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ordono Extended to Oct. 9 SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ordono Due Oct. 9 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: July 1 Opposition to Class Cert Bid Sought SPORTS RESEARCH: Class Action Settlement in Capaci Gets Initial Nod SPORTS RESEARCH: Class Settlement in Capaci Suit Gets Initial Nod STOP & SHOP: Fuller Seeks to Certify Class SUMMIT HEALTH: Faces T.G. Suit Over Private Info Disclosure SUNNOVA ENERGY: Williams Balks at Resignation Requirement Bylaws SWIFT PORK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Vail Extended to Sept. 6 SYNERGY CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Helpers, Montoya Says TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Reached $36 Mil. Settlement in Speakes Suit TASKUS INC: Gets July 19 Extension to Submit Class Cert Opposition TD Bank: Filing of Report Objections Due June 28 TENNECO INC: DOL Backs Unenforceability of Suit Waivers in 401(k) TICKETMASTER LLC: Xian Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info TRULIEVE INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages TYCO FIRE: Settlement Deal in Camden Suit Wins Initial Nod UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Feds for Freedom Suit UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Displaced Students Sue for Fraud US PAROLE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Lewis Class Cert. Bid VALVE CORPORATION: Court Clarifies Order on Class Certification VERIZON BUSINESS: Class Settlement in Hogue Suit Gets Final Nod W.L. GORE: Case Management Conference Continued to July 18 WALT DISNEY: Settlement Payout Begins in Dream Key Pass Suit WEBMD LLC: Kindler Can File Corrected Class Certification Bid WEBMD LLC: Sweeton Seeks Class Certification WELLS FARGO: Matula Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties WORLDPAC INC: Parties Seek to Revise Class Certification Deadlines ********* 2390 CRESTON: Court Dismissed Garcia Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. 2390 CRESTON REALTY LLC, 2390 C LLC, and DENALI MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-01129-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Nelson Roman entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims in their entirety without prejudice. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 11, 2024. The Plaintiff is advised that the Second Amended Complaint will replace, not supplement, the Amended Complaint, and so any claims that they wish to pursue must be included in, or attached to, the Second Amended Complaint. Should Plaintiff file a Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 25, 2024. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within the time allowed, those claims that were dismissed without prejudice will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 46. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all other and former employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff estimates a class size of 20 individuals. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the e Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by (1) failing to pay employees overtime for non-janitorial work performed in excess of 40 hours per week; (2) failing to keep accurate records of employees’ hours worked; and (3) failing to provide employees wage and hour records or pay statements in order to hide their violations of the wage and hour laws and to take advantage of their employees, including the Plaintiff. From January 2019 until Sept. 26, 2022, the Plaintiff worked as a resident janitor at 2390 Creston Avenue, Bronx, New York 10468. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KVFXvz at no extra charge.[CC] 2U INC: Beaumont Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland captioned Beaumont v. 2U, Inc. et al (Case No. 8:24-cv-01723) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired 2U, Inc. ("2U" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TWOU) securities between February 9, 2022 and February 12, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 2U investors have until August 12, 2024 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. On November 9, 2023, after the market closed, the Company announced that 2U and USC would wind down their 15-year collaboration in the Company's major programs, and that USC would pay approximately $40 million in connection with this exit. The Company also announced it would recognize a total of $80 million in the fourth quarter related to partners seeking a negotiated exit from certain degree programs, which the Company euphemistically referred to as "portfolio management activities." The Company disclosed these portfolio management activities would offset a 21% decrease in full course equivalent enrollment, which was primarily driven by "the impact of [its] transition to a new marketing framework in mid-2022." The Company also revealed fiscal quarterly results, showing Degree Program revenue was flat year over year, that total revenue had decreased 1%, and that the Alternative Credential Segment revenue decreased 3%. On this news, 2U's share price fell $1.35, or 56.72% to close at $1.03 on November 10, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on February 12, 2024, after the market closed, 2U disclosed that due to the Company's debt, "there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." The Company further disclosed it recognized $88.0 million of revenue from portfolio management activities (i.e., fees negotiated for early partnership contract termination) in the year and it would assume another $10 million from such activities in the first quarter of 2024 and at least $15 million in full-year 2024. The Company also announced its full year revenue of $946 million, significantly missing the Company's guidance of $965 million to $990 million, and revealed Degree Program Segment revenue, Alternative Credential Segment Revenue, and total revenue, all decreased 2% year over year. The Company also issued full year 2024 guidance, estimating revenue would continue to decline from $946 million, to $805 million to $815 million. On this news, 2U's share price fell $0.55 or 59.33%, to close at $0.37 on February 13, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action 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, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company was unable to sustain relationships with key universities and organizations; (2) as a result, certain degree programs and partnerships failed to materialize or were cancelled; (3) the Company's transition to a platform company would lead to a decrease in full course equivalent enrollments; (4) accordingly, the Company had overstated the stability and/or longevity of its contractual agreements and/or revenue sources; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased 2U securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased 2U securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] 2U INC: Beaumont Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Beaumont, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2U, INC., Christopher Paucek, Paul Lalljie, and Matt Norden, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01723-DLB (D. Md., June 13, 2024) asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Beaumont brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired 2U securities between February 9, 2022 and February 12, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company was unable to sustain relationships with key universities and organizations; (2) as a result, certain degree programs and partnerships failed to materialize or were canceled; (3) the Company's transition to a platform company would lead to a decrease in full course equivalent enrollments; (4) accordingly, the Company had overstated the stability and/or longevity of its contractual agreements and/or revenue sources; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Headquartered in Lanham, MD, 2U is an online education platform company. Its common stock trade on the NASDAQ stock market under the symbol “TWOU.” [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq. William E. Jacobs, Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 499-7900 E-mail: sweisbrod@wmclaw.com wjacobs@wmclaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Davis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; 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.), Case No. 2:24-cv-02604-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein including death. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - 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: Eddins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- William Ralph Eddins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02572-RMG (D.S.C., April 24, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with colon cancer, thyroid disease, and kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq. Smith Tower 506 2nd Ave, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 990-0390 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Gander Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas R. Gander, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02607-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Gray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dennis Gray, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02578-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Gruen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert David Gruen, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02611-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: McComas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gary F. McComas, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02382-RMG (D.S.C., April 22, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: McConnell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Roger McConnell, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02609-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip McGee, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY); FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MSA SAFETY, INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ANSUL COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX CORPORATION); VERIDIAN LIMITED; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02485-RMG (D.S.C., April 23, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 - and - Jim Hood, Esq. Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq. 1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 803-5001 3M COMPANY: Monpremier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rodin Monpremier, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-02587-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison T. Donaldson, Esq. Marc S. Whitehead, Esq. MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP 403 Heights Boulevard Houston, TX 77007 Phone: 713-228-8888 Facsimile: 713-225-0940 3M COMPANY: Morrow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ John Morrow, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD,; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONTE DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DU NEMOUR AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-02590-RMG (D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison T. Donaldson, Esq. Marc S. Whitehead, Esq. MARC WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLP 403 Heights Boulevard Houston, TX 77007 Phone: 713-228-8888 Facsimile: 713-225-0940 84 LUMBER: Runciman Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANGEL RUNCIMAN, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00852 (W.D. Pa., June 11, 2024) arises under Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff accuses the Plan's fiduciaries of breaching their duties under ERISA to the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan during the class period. Among other things, the Defendants allegedly failed to implement and follow a prudent process for evaluating, selecting, monitoring and replacing funds in the Plan to ensure that each investment option in the Plan was prudent and maintained unreasonably expensive and/or underperforming share classes of funds and investment options in the Plan despite the availability of lower-priced share classes and investment options containing identical or equivalent investments with lower costs and and/or better performance. Defendants also failed to control the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping costs. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, the Plaintiff and the other Plan participants have been subjected to excessive costs, fees and fund underperformance and, as such, have suffered financial losses, says the suit. Headquartered Eighty Four, PA, 84 Lumber Company is a building materials supply company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin J, Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Paige T. Noah, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 314-0515 E-mail: ekilpela@waykayslay.com pnoah@waykayslay.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com 9W HALO: Bid to Continue Trial & Related Deadlines in Butt Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAQAS N. BUTT, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO, L.P., a Delaware limited liability company doing business as ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01446-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to continue trial as follows: Event Current Date Proposed Date Disclosure of Experts and April 16, 2024 Nov. 30, 2024 Reports Disclosure of Rebuttal May 14, 2024 Dec. 30, 2024 Experts Completion of Discovery June 11, 2024 Feb. 14, 2025 Deadline to Hear Motions June 11, 2024 Feb. 14, 2025 to Compel Discovery Motion Cutoff July 30, 2024 Jan. 10, 2025 Final Pretrial Conference Oct. 7, 2024 May 5, 2025 Jury Trial Dec. 3, 2024 July 8, 2025 9w Halo supplies linen to commercial establishments and household users. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DFRaWg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive; Suite 200. Irvine, CA. 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@Jameshawkinsaplc.com mitchell@jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq. William T. Okamoto, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com calvarez@fisherphillips.com wokamoto@fisherphillips.com A&A SERVICES: Faces Santizo Suit Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------------ SHELIA SANTIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&A SERVICES, LLC, D/B/A SAV-RX PRESCRIPTION SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03109 (D. Neb., June 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's data security failures that resulted to a data breach and exposed the sensitive personal and health information of over 2.8 million patients. Although the breach occurred over eight months ago and Defendant's third-party cybersecurity investigation concluded on April 30, 2024, Defendant only began notifying impacted patients by mail on or around May 18, 2024 that their private information was compromised, including their social security numbers, date of birth, name, address, and telephone number. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment seeking damages and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Fremont, NE, A&A Services, LLC is a pharmacy benefit manager that provides prescription drug benefit services to various organizations such as unions, employers, and health plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrod P. Crouse, Esq. Nicole J. Luhm, Esq. BAYLOR EVNEN WOLFE & TANNEHILL, LLP Union Bank Place 1248 O Street, Suite 900 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 475-1075 Facsimile: (402) 475-9515 E-mail: jcrouse@baylorevnen.com nluhm@baylorevnen.com - and - Patrick T. Egan, Esq. Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com - and - Pierce H. Stanley, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: pstanley@bermantabacco.com ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA KARIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04346 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.advocare.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P. provides health supplement products. The Company offers products for lose weight, gain muscle, increase energy, improve wellness, and enhance skin. Advocare International serves customers in the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. Gabriel A. Levy, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com AFLAC INC: Kuffel Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTEN KUFFEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 24-002650-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., June 13, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On February 24, 2024, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. However, the communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 6:19 AM in Plaintiff’s time zone, in violation of the FCCPA. Based in Columbus, GA, Aflac Incorporated is an insurance company that provides supplemental health and life insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr. Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Bid to Certify Class Due Sept. 19, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS ROUGEAU, et al., v. AHLSTROM RHINELANDER, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00546-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Disclosure of class experts: -- Plaintiffs: March 17, 2025 -- Defendants: May 22, 2025 -- Rebuttal: June 27, 2025 2. Motion & Brief to Certify Class: Sept. 19, 2025 3. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: March 17, 2026 4. Trial: Sept. 28, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVEiCr at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Stay Discovery in Taylor Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY TAYLOR and ROBERT SELWAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00169-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to stay discovery pending resolution of Amazon's motion to dismiss. The Defendant contends that the Court should exercise its discretion and grant the stay for three reasons: first, Amazon's Motion would dispose of the entire action, and the Court can decide that Motion on any one of four alternative grounds without the need for discovery. Second, allowing discovery to proceed in a putative class action covering "hundreds of millions of U.S. consumers," while the Court determines the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' untimely pleading would impose an undue burden on Amazon. Third, Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by a stay on a claim they waited years to bring. Staying discovery pending resolution of the Motion would promote efficiency for the Court and both parties. The stay should also be granted because it will not prejudice Plaintiffs, the Defendant adds. The Plaintiffs' failure to adequately plead three of the five necessary elements of a CPA claim—a deceptive or unfair act, injury, and causation—also warrants a stay of discovery. Several years after information regarding the factors Amazon purportedly considers when selecting a "Featured Offer" became public, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint challenging Amazon's practice as "unfair or deceptive" under the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA). Amazon recently filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), highlighting the deficiencies in the Plaintiffs' allegations and Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for multiple dispositive reasons, including that it is time-barred. The Plaintiffs' Complaint challenges the way Amazon presents in-depth information about products available in its online store and makes those products available for its customers to purchase. Amazon moved to dismiss that Complaint on April 10, 2024, on the grounds that it is untimely under the CPA's four-year statute of limitations and fails to plausibly allege three of the necessary elements of a CPA claim. A favorable ruling on any of Amazon’s four grounds for dismissal would dispose of Plaintiffs' entire claim. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9QJyU5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com - and - John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Kevin M. Hodges, Esq. Carl R. Metz, Esq. Jenny N. Wheeler, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com khodges@wc.com cmetz@wc.com jwheeler@wc.com AMBER PHILLIPS: Hooks Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN HOOKS, V. AMBER L. PHILLIPS, in her official Capacity as Correctional Program Director 2 for the TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et. al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ilei4d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Hooks, Esq. B.C.C.X. Mens Complex — Unit 10 1045 Horsehead Rd. Pikeville, TN 37367 AMERCABLE CORP: Holmes Seek to Certify PPE-Equipped Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HOLMES, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. AMERCABLE CORPORATION, D/B/A NEXANS AMERCABLE, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-01110-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a class of similarly situated current and former Personal Protective Equipment ("PPE") equipped lead processing employees and authorizing Court-supervised notice to those individuals, in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs specifically request conditional certification of a collective action for PPE equipped lead processing employees who were worked "off-the-clock" as follows: Class 1 "Off the Clock" class: All current and former hourly-paid PPE equipped lead processing employees who worked at Defendants El Dorado, Arkansas facility at any time during the applicable limitations period covered by the Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter; who were not compensated for all time spent donning PPE and who and were required to commence their work several minutes before the beginning their respective shifts in order to relieve the prior shift employees in time to doff their lead protective gear without being compensated.; and who are Named Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Additionally, the Plaintiffs request that Court-supervised Notice be ordered in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) using the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice so that putative Opt-In Plaintiffs may be properly notified of their right to join this putative FLSA collective action. The Plaintiffs allege that they and other PPE equipped lead processing employees were similarly situated because they were subjected to the Defendants' common policy of working them "off the clock." The "off the clock" time Defendant required Plaintiff to work included failing to properly pay them for all overtime compensation at one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rates in violation of the FLSA, including time spent putting on “donning” PPE and commencing their work several minutes before the beginning their respective shifts in order to relieve the prior shift employees in time to doff their lead protective gear without being compensated. AmerCable produces cable and cable assembly solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98HTpK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com AMERICAN STRATEGIC: M&A Investigates Tender Offer From Bellevue --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm investigates American Strategic Investment Company (NYSE: NYC) relating to a tender offer from Bellevue Capital Partners, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Bellevue Capital Partners offers to purchase American Strategic Investment stock in the amount of $10.25 per share. The tender offer expires on July 5, 2024. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] APPLE INC: Female Employees Sue Over Unfair Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Janson, writing for CourtHouse News Service, reports that two women, both of whom have worked for Apple for more than a decade, are suing the tech giant, saying the company systematically pays and rewards women less for performing the same work as men in similar roles. In a class action in San Francisco County Superior Court, Apple employees Justina Jong and Amina Salgado say that Apple discriminates against women in both pay and hiring practices, including by asking women about their prior pay. With their suit, they seek to represent around 12,000 women currently and formerly employed at Apple. Jong said that since 2013, she has received lower pay than men performing similar work in retail and marketing at Apple's Sunnyvale office. She also said she had to keep working with a co-worker who sexually harassed her. Salgado, who works in management operations in the Sacramento area, said she's experienced these same pay discrepancies since 2012. After Salgado complained, she said Apple conducted an internal investigation, found she was owed compensation and gave her a raise. Still, she said she never received back pay for her work in previous years. The plaintiffs further claim that Apple's performance evaluation system is biased against women. They say the system leads supervisors to score and reward men for teamwork and leadership while penalizing women for these same qualities. "This practice has a disparate impact on women, causing them to be paid less than men with similar skills, experience, responsibility and performance," the two women said in their suit. The employees also accuse Apple of discriminatory hiring practices. They say the company strategically asks women about pay expectations, perpetuating industrywide gender disparities in compensation. "Apple systematically paid women lower compensation than men with similar education and experience and assigned women to lower salary levels," the plaintiffs said in court filings. Additionally, the employees argue that "raises at Apple perpetuate and widen the gender pay gap because they are based on a percentage of the employees' existing Apple base salary." In other words: "the longer a woman works at Apple, the larger the gap in compensation she receives compared to similarly situated men." The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial on a variety of claims, including for alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act as well as unfair and unlawful business practices. They also seek declaratory and injunctive relief along with compensation for themselves and others in similar situations. Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company has faced accusations of gender discrimination in recent years, including in 2021, when employees organized to share their experiences of inequity, intimidation and abuse within the company's workplaces. Women still make about 71 cents on the dollar compared with men at the same education level, even after they earn a post-secondary certificate or graduate from a top-tier university, the Census Bureau found this year. [GN] ASCENSION HEALTH: Willis Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ LEAH WILLIS, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00821-RWS (E.D. Mo., June 13, 2024) arises from Defendant's data security failures that led to data breach affecting its patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express and/or implied contract, invasion of privacy, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. According to Defendant's initial Notice posted on its website, the Defendant became aware of "unusual activity" on its network systems on May 8, 2024 and determined that an unauthorized party had access to its network and documents in that system. For an undisclosed amount of time, the unauthorized third party gained access to the PII and PHI of the patients, potentially including the names, dates of birth, patient records, Social Security numbers, and other information maintained by Defendant. However, the Notice failed to include critical information, such as: (i) the actual date(s) of the data breach, (ii) what vulnerabilities in Defendant's system caused the data breach, (iii) the identity of the group that committed the data breach, and (iv) the measures Defendant was taking to prevent additional attacks since the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks damages, and injunctive and other relief for Defendant's conduct that caused Plaintiff's and Class Members' private Information to be exposed and stolen and impaired Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to obtain necessary healthcare from Defendant. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Ascension Health is a non-profit and Catholic health systems that operates a network of 140 hospitals in 19 states and the District of Columbia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com - and - Peter S. Linden, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: plinden@kaplanfox.com ASHLAND INC: Smith Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SMITH, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of ASHLAND INC., Plaintiff v. ASHLAND INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-0609 (Del. Ch., June 5, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Company public stockholders, against the Defendant to seek declaratory relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective September 20, 2022. According to the complaint, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders' exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C. Sections 141(k), 211, and 141(b). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also impermissibly subverts the stockholder franchise. Absent the relief requested herein, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the Company's directors, says the suit. Ashland Inc. is an additives and specialty ingredients company with its principal executive offices in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 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 ASPEN GROUP: Spegal Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SPEGAL, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ASPEN GROUP LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01564-KAS (D. Colo., June 5, 2024) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but the Defendant does not pay its employees, including Spegal and the Putative Class Members, for all hours they work. Instead, Aspen Group requires its employees to perform compensable work "off the clock" before and after their scheduled shifts, says the suit. Plaintiff Spegal worked for Aspen Group throughout Colorado from approximately August 2023 until March 2024 as an hourly construction worker. Aspen Group, Ltd. provides multifamily and commercial construction renovation services throughout Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Suite 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Brown Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IA BROWN, an individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRAIG CAMERON, an individual; HEARX WEST, INC., A California corporation; STEVE MAHON, an individual; TINO SCHWEIGHOEFER, an individual; HEARX WEST LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WS AUDIOLOGY (CALIFORNIA), PC, A California professional corporation; SIVANTOS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04271-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 12, 2024, will move for an order of preliminary approval of a proposed class and collective action settlement, seeking the following: The Plaintiff will be requesting orders that do the following: 1. Preliminarily approve the proposed class and collective action settlement with Defendants. 2. Certify for settlement purposes only the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 class. 3. Approve the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action settlement. 4. Appoint the Cullen Law Firm, APC as Class Counsel. 5. Appoint Ia Brown as the Class Representative. 6. Appoint CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. 7. Approve of and set the schedule for the dissemination of the Class Notice. 8. Schedule a final approval hearing date. The Settlement is on behalf of (1) a nationwide collective class for claims arising under the FLSA, but which excludes Defendants’ affected workers in California and (2) a California class, which has two subclasses. These classes are defined as follows: a. FLSA Regular Rate Class: "All non-exempt hourly paid employees, including Hearing Aid Dispensers and Hearing Aid Specialists, employed by the Business Entity Defendants who also received commissions and/or bonuses at any time between June 22, 2019 and the date on which Preliminary Approval is granted"; b. California Regular Rate Class: "All nonexempt hourly paid employees, including Hearing Aid Dispensers and Hearing Aid Specialists, employed by the Business Entity Defendants, who also received commissions and/or bonuses at any time between Dec. 26, 2017 and the date on which Preliminary Approval is granted"; c. California Itemized Wage Statement Subclass: "All California Regular Rate Class Members who were employed at any time during the period of commencing Dec. 26, 2020 and the date on which Preliminary Approval is granted"; and d. California Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: "All California Regular Rate Class Members who were employed at any time during the period between Dec. 26, 2018 and the date on which Preliminary Approval is granted." The FLSA Regular Rate Class comprises 995 persons who worked outside of the State of California. The California Regular Rate Class comprises 391 persons. The California Itemized Wage Statement Subclass has 363 members, and the California Waiting Time Penalties Subclass as 160 members. There is no difference between the proposed Settlement Classes and the proposed Classes in the operative complaint, the lawsuit says. Audiology provides patients with quality hearing care. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZQOHb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul. T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite D, PMB 325 Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057 Telephone: (818) 360-2529 Facsimile (866) 794-5741 E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com AVENTURA INVESTORS: Chavarria Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Karla V. Chavarria, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Aventura Investors, Inc. d/b/a Marco Polo Beach Resort, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22304-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular hours and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Chavarria as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly housekeeper from approximately November 20, 2023, to March 24, 2024, or 18 weeks. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff had a regular schedule from Thursday to Sunday from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM (7 hours daily), or an average of 28 hours weekly. However, the Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunchtime periods and was only paid an average of $287.50 weekly, which is below the minimum wage rate required by law. In addition, the Plaintiff was paid by Zelle without paystubs providing accurate information about the wage rate, the number of days and hours worked, employee's taxes withheld, etc. The Plaintiff was then fired by her supervisor after she complained about not getting paid even the required minimum. Moreover, the Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff her last week of work after Plaintiff's termination, says the suit. Aventura Investors, Inc. d/b/a Marco Polo Beach Resort is a Florida Profit Corporation that owns and operates a hotel-beach resort located at 19201 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com AVIS BUDGET: Faces Kaynaroglu Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- FEYZULLAH KAYNAROGLU and CIARA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06828 (D.N.J., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs Kaynaroglu and Rodriguez worked for the Defendant as operations managers from approximately September 2018 to June 2021 and from approximately August 2018 to August 2021, respectively. Avis Budget Group Inc. is an automobile rental company headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glen D. Savits, Esq. GREEN SAVITS, LLC 25 Vreeland Road, #207 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 695-7777 Email: gsavits@greensavits.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Email: jms@outtengolden.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com BCE-MACH III: Parties Seek to Extend Amended Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sagacity, Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification scheduling order. A proposed order will be submitted. Should the Court desire a telephonic status conference to discuss this motion, the Parties are available at the Court’s earliest convenience to do so In light of the above and for good cause, the Parties request an extension of the remaining deadlines by approximately 180 days, with one exception. The Parties are mindful of the length of the requested extension and have agreed to maintain the mediation deadline of October 22, 2024, to prioritize potential resolution of this matter before the Court and the Parties undertake the time and expense of certification briefing and the class certification hearing. 31. The table below reflects the Parties' proposed extensions: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Mediation Deadline Oct. 22, 2024 No change proposed Documents previously produced June 17, 2024 Dec. 16, 2024 by parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to Class Certification Motion July 15, 2024 Jan. 13, 2025 filed with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures Class Certification Response Sept. 16, 2024 March 17, 2025 filed with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures Class Certification Reply Oct. 17, 2024 April 15, 2025 filed with any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any Class Certification Discovery Oct. 17, 2024 April 15, 2025 Cutoff Prior to this lawsuit, Defendant's documents were organized in the manner as they were kept by its various predecessors and were not uniformly maintained. In responding to discovery, this has required Defendant to centralize the documents acquired from its predecessors in order to provide them to Plaintiffs' counsel. That process has been laborious. Given the size of the oil-and-gas lease production, the Plaintiffs' counsel estimate that it will take months to review and categorize the produced oil-and-gas leases for class certification. Beyond production of the relevant oil-and-gas leases, the Plaintiffs have further pursued additional discovery related to class certification. The Parties previously sought an extension of the remaining class certification deadlines by 180 days; however, the Court granted a shorter extension than requested by the Parties. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a state-wide class of royalty owners. On Feb. 15, 2024, the Court entered the current scheduling order, following the Parties' joint motion to extend the class certification schedule. BCE-Mach is an oil and gas operator. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gKfpe6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey C. King, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-5270 Facsimile: (817) 347-5299 E-mail: jeffrey.c.king@klgates.com - and - Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq. Patrick L. Stein, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT A Professional Corporation Eighth Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 North Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com BLUE BUFFALO: Frost and Frost Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02272 (D. Minn., June 13, 2024) asserts that the Defendant violated 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated ADA by, without limitation, failing to make its website's services accessible by screen reader programs, thereby denying individuals with visual disabilities the benefits of the website, providing them with benefits that are not equal to those it provides others, and denying them effective communication. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. In addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, seeking 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. Headquartered in Wilton, CT, Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. produces and supplies pet food products. It sells its products through its physical stores and online through its website, www.bluebuffalo.com. [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 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Yanchunis Appointed as Interim Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (DATA BREACH SECURITY LITIGATION AGAINST CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01447-ART-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Brenda Weksler entered an order: -- granting the First Cohort's motion for appointment of interim class counsel; -- appointing John A. Yanchunis, Douglas J. McNamara, and Amy E. Keller as co-lead interim class counsel; -- appointing Jeff Ostrow as chair of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; -- appointing James Pizzirusso, Gerard Stranch, Gary M. Klinger, Sabita J. Soneji, and Linda Nussbaum to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; -- appointing Don Springmeyer as interim liaison counsel; and -- denying the competing motions. Caesars is an American hotel and casino entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0mks60 at no extra charge.[CC] CAL. DEL.: Class Settlement in Orin Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSAY ORIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, v. CAL. DEL. U.S.A. INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03404-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of class and PAGA Action Settlement is granted upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Order. 2. The court preliminarily certifies the class, as defined in ¶ II.I of the Settlement Agreement, for the purposes of settlement. 3. The court preliminarily appoints plaintiff Lindsay Orin as class representative for settlement purposes. 4. The court preliminarily appoints Gains & Gains, APLC as class counsel for settlement purposes. 5. The court preliminarily finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice. 7. The court appoints ILYM as settlement administrator. ILYM shall complete dissemination of class notice, in accordance with the proposed notice plan, no later than July 8, 2024. 8. Plaintiff shall file a motion for attorney's fees and costs, as well as any incentive payment, no later than July 22, 2024, and notice it for hearing for the date of the final approval hearing set forth below. 9. Plaintiff shall, no later than September 26, 2024, file and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any objections to the settlement. On April 3, 2023, Lindsay Orin, a former non-exempt employee of the Defendant, filed this putative class action in state court against the Defendant asserting claims on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees for: (1) failure to pay all wages due, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), (2) failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages due, Cal. Lab. Code sections 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 1194; (3) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, Cal. Lab. Code sections 226.7 & California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No.; (4) failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu thereof. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tHiVui at no extra charge.[CC] CARTER'S INC: Deploys TikTok Tracing Process, Jurdi Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LILLIAN JURDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARTER'S, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-04651 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant uses a trap and trace process on its Website by deploying the TikTok Software on its Website, because the software is designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors, in violation of the California's Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff contends that the TikTok Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire communications to the Website. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. Additionally, since Carter's has decided to use TikTok's "AutoAdvanced Matching" technology, TikTok scans every website for information. Thus, when the website asks for information, such as name, date of birth, and address, the information is sent simultaneously to TikTok, so that TikTok can isolate with certainty the individual to be targeted. The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Jurdi is a citizen of California residing within the Central District of California. She visited the Defendant's website on Feb. 29, 2024. Carter's is a designer and marketer of children's apparel, accessories, and gift items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Matthew J. Smith, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com matthew@taulersmith.com CENCORA INC: Smith and Skibinski Sues Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- TAMI SMITH, and EDWARD SKIBINSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC., and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02558 (E.D. Pa., June 11, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' protected personal information stored within Defendants' information networks and servers. According to the complaint, the Defendants learned that their data had been breached on February 21, 2024. Beginning in late May, Defendants began sending out data breach notice letters to individuals who were affected by the data breach. As a result, the Defendants knew that the data they had been protecting had been compromised, but failed to inform the public for several months. Even when Defendants had completed their investigation by April 10, 2024, it still took over a month for Defendants to notify affected individuals. Formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, Cencora is an American pharmaceutical company based in Conshohocken, PA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com aheo@barrack.com CENCORA INC: Webb Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------- ROGER WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02603 (E.D. Pa., June 13, 2024) arises from Defendants failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information collected from its customers, their patients, and/or other persons affiliated with Defendants. Plaintiff Webb asserts that Defendants' failure constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The letter Cencora sent to Plaintiff notifying him about the breach indicates that his impacted information includes names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnosis information, and medication or prescription information, and that Cencora learned of the breach on February 21, 2024; however, it has provided little additional information about the duration or timeline of the breach; no confirmation about the number of individuals impacted; no confirmation about the full universe of the information impacted; and no details about the steps being taken to address and rectify the harms caused by the breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other class members, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. Based in Conshohocken, PA, Cencora is pharmaceutical solutions organization that specializes in pharmaceutical services, including providing drug distribution and solutions for doctor's offices, pharmacies, and animal healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Raina C. Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Charge Enterprises, Inc. ("Charge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRGEQ). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether certain of Charge's officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until July 29, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Charge securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. A class action complaint has been filed against certain former and current officers and directors of charge (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleging that the Defendants made statements about Charge's internal controls, financial condition and its relationship with an outside asset manager that were materially false and misleading. On November 21, 2023, Charge disclosed that it had received a default notice from its senior lender, Arena Investors, LP ("Arena"), and informed the market that its prior belief that it had "approximately $9.9 million of Company assets . . . in the form of cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities or similar readily liquid assets" was false; instead, these funds had been invested in an illiquid limited partnership interest and were thus "not immediately able to be liquidated or readily accessible." Charge warned that if it "[continued] not to have sufficient liquidity to pay the principal and interest on the [Arena] Notes . . . these circumstances could result in a default under other of the Company's debt instruments and agreements that contain cross-default provisions," which would "have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, financial condition and results of operations, and may render the Company insolvent and unable to sustain its operations and continue as a going concern." Charge filed for bankruptcy on March 7, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Court Certifies “Mass Traffic Stop Program" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Camacho of The Latin Times reports that Chicago must face a class action by Black and Latino drivers who claim its "mass traffic stop program" intentionally targets them in violation of their civil rights, a federal court said. Five plaintiffs, all of them Black or Latino drivers who were pulled over by the Chicago police 42 times in a five-year period, presented enough evidence that the program was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose," Judge Mary M. Rowland claimed The judge also denied the city's effort to strike certain elements from the class action but also partially dismissed portions of their complaint, specifically their Title VI claim because police departments cannot be sued as a matter of state law. The plaintiffs' 14th Amendment and Illinois Civil Rights Act claims, however, survive. The lawsuit was originally filed back in June of 2023 by Jose Manuel Almanza Jr, Eric Wilkins, Mahari Bell, Jacquez Beasley and Essence Johnson. The lawsuit stated that the "mass traffic stop program is simply the newest chapter in the long and sordid history of employing mass-stop policing tactics that discriminate on the basis of race and national origin, touted as a campaign to supposedly fight crime in Chicago", citing previous police department practices that led to ACLU-backed lawsuits, from waves of "disorderly conduct" arrests in the 1980s, "gang loitering" offenses in the 1990s, and "stop-and-frisk" in the early 2000s. The lawsuit went on to cite departmental emails released by the activist groups Impact for Equity and Free 2 Move Coalition that showed the police department's top brass demanding more traffic stops as a crime-fighting strategy. It also called for a permanent injunction barring the city from continuing the "mass traffic stop program" and create a plan to change policies and practices and train and monitor officers to prevent another pattern of biased stops. A recent study by Cornell University seems to support most of these allegations, revealing that Black drivers in Chicago are significantly more likely to be stopped by police than white drivers, regardless of where they live or are going. The research was based on mobile phone GPS data which was used to map the racial composition of roads, confirming a racial bias in traffic stops that the researchers say is replacing stop and frisk as a new tactic for discrimination. [GN] CHRISTIE'S INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Colley Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM COLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04386 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. CHRISTIE'S INC. operates as an art auction house. The Company offers various products including fine and decorative arts, jewelry, photographs, wine, cars, among others. Christie's operates out of locations throughout the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Chris T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com chrish@pittmandutton.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Aguilar Sues Over False Product's Ads and Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA AGUILAR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01247 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2024) asserts claims for breach of express warranty and for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells the L'il Critters Gummy Supplements. The labels for these products prominently display on the side of the label, the claim that the said products contain "No Artificial Flavors." Plaintiff Aguilar, however, asserts that claim is false and misleading because each of these products contain an artificial flavoring ingredient called DL-malic acid. Headquartered in Ewing, NJ, Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a manufacturer of home goods, personal care, health, and global consumer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com CITIZENS DISABILITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 8 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shutler v. Citizens Disability LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-14337 (S.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 25, 2023), the Hon. Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to set deadline for class certification motions. -- The Plaintiff may file a motion for class certification on or before July 8, 2024. -- All other pretrial and trial deadlines remain in effect and shall be determined using the instructions given in the Scheduling Order previously issued on Dec. 19, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Citizens is a for-profit corporation which assists persons with disabilities in claiming benefits from the Social Security.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Nicklin ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicklin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-01133-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j5oujn at no extra charge.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Song Sues Over Deceptive Pricing on Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ANNIE SONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00845 (W.D. Wash., June 12, 2024) seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief from Defendant arising from its fraudulent and material omissions regarding the deceptive mark-up of products sold online at Costco.com in violation of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant promises on its website that it will disclose to consumers whenever an online product sold on Costco.com is more expensive the same item sold in-store at a Costco warehouse location. However, the Defendant did not follow through with its promise and instead, routinely failed to disclose this material notification on its website and mobile app. By failing to disclose the truth to consumers about its online product mark-up practices and the substantial price differential between identical items sold online and in-store, Costco deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true pricing practices online, says the suit. Headquartered in Issaquah, WA, Costco Wholesale Corporation operates as a membership warehouse club that sells food, automotive supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well as other goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com cjordan@tousley.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com DELL INC: Truss Sues Over Unprotected Private Information --------------------------------------------------------- ANNA TRUSS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00647 (W.D. Tex., June 11, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty, and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff Truss seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms data breach caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and approximately 49 million other similarly situated persons by virtue of a preventable third party cyberattack that Dell detected at an undisclosed point. Moreover, the Defendant has not timely informed affected individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, about the data breach. The Defendant failed to disclose the event, or otherwise provide its individual clients notice of the data breach, until May 9, 2024, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Round Rock, TX, Dell manufactures and markets desktop and laptop computers and computer peripherals throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com DIGESTIVE DISEASES: Cook Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Cook, for herself and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Digestive Diseases Care for All, LLC, Mahmudul Haque, and Israt Jahan, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01441 (M.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cook was employed by Defendants as a medical office manager. Allegedly, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a work week at various times but she was not compensated at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for all those hours worked. Based in Polk County, Digestive Diseases Care for All, LLC is the medical practice of Mahmudul Haque, a gastroenterologist. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Kemp Brinson, Esq. REED MAWHINNEY & LINK 53 Lake Morton Drive, Suite 100 Lakeland, FL 32803 Telephone: (863) 687-1771 Mobile: (863) 288-0234 E-mail: Kemp@PolkLawyer.com JKBService@PolkLawyer.com DM CONTRACTING: Merlo et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS MERLO, SELVIN OVIDIO GARRIDO LOBO, and SELVIN EDUARDO MERLO CABALLERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DM CONTRACTING & RESTORATION INC. and DANIEL CARR, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04146 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as construction workers and were regularly required to work more than 40 hours per workweek without appropriate overtime compensation. Allegedly, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants' alleged willful failures to provide Plaintiffs with these documents prevented them from being able to calculate their hours worked, and proper rates of pay, and determine if they were being paid time-and-a-half for their overtime hours as required by the FLSA and NYLL, say the Plaintiffs. Based in Howard Beach, NY, DM Contracting & Restoration Inc. offers residential and commercial masonry, in addition to home remodeling, renovation and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 DMC DETROIT: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages Under FLSA, Lane Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DMC DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPITAL PREMIER CLINICAL CO-MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11470-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit contends that the Defendant's practice of failing to relieve nurses and technicians of their duties during meal periods, while simultaneously using timekeeping software to deduct meal periods from the total time paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting for meal periods which nurses/technicians were not free to take without interruption), had the effect of depriving nurses and technicians of overtime compensation due to them under the FLSA in each workweek in which they worked more than 40 hours, and straight-time compensation at their respective contractual hourly rate(s) in weeks in which they worked fewer than 40 hours in a week. Despite the Defendant's actual knowledge that the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked during supposed "meal breaks," the Defendant willfully failed to compensate them for such work, electing instead to accept the benefits of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' work for free, the suit alleges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages available under the FLSA and relevant state law, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, recoverable costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff also brings this case under Michigan state law pursuant to this Court's supplemental jurisdiction for Defendant's breach of contract. The Plaintiff is a nurse who worked for the Defendant from 2010-2017, then again from 2021-2023. DMC is a health care system that serves patients and families throughout Michigan and beyond.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Burns Sues Over Unjust Enrichment in Fuel Card Use ------------------------------------------------------------------ CECIL BURNS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, DG PROMOTIONS, INC., and DG RETAIL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00728 (M.D. Tenn., June 13, 2024) seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and assert claims for conversion and unjust enrichment. Allegedly, the Defendants have employed a nationwide and uniform scheme that denies consumers who pay for fuel in cash the right to receive their change in cash. Instead, the Defendants place consumers' change onto a Dollar General fuel card that can only be used to purchase products at Defendants' stores. In addition, the Defendants carry out this scheme without first disclosing it to consumers, says the suit. Headquartered in Goodlettsville, TN, Dollar General Corporation operates a chain of discount stores. [BN The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Snyder, Esq. 2125 Middlebrook Pike Knoxville, TN 37921-5855 Telephone: (865) 546-2141 Facsimile: (865) 546-5777 E-mail: brent@brentsnyderlaw.com - and - Brian K. Herrington, Esq. CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON PLLC 120 North Congress Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 326-0820 Facsimile: (601) 948-8010 E-mail: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com - and - James B. Justice, Esq. JAMES B. JUSTICE, PLLC 1914 University Avenue P.O. Box 1550 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 202-7740 Facsimile: (877) 680-3234 E-mail: jamesbjustice@gmail.com DOLLARAMA INC: Judge Dismisses $2.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Benchetrit of CBC News reports that a Quebec judge has dismissed a $2.5-million class action settlement on behalf of Dollarama customers who purchased products subject to an eco fee. The proposed settlement was reached on Feb. 21 and was subject to court approval. The judge dismissed the settlement on April 17, according to a website dedicated to the class action. Law firm LPC Avocats informed class members of the decision in a letter on Friday. That means members of the class won't receive gift cards or any other compensation that they would've been entitled to under the settlement, the website said. Class counsel Joey Zukran confirmed in an email to CBC News that the case would proceed as if no settlement had been reached. In the letter to class members, Zukran wrote that "at this stage, the parties can either proceed to litigate the matter, or renegotiate a new settlement," in which case a new class action notice would be sent out. Decision documents show that the judge concluded there wasn't enough proof that the settlement would be beneficial to class members or that the class action had been structured correctly. No proof of purchase was required to claim a gift card. Items subject to an eco fee include batteries, electronics, light bulbs or toys with batteries. Anyone who purchased a product subject to an environmental handling fee from Dollarama in Quebec between Dec. 11, 2019, and July 4, 2023, or elsewhere in Canada between May 29, 2021, to July 4, 2023, would have been eligible to claim a gift card with a maximum value of $15.00. Dollarama agreed to the original settlement but denied any wrongdoing and liability. The company told CBC News in an email late Friday that it is "currently reviewing the ruling and evaluating next steps." "As the matter is before the courts, we won't be making additional comment at this time," the company said. [GN] DOUGH BROOKLYN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Apostolakis Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KONSTANTINO APOSTOLAKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOUGH BROOKLYN # 1 LLC d/b/a DOUGH DONUTS; and STEVE KLEIN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04372 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Apostolakis was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. DOUGH BROOKLYN # 1 LLC d/b/a DOUGH DONUTS offers doughnuts and catering services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oscar Alvarado, Esq., SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2207 Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com DRG HOSPITALITY: Morais Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- INNACIO DOS SANTOS MORAIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRG HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. d/b/a DELMONICO'S, and DENNIS TURCINOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04379 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including illegal deductions from gratuities, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to comply with spread of hours provisions, failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and late payment of wages. Mr. Morais was employed by the Defendants as a server from October 2023 to May 2024. DRG Hospitality Group, Inc. is the owner and operator of Delmonico's restaurant located in Manhattan, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 DRIVER PROVIDER: Class Settlement Deal in Salazar Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, et al., v. Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement and amendment of Rule 23 Class for Settlement Purposes. -- preliminary approving the settlement agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class members. The Court further entered an order that the Court's Order on Rule 23 class certification dated January 30, 2023 is conditionally modified to clarify those current and former employees of The Driver Provider who are included in the Rule 23 class covered by the settlement agreement and to set forth the class period covered by the settlement agreement. The new class definition is: "All current and former employees of The Driver Provider who performed chauffeur services in Arizona at any time from Dec. 6, 2016 through Jan. 5, 2024 and who were identified by Defendants on the lists of Rule 23 Class Members provided to Plaintiffs on April 26, 2021 and Nov. 29, 2023." Excluded from the class are all owners, managers, supervisors, dispatchers, or other employees whose primary job responsibilities were not the provision of chauffeur services. This lawsuit was initially filed on Dec. 6, 2019. The Plaintiffs asserted claims for unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), unpaid minimum wages and statutory penalties under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), and unpaid overtime and unpaid straight time under the Arizona Wage Act ("AWA"). Driver provides chauffeured transportation services in Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0tqADk at no extra charge.[CC] DUFRESNE SPENCER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Russell of Home News Now reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley licensee Dufresne Spencer Group related to a data breach the plaintiffs believe could threaten their personal information for years to come. Filed June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the suit names Rosalyn Parker as a plaintiff in a case alleging a data breach involving her and an undetermined number of customers whose personal information could be compromised now and in the future. The suit claims that on Jan. 15, DSG learned that between May 15, 2023, and June 5, 2023, an unauthorized party had gained access to its information systems which contained information such as customer names, dates of birth and driver's license numbers, along with banking account and routing numbers. The suit also noted that the company did not begin disseminating information about the data breach until several months later. Parker and other class members began receiving notices of the breach -- specifically that an unauthorized party had accessed and/or acquired their private information -- on or around May 7. The notice also reportedly let the customers know of the "generic steps" that victims of data security incidents can take to review financial account statements and credit reports for any unauthorized activity. "Other than providing only a one-year membership of credit monitoring and identity theft protection through Equifax Credit Watch Gold, defendant offered no other substantive steps to help victims like plaintiff and class members to protect themselves from the aftermath of the data breach," the suit said, adding that based on information legal counsel has received, the defendant sent a similar generic letter to all other individuals affected by the data breach. It said the suit aims to address the defendant's inadequate safeguarding of class members' private information that it collected and maintained by its systems. "The potential for improper disclosure and theft of plaintiff's and class members' private information was a known risk to defendant and thus, defendant was on notice that failing to take necessary steps to secure the private information left it vulnerable to an attack," the suit said. "Had defendant properly monitored its networks and implemented adequate data security practices, it could have prevented the data breach, or at the very least discovered the data breach sooner." The suit went on to say that the data breach victims' identities are now at risk because of the defendant's "negligent conduct, which led to the private information that it collected and maintained falling into the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties." It noted that the plaintiff and other class members relied on the defendant to keep their private information confidential and securely maintained and to only make authorized disclosure of this data. However, it said the defendant failed to do so, which has caused the plaintiff injury because of the invasion of privacy, identity theft, fraudulent accounts opened using her private information, along with multiple unauthorized credit inquiries, damage to her credit and denial of credit applications, which the suit said that she attributes to the data breach. This also has resulted in time and effort that the plaintiff has spent to continually monitor impacts on her personal and financial information. "As a result of the data breach, plaintiff anticipates spending considerable time and money on an ongoing basis to try to remain vigilant to mitigate and address the many harms caused by the data breach," the suit said. "Moreover, the plaintiff and class members have an interest in ensuring that their private information, which is believed to still be in the possession of defendant, is protected by future breaches by the implementation of more adequate data security measures and safeguards, including but not limited to ensuring that the storage of data or documents containing highly sensitive personal information of its customers and employees is not accessible online, that access to such data is password protected and that such data is properly encrypted." The suit has requested a jury trial on the matter and is seeking an undetermined amount of monetary relief including actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses allowed by law in addition to prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Home News Now has reached out to DSG for comment and is awaiting a response. [GN] ED'S LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- NADE KISSIMINA, MARILYN ROXANA PINARGOTE URBINA, PEDRO FRANCO, OCTAVIO SEBASTIAN MALDONADO, ISRAEL MIXCOATL, JUAN LEYVA, ANAYELI GONZALEZ SOLIS, JUAN COBA CAMPOS, ROBERTO GARCIA, KATHERYN ARIELA GARCIA MARTINEZ, WILLIAM ALEXANDER JENOVEZ PALMA, and JUAN MANUEL PEREZ BAZAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ED'S LOBSTER BAR LLC, and EDWARD MCFARLAND, as an individual,, Case No. 1:24-cv-04261 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. During Plaintiff Kissimina's and Plaintiff Franco's employment by the Defendants, their primary duties were bartending, food running, and serving food, while performing other miscellaneous duties. The suit claims that the Plaintiff Kissimina received no payment from the Defendants for work performed from Oct. 16, 2023 until March 22, 2024 as the checks the Defendants provided were all without funds. Additionally, although the Plaintiff Franco worked 84 hours or more per week during his employment by the Defendants from June 2021 until March 31, 2024, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over 40. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000, says the suit. Plaintiffa Kissimina and Urbina were employed by the Defendants at Ed's Lobster Bar LLC from from November 2022 until March 31, 2024 and from April 5, 2023 until March 31, 2024, respectively. Ed's is a seafood spot with a New England fish-house vibe featuring a raw bar, lobster rolls & fish plates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle J Romero, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC 7150 Parsons Blvd, Suite 1001 Flushing, NY 11365 Telephone: (718) 874-8247 E-mail: jromero@consumerattorneys.com EKSTER INC: Purscelley Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS PURSCELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EKSTER INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07908-WLH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff on Aug. 2, 2024, will move for an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of: "All persons who purchased one or more of the Defendant's products from Defendant's Website while in California from Aug. 1, 2020, through the present at a discount from a higher reference price and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase(s)." Excluded from the Class are Defendant’s officers, directors, and employees, any partner or employee of Class Counsel. The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing himself as class representative and appointing Pacific Trial Attorneys, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff purchased the Product relying on the representations on the Product’s advertising on the Website. After his purchase, based on the information that Plaintiff now has, Plaintiff now believes that the Product that he purchased was overpriced by the amount of the discount advertised on the Website. The Defendant admits that it listed the wallet purchased by Plaintiff for $80 on its Website, and that it was offered and sold with a corresponding strikethrough price on its Website, that Plaintiff purchased it for $80, and that it shipped the product to Plaintiff's address. Thus, the interests of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class are fully aligned for purposes of determining whether Defendant's advertising representations of the strike-through price are false Ekster is a scale-up that designs, produces and markets smart leather goods with an innovative touch. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FXBFo9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com ENROLLMENT CONFIDENTLY: Voelker Sues Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM VOELKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENROLL CONFIDENTLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00197-TOR (E.D. Wash., June 11, 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 Plaintiff and Class members, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on or around February 13, 2024 and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that private information. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, was stolen, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and violation of the California Consumer Records Act. Headquartered in Spokane, WA, Enroll Confidently, Inc. is a Delaware corporation offering a benefits enrollment platform to employers and benefits providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479.2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Parties Seek Extension of Case Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARRISON and GRACE HEATH, on behalf of themselves, the ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. ESOP, and all other similarly situated individuals, v. ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE, ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES, NICOLE JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER KHAN, and LORI SPAHN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend two case deadlines, such that (1) all parties' deadline for affirmative expert disclosures is extended from June 24, 2024 to June 28, 2024; and (2) Plaintiffs' deadline for filing a reply brief in support of their motion for class certification is extended from July 3, 2024 to July 9, 2024. Due to its counsels' schedules and personal conflicts, and to provide sufficient time to finalize initial expert disclosures, Argent requests a brief extension of the expert disclosure deadline, for all parties. In addition, to provide sufficient time for the Plaintiffs to complete initial expert disclosures under Argent's requested extension and their reply brief, the Plaintiffs request a brief extension of their deadline for filing their reply in support of their class certification motion. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=taIThp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Caroline Bressman, Esq. Ryan Wheeler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: William J. Delany, Esq. Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq. Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 E-mail: wdelany@groom.com lgolumbic@groom.com asalek-raham@groom.com prinefierd@groom.com - and - W. Bard Brockman, Esq. Katelyn Harrell, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PASNER LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309-3488 E-mail: bard.brockman@bclplaw.com katelyn.harrell@bclplaw.com - and - Richard J. Pearl, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 569-1907 E-mail: rick.pearl@faegredrinker.com EPOCH EVERLASTING: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on July 15, 2024, will move the Court for an order granting Defendants leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On June 10, 2024, counsel for EEP contacted counsel for the plaintiff via e-mail to explain the basis for the motion and request plaintiff's consent. The Plaintiff's counsel declined. Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sjjkxK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James F. Speyer, Esq. Ian S. Hoffman, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: james.speyer@arnoldporter.com ian.hoffman@arnoldporter.com - and - Kevin S. Asfour, Esq. Jennifer J. Nagle, Esq. Robert W. Sparkes, III, Esq. Michael R. Creta, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 E-mail: kevin.asfour@klgates.com jennifer.nagle@klgates.com robert.sparkes@klgates.com michael.creta@klgates.com ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as People of City of Los Angeles Who Are Un-Housed v. Eric Michael Garcetti et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06003-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The hearing scheduled for June 17, 2024 is vacated. If Plaintiffs chooses to file a renewed motion for class certification, they must do so by July 15, 2024. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. The Plaintiffs present two proposed classes: (1) all unhoused persons who reside in the City of Los Angeles; and (2) all unhoused persons who reside on streets or sidewalks. The Plaintiffs fail to establish that these classes meet the requirements of Rule 23(a). The Plaintiffs' failure to establish the requirements of Rule 23(a) stems primarily from the overbroad proposed class definition. The class Plaintiffs propose in its present form is not tied to the challenged ordinances or the alleged harm unhoused individuals suffer due to enforcement of those ordinances, such as having to travel long distances across Los Angeles to retrieve their seized belongings. As Plaintiffs may be able to meet the certification requirements for a more narrowly tailored class that is tied to the challenged ordinances and the effects of Defendants’ enforcement of them, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to file an amended class certification motion. The Plaintiffs are unhoused individuals challenging two Los Angeles City ordinances: section 56.11, which governs the storage of items in public, and section56.12, which governs the placement of items that obstruct the public-right-of-way. The Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Certify Class on May 16, 2024. On May 24, 2024, City Defendants filed their Opposition. The Plaintiffs submitted their Reply on May 27, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D4d7wF at no extra charge.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Must File Class Cert Opposition by August 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENDI YOSHIKAWA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, LIAM M. MALLON, and MELISSA BOND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-N (N.D. Tex.), Hon. Judge David Godbey entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend the class certification schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for substantial completion of document production will be July 8, 2024; 2. Lead Plaintiffs will designate rebuttal experts, if any, by July 22, 2024; 3. The completion of Class Certification discovery, excluding the deposition of Defendants' expert, will be on Aug. 22, 2024; 4. Defendants' Opposition, including all supporting evidence and supporting brief, will be served on the Plaintiffs on Aug. 22, 2024; 5. The deadline to take the deposition of Defendants' expert will be Sept. 27, 2024; 6. Lead Plaintiffs' Reply, including rebuttal evidence, if any, and supporting brief, will be served on Defendants on Oct. 4, 2024; and 7. The Parties will file with the Court Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Defendants' Opposition, and Lead Plaintiffs' Reply, together with all supporting evidence and briefs, on Oct. 21, 2024. ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jkPf2H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. John J. Esmay, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. Stephen Boscolo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com john.esmay@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com stephen.boscolo@blbglaw.com - and - Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Lauren J. Salamon, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com bhart@gelaw.com cmoyna@gelaw.com lsalamon@gelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Noelle M. Reed, Esq. Wallis M. Hampton, Esq. Brent M. Hanson, Esq. Michelle L. Davis, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 655-5122 Facsimile: (713) 483-9122 E-mail: noelle.reed@skadden.com wallis.hampton@skadden.com brent.hanson@skadden.com michelle.davis@skadden.com FAT BRANDS: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Kates Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL KATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAT BRANDS INC., ANDREW A. WIEDERHORN, KENNETH J. KUICK, and ROBERT G. ROSEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Fat Brands' business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Fat Brands securities at artificially inflated prices between March 24, 2022, and May 10, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Andrew A. Wiederhorn, the company's chairman and former chief executive officer, had received improper payments from the company, exposing Fat Brands to criminal liability and; (2) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the truth emerged, the price of Fat Brands Class A common stock fell by $2.08 per share, or 27.73 percent, to close at $5.42 on May 10, 2024. Fat Brands Class B common stock fell by $2.02 per share, or 28.85 percent, to close at $4.98 on May 10, 2024. Fat Brands 8.25 percent Series B Cumulative Preferred Stock fell by $1.08 per share, or 7.24 percent to close at $13.82 on May 10, 2024. Fat Brands warrants fell by $1.05 per warrant, or 21.6 percent, to close at $3.80 on May 10, 2024, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Fat Brands Inc. is a restaurant company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com FCA US LLC: Stryker et al. Sue Over Undisclosed Car Security Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------- IVY STRYKER; MICHELLE LASKOWSKI; KATRINA O’CONNOR; ARIC WHITE; DAWN GIBBS ALLEN; BURTON WAY INVESTMENTS LLC; MARK PFEIFER; EMMA PIRE; ANTHONY SPANGLER; GARRETT PFEIFER; MICHAEL BUSH; DANIEL CHANDLER; LABRAUN CRAYTON; TAMARA DARBY; NARCISO MALDONADO; LESLIE WILCZEWSKI; CICELY TEGELER; WALTER KWAK; CHARLES ZIMMERSCHIED; PAUL SOBERANO; JOSEPH CURB; JOYCE JONES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and STELLANTIS NV, a public limited liability company in the Netherlands, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11538-LVP-KGA (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2024) arises from Defendants' fraudulent concealment of the security defects of their manufactured cars and its fraudulent misrepresentations to induce consumers to acquire these defective cars. According to the complaint, these cars have a serious defect: the anti-theft and ignition systems lack basic security features and fail to comply with safety standards. As a result, the theft numbers are staggering; the Dodge Charger Hellcat is stolen at a rate that is 60 times the national average. Defendants know about the security defects. In August 2021, they released a software update they named "Programming Lockdown," which prevented key programmers from adding new keys. But Defendants failed to implement this technology; Programming Lockdown was only installed in 240 out of more than 19 million defective vehicles. Instead of fixing the defect, the Defendants engaged in a public relations campaign to represent their vehicles as secure. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action seeking compensation and other appropriate relief for losses they have suffered due to Defendants' misconduct. FCA US LLC is an automotive manufacturer headquartered in Auburn, MI. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stellantis and owns the licensing rights to the following brand names: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Mopar, and SRT performance designation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark M. Berardi, Esq. Daniel A. Hawkins, Esq. BERARDI AND ASSOCIATES LLC 14919 Founders Crossing Homer Glen, IL 60491 Telephone: (708) 942-8030 Facsimile: (815) 205-3546 E-mail: Mark@berardilawoffice.com Daniel@berardilawoffice.com - and - Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com jnixon@simonlawpc.com FEDEX GROUND: Court Vacates Briefing Sched on Issues of Misjoinder ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SULLIVAN-BLAKE, et al., v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01698 (W.D. Pa., Filed Dec. 21, 2018), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order granting FedEx's motion to vacate the Briefing Schedule on the Issues of Misjoinder, Change of Venue, and Separate Trials. The Court finds that FedEx has established good cause for modification of the Case Management Order. While Plaintiffs have asserted that they do not intend to move for class certification before this Court, the simple fact remains that Plaintiffs have asserted Rule 23 class action claims in the operative complaint, and those claims have neither been dismissed nor withdrawn. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that the motions FedEx seeks to file are permissible under Third Circuit precedent. Because Plaintiffs have indicated that they are not prepared to withdraw their Rule 23 claims, the Court will allow for briefing on class certification. Thereafter, the Court will reset the deadlines for motions for misjoinder/change of venue/separate trials. The Court hereby vacates the deadlines for briefing set forth at527 on the issues of misjoinder, change of venue, and separate trials, and finds that those issues have not been waived. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving denial of overtime compensation. Fedex provides package delivery services.[CC] FIGURE LENDING: Imposes Excessive Loan Fees, Ward Says ------------------------------------------------------ LEE WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGURE LENDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00533 (W.D.N.C., June 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Defendant Figure is a lender specializing in purported home equity lines of credit (sometimes known as "HELOCs") whereby homeowners obtain a line of credit based in part on the amount of equity in their home over and above any mortgage or existing loan secured by the property. A HELOC works in a similar fashion to a credit card in that you can continuously tap into the line of credit, up to the credit limit, during the draw period. Plaintiff Ward responded to Figure's aggressive marketing efforts in the Fall of 2019 and began the process of obtaining a HELOC from Figure. In obtaining his loan from Figure, Mr. Ward alleges that he suffered from several of the same complaints that many other victims of Figure experienced, including bait-and-switch tactics, false marketing of a home equity loan as a HELOC, misleading statements as to fees and costs of the HELOC, and an excessive and falsely described origination fee. In violation of federal law, Figure failed to prominently disclose the costs of the loan, and actively misled Mr. Ward about the real costs. Mr. Ward ultimately paid an origination fee of nearly $2,400, far higher than an industry-standard origination fee, says the suit. As a result, Mr. Ward has not only suffered monetary damages resulting from Figure's alleged improper conduct, but additional damages in the form of damaged credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com FINANCE OF AMERICA: Sapan Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCE OF AMERICA REVERSE LLC d/b/a AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP/AAG, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01213 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2024) arises from the Defendant's conduct in making illegal telemarketing calls prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a scheme to sell reverse mortgage services via cold calls to residential phone numbers on the protected federal Do Not Call Registry. The modus operandi is the same for all the calls in this case, AAG either directly or using an agent acting at the direction of AAG calls various numbers in the United States to sell AAG's financial and/or mortgage packages without regard to whether those numbers are on the Do Not Call Registry or not. As a proximate result of these intrusions, Plaintiff suffered and invasion of his privacy because the call should never have been transmitted to him and rang his private phone at his private residence, says the suit. Finance of America Reverse LLC is a lender of reverse mortgages in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 683-7971 E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com justinp@prato-reichman.com FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Hemmersmeier of Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that Findlay Automotive Group is reportedly losing millions of dollars a day in revenue after it was hit by a ransomware attack, a person familiar with the matter said. It could take another week before the company can fix the issues, the person told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It's unclear if Findlay Automotive has paid any ransom. Findlay Automotive has scaled back operations at its 33 dealerships and only has a few employees working at each one in case customers show up, the person said. Most employees aren't working since most sales and service operations have been impacted by the attack. Duke Zamora of Las Vegas said he bought a 2024 Chevrolet Trax from Findlay Chevrolet last year and called the dealership several times this week to try to get service. He said he was told that the computer systems were down and they couldn't help him. Zamora, who isn't involved in the lawsuit, said he had to go to another dealership for the service. Days after the Las Vegas-based automotive group was hit by the cyberattack it's already facing a class-action lawsuit claiming it failed to properly protect sensitive customer information in the wake of a cyberattack against the company. Facing class-action lawsuit The lawsuit, filed in Clark County District Court, says that, since Findlay Automotive was the victim of a cyber attack, it could have compromised customer information that could fall into the hands of bad actors. Customer information that Findlay Automotive could have exposed includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, insurance policy numbers, credit and debit card numbers, and other financial information needed to sell, buy or lease a vehicle, the suit says. Findlay Automotive didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The plaintiffs in the initial filing are listed as Karen Smith and Pholisith Bouphapraseuth and are represented by the Stranch, Jennings & Garvey law firm. "Plaintiffs make the following allegations on information and belief, except as to their own actions, which are made on personal knowledge, the investigation of counsel, and the facts that are a matter of public record," the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs want Findlay Automotive to delete all sensitive customer information from its system, pay for any expenses over the lifetime of the plaintiffs related to the fallout of this information getting into the wrong hands, and implement additional cybersecurity measures in the future. The lawsuit also stated that Findlay Automotive hasn't notified the plaintiffs on whether their information has been compromised. "Our investigation is ongoing, and we are working diligently to resolve the matter." The Metropolitan Police Department referred the Review-Journal to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when asked about an investigation into the cyberattack. The FBI said its standard practice is to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation. How dealerships view cybersecurity Cybersecurity is an issue auto dealers in Nevada and the U.S. have been worried about for years since every dealership relies on technology to operate, said Andrew MacKay, executive director of the Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association. He estimates that Nevada auto dealers spend "millions of millions" of dollars every year on cybersecurity efforts, from employee training, to upgrading a dealership's hardware and software and other IT components. MacKay couldn't comment on Findlay Automotive's situation or the class-action lawsuit, but said dealerships are reliant on computers and technology to complete sales and service appointments, communicate with car manufacturers and notify customers of important safety information related to their vehicle. "You have to have technology, end of story," he said. [GN] FOR LIFE: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing to August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, DAVID SALAZAR, OLIVIA THURMAN, and BETHANY TORBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOR LIFE PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01147-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the hearing on Plaintiffs' class certification motion and Defendant's motion to strike from June 20, 2024, to Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom. The parties have scheduled a private mediation on the soonest available, mutually agreeable date of July 24, 2024. The mediation may potentially resolve the case and render the pending motions moot. A brief continuance of the hearing on the parties' motions is necessary to facilitate settlement negotiations and promote judicial economy and the ends of justice. For Life manufactures home improvement products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uzfwqg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Moon, Esq. Kevin O. Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC 228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (619) 915-9432 Facsimile: (650) 618-0478 E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com kevin@moonlawapc.com The Defendant is represented by: Rick L. Shackelford, Esq. Adam Siegler, Esq. Hannah B. Shanks-Parkin, Esq. Andrea Carmona, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-3878 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: shackelfordr@gtlaw.com sieglera@gtlaw.com shanksparkinh@gtlaw.com carmonaa@gtlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Court Expands Class Definition in Water Pump Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- yahoo!finance reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently expanded the class definition in a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited and Ford Motor Company on behalf of Ford vehicle owners and lessees who sustained damage and/or personal injury due to water pump failures. The action was certified as a class action on June 8, 2021. At that time, the class action only included persons whose vehicle's water pump failed on or before June 8, 2021. The Court has now expanded the class action to include persons whose vehicle's water pump failed up until May 30, 2024. The current class definition is as follows: All persons and corporations in Canada, except for Excluded Persons, who, while they owned or leased one of the Vehicles on or before May 30, 2024, had a water pump that failed, and: (a) the Vehicle sustained damage; or, (b) the Vehicle sustained damage and the Class Member suffered personal injury. "Excluded Persons" are: 1. the Defendants and their officers and directors; 2. the authorized motor vehicle dealers of the Defendants and the officers and directors of those dealers; and 3. the heirs, successors and assigns of the persons described in paragraphs (i) and (ii). "Vehicles" are the following: 2007-2018 Ford Edge; 2011-2019 Ford Explorer; 2009-2019 Ford Flex; 2010-2012 Ford Fusion Sport; 2011-2012 Ford Fusion; 2013-2019 Ford Police Interceptor (Taurus); 2013-2019 Ford Police Interceptor Utility (Explorer); 2008-2019 Ford Taurus; 2008-2009 Ford Taurus X; 2009-2016 Lincoln MKS; 2017-2020 Lincoln Continental; 2010-2019 Lincoln MKT; 2007-2018 Lincoln MKX; 2007-2016 Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ; and 2008-2009 Mercury Sable. If you meet the above-mentioned class definition, you are automatically included in the class action. You do not have to do anything to participate. If you owned or leased one of the Vehicles listed above and your water pump failed after June 8, 2021 but before May 30, 2024, you must opt out now if you do not want to be part of the lawsuit. To opt out, you must notify Class Counsel by delivering a signed opt-out form to Class Counsel by no later than August 28, 2024 by mail or email to the following address: KOSKIE MINSKY LLP 20 Queen Street West Suite 900 Box 52 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3R3 Toll-Free Hotline: 1-833-786-0012 Email: fordclassaction@kmlaw.ca A copy of the opt-out form can be downloaded from Class Counsel's website at https://kmlaw.ca/cases/ford-water-pump-class-action/. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Martin Can File Portions of Class Cert Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10365-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order granting the Plaintiff's administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 79-5.2 and authorizing the Plaintiff to provisionally file under seal certain portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Jordan L. Lurie in support of the Plaintiff's motion for certification Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gjLZWs at no extra charge.[CC] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------ Telecommunications giant Frontier Communications has been hit with three class action lawsuits after the Internet provider became the victim of a cyberattack, leaking the names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of over 750,000 subscribers. The Dallas-based company was hacked by ransomware group, RansomHub, in April. More than 80,000 Texans were affected. The suits claim the data leak makes Frontier's customers more susceptible to identity theft and therefore that class members should receive full refunds, according to the complaints. The lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas, are from three individual plaintiffs all represented by Joe Kendall of the Kendall Law Group. Neither Kendall nor the Kendall Law Group responded to an interview request from The Dallas Morning News. Frontier also did not respond to questions submitted from The News at the time of publication. "We gave frontier 2 months to contact us but they don't care about clients data," RansomHub said on its website. "Now anyone who wants to buy this data can contact our blog support, we only sell it once." Frontier did not share details of how the attack happened, but on April 14, the company detected abnormal activity on its computer systems which made it launch an investigation. On June 6, Frontier began sending out data breach letters to those who were affected. "Frontier breached its obligations to Plaintiff and Class Members and/or was otherwise negligent and reckless because it failed to properly maintain and safeguard its computer systems and data," one of the complaints said. "Frontier knew or should have known that its electronic records would be targeted by cybercriminals." RansomHub intended to sell the information and gave Frontier a warning, according to the ransomware's website. The lawsuits claim that Frontier unjustly enriched itself by convincing customers that their information would be secure. Instead, the company should have implemented tighter security measures like hardening its infrastructure and enabling stronger filters, one of the suits said. "The occurrence of the Data Breach indicates that Defendant failed to adequately implement one or more of the above measures to prevent cyberattacks, resulting in the Data Breach and data thieves acquiring and accessing the [personally identifiable information] of more than seven hundred thousand individuals, including that of Plaintiff and Class Members," the suit said. Frontier recently moved to a 95,000-square-foot space in Uptown, dubbed the 'GigaHub,' with the hopes from CEO Nick Jeffery that it could become the center for the company's digital development. The company exited chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2020. It recently explored a potential sale or merger and had been facing a lot of pressure from activist investment firm JANA Partners, which advised the company to begin a strategic review due to diminishing shareholder value. Frontier is the latest North Texas company to endure a cyberattack. Frontier's hack occurred one month after Dallas-based telecommunications titan AT&T was also the victim of a cyberattack. The Kendall Law Group is also representing clients in the lawsuits against AT&T over its data breach. Frontier has approximately 2.9 million customers across 25 states. Its quarterly report in May revealed that, for the first time since 2015, the company delivered year-over-year revenue growth. "Our first-quarter results perfectly illustrate how our fast-growing fiber business is systematically improving our financial performance," Jeffery said in the quarterly report. "Thanks to our team's relentless execution, we're in a strong position to keep adding value to our customers and deliver accelerated growth in 2024." [GN] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilson Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01435-X (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, stored within its information network and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. On no later than April 14, 2024, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Defendant's negligence in safeguarding Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is exacerbated by repeated warnings and alerts directed to protecting and securing sensitive data, as evidenced by the trending data breach attacks in recent years, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Frontier Communications is a telecommunications company that offers broadband internet services, digital television services, and computer technical support services to customers across 25 states. [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 - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Website Posted False Bargain Price, Broomes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA BROOMES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03558 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2024), seeks to address Defendant’s misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.Eloquii.com. Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for intentional misrepresentation and omission, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, and for negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant advertises false, misleading, and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a belief that the sale price is a discounted bargain price. Allegedly, the Defendant's products sold on the website not only have a market value lower than the promised former price, but the market value of the products is also lower than the discounted sale price. By using false reference pricing and false limited time sales, the Defendant artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension drives up the price of the products, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, is an online retailer of women's clothing, shoes, and accessories. It owns Eloquii, a plus-size fashion company, and sells its products to consumers in California and nationwide through the website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com FUTUREFUEL CORP: Rosen Law Probes Possible Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of FutureFuel Corp. (NYSE: FF) resulting from allegations that FutureFuel may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased FutureFuel securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25714 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 10, 2024, after market hours, in an SEC filing, the Company disclosed that "management and the audit committee (the "Audit Committee") of the Board of Directors of the Company, after consultation with RSM, determined on May 8, 2024, that certain of its previously issued financial statements, specifically its previously-issued statements of cash flows: (i) for the year ended December 31, 2023, included in the Original Form 10-K; (ii) for the nine months ended September 30, 2023, included in the Q3.2023 Form 10-Q; and (iii) for the six months ended June 30, 2023, included in the Q2.2023 Form 10-Q, contained errors, should no longer be relied on and should be corrected by restating the affected statements of cash flows by filing the Amendments." On this news, FutureFuel's stock fell $0.47 per share, or 8.54%, to close at $5.03 per share on May 13, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GEICO INDEMNITY: Class Settlement in Malcom Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KOSMOE MALCOM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Maryland corporations, Case No. 5:20-cv-00165-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc Treadwell entered an order granting final approval of class settlement. -- The Court finds that all Rule 23(a) prerequisites for certification of a settlement class under have been satisfied and that the Rule 23(b)(3) factors favor certification. As such, the Court confirms certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. -- The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and consistent with due process requirements, and are in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement, including all terms and provisions, is approved in all respects, and the Parties are directed to effectuate the Agreement in accordance with its terms. -- The Opt Out list is: Gail Burgos of Upatoi, Georgia. All other Settlement Class Members are adjudged to be members of the Settlement Class and are bound by this Final Order and Judgment and by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the terms and provisions of the Release set forth therein. The action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety on the merits, without leave to amend and without additional fees or costs except those expressly provided in this Final Order and Judgment granting the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Approval of Individual Settlements. The Plaintiffs have requested that the Court approve attorneys' fees of $1,504,500.00 and costs not to exceed $86,000.00. The attorneys' fees and costs sought by Class Counsel are reasonable. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and approval of individual settlements. The Court reaffirms its appointment of JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator. GEICO is an American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=po1aey at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00711-TDC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore Chuang entered an order that: 1. The combined dispositive motion is denied. In that the motion is denied on the issues of standing and the legal authority to assert the causes of action in Counts I and II, denied without prejudice as to the public policy issue so that it may be certified of the issue to the Maryland Supreme Court; and denied without prejudice on the issue of the statute of limitations. 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties shall file a joint proposed statement of facts to be included in the Court's certification order pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 12-606(a)2(West 2020). 3. The motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to renewal after the Maryland Supreme Court responds to the certified questions. 4. These cases are stayed until after the Maryland Supreme Court responds to the certified questions. GEICO is an American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5pyvH1 at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO: Combined Dispositive Bid Denied In MAO-MSO Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00964-TDC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore Chuang entered an order that: 1. The combined dispositive motion is denied. In that the motion is denied on the issues of standing and the legal authority to assert the causes of action in Counts I and II, denied without prejudice as to the public policy issue so that it may be certified of the issue to the Maryland Supreme Court; and denied without prejudice on the issue of the statute of limitations. 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties shall file a joint proposed statement of facts to be included in the Court's certification order pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 12-606(a)2(West 2020). 3. The motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to renewal after the Maryland Supreme Court responds to the certified questions. 4. These cases are stayed until after the Maryland Supreme Court responds to the certified questions. GEICO is an American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S5uMel at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt Owners Advised to Opt-out Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- EIN Presswire reports that Chevy Bolt owners are being advised to consider opting out of a class action lawsuit settlement to potentially secure greater compensation for issues related to their vehicle's battery. Wirtz Law, a California-based lemon law firm has highlighted the benefits of this approach in a recent article. The settlement in question includes owners of model year 2017-2022 Chevrolet Bolts built and shipped to a dealer on or before August 19, 2021. This applies to owners who have not received a buyback of their vehicle from General Motors or an authorized GM dealer. In October 2020, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) initiated an investigation into battery fires occurring in 2017-2020 Chevrolet Bolt models. Subsequently, in November 2020, a recall was issued to replace defective batteries if necessary and to install new software. Despite these measures, incidents of Chevy Bolt battery fires persisted, leading General Motors (GM) to announce additional recalls in both July and August of 2021. In the article, "Why Is It a Good Idea To Opt-Out Of Class Actions?" Wirtz Law outlines several reasons why some individuals may choose to opt out. Ethical, moral, or ideological objections to the case are significant factors for some. Additionally, vehicle owners who are business clients of General Motors might be hesitant to compromise their relationship with the defendant. However, the most compelling reason is financial. "The Class Action does not provide for payment of all your damages," said Richard Wirtz, founding attorney of Wirtz Law. "Potential damages and recovery under California lemon law are often greater than an extended warranty or other benefits offered in a class action settlement." California's lemon law allows for civil penalties that can amount to up to two times an owner's actual damages. Wirtz Law is offering free consultations to help California-based Chevy Bolt owners determine if opting out of the class action is the best strategy to recover their losses. The firm emphasizes that individual lawsuits can often provide more comprehensive compensation than what is typically available through class action settlements. Experienced lemon law attorney and litigator, Richard Wirtz explained further: "Many class actions result in settlements that may offer limited benefits such as extended warranties or minor financial compensation, but they do not necessarily cover the full extent of the owner's damages. By opting out, vehicle owners can pursue a claim under the California lemon law, which may result in a more favorable outcome." For those affected, understanding the potential advantages of opting out could mean a significant difference in compensation. Wirtz Law encourages Chevy Bolt owners to seek legal advice to explore all available options. This advisory comes at a crucial time as many Chevy Bolt owners grapple with decisions on how to address the ongoing issues related to their vehicle's battery. Wirtz Law continues to provide insights and legal support for those navigating this complex landscape. CASE INFORMATION U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Altobelli et al., v. General Motors LLC Case No. 2:20-cv-13256 Wirtz Law tries more cases to jury verdict in a year than most attorneys attempt in a career. Over the past several years, Wirtz Law has recovered millions for California consumers like you and is one of the most respected lemon attorneys in the state. Wirtz Law 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92122 (858) 879-3557 https://www.wirtzlaw.com/ Press Contact : Richard Wirtz [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Lima Sues Over Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------- David Lima, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; ONSTAR LLC; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC.; and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-11119-JJCG-CI (E.D. Mich., April 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendants invasion of privacy occurring without GM drivers' knowledge or consent. General Motors has been selling data about the driving behavior of millions of people without informing affected drivers. GM vehicles come equipped with OnStar technology. In marketing, GM says that this technology provides emergency services, promotes safe driving, and allows for over-the-air emergency software updates. But what their marketing materials don't say is that OnStar technology also collects a vast amount of driving data, from trip reports to "hard braking" events. GM does not advertise that it sells that driving data to the insurance industry. LexisNexis and Verisk are data brokers who sell data about people to insurance companies. LexisNexis and Verisk buy GM's driver data, use the data to perform risk "analyses" of individual drivers, and sell the data to auto insurance companies who ask for it. This invasion of privacy occurred without GM drivers' knowledge or consent. As a result, in addition to their loss of privacy, GM drivers have seen their auto insurance premiums increase and had trouble securing coverage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Corvette in 2020. GM manufactures and sells vehicles with driving-data-collection capabilities such as OnStar, OnStar Smart Driver, MyChevrolet, and MyCadillac. GM vehicles are sold and driven throughout Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Derek Loeser, Esq. Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq. Ryan P. McDevitt, Esq. Adele Daniel, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3052 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com adaniel@kellerrohrback.com GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert Deadline Modified to Oct. 10 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Silverstein v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00684-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order granting motion to modify scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline on which discovery closes, shall be Oct. 4, 2024, rather than Sept. 12, 2024. -- The deadline on the dispositive motions filing deadline shall be Oct. 10, 2024, rather than Sept. 19, 2024. -- The deadline for class certification shall be Oct. 10, 2024, rather than Sept. 19, 2024. Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dgZTgj at no extra charge.[CC] GERMANY: Class Action Law Reform Includes Rating Agencies, Auditor ------------------------------------------------------------------ The German Parliament (Bundestag) has approved the reform of the Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz (KapMuG), a law regulating a form of class action to claim damages for false or misleading capital market information, extending the scope of application to rating agencies and auditors. Information included in ratings and auditors' reports concerning an issuer of securities or a provider of other assets can be public capital market information within the meaning of the KapMuG, according to recommendations in a report by the Legal Affairs Committee falling under the scope of the reformed rules. In future, rating agencies and auditors will come into investors' greater focus and will also have to defend themselves against class action proceedings, law firm Noerr said. Overall, collective protection rights for consumers are strengthened through the reform, while ensuring legal certainty for investors and effective law enforcement, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) parliamentary group said. The new rules on bundling proceedings running in parallel aim to speed up proceedings, giving further power to higher regional courts (Oberlandesgerichte) -- which will have the power in the future to open proceedings by means of an unappealable decision (opening decision) if deeming questions relating to the proceedings relevant. Higher regional courts will also have the power to remodel the content of a dispute, and redefine the questions relevant in the cases, according to the text laid out by the Legal Affairs Committee of the German Parliament. Moreover, for the first time, the law is valid for an unlimited period of time. The law currently in place on class actions expires on 31 August, under the so-called 'sunset clause'. The new regulation also touches upon information asymmetry between the parties involved. In future, at the request of one of the parties, the higher regional court can order that the opposing party or third parties submit evidence in their possession that is necessary for the case, Noerr said. "This is a real milestone in the context of enforcing claims under capital market law, providing a special guarantee for the effective clarification of such claims in a much shorter time and increases the pressure to reach an agreement more quickly," said TILP managing director Peter Gundermann. [GN] GRAND CANYON: Smith and Wang Sue Over Alleged Fraud --------------------------------------------------- TANNER SMITH and QIMIN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01410-JZB (D. Ariz., June 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's alleged fraud scheme and violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the California consumer protection statutes like the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Throughout the Class Period, January 1, 2017, to the present, Grand Canyon Education, Inc. has propagated false information about the true cost of Grand Canyon University's doctoral programs in a variety of ways: on the Grand Canyon University website, through marketing materials sent by mail and email by GCE's sales representatives, and in enrollment applications and agreements. Through those methods, GCE falsely told prospective students like Plaintiffs and the other Class members that they could obtain their doctoral degrees by paying a total tuition amount equal to 60 or 65 times the cost per credit. Moreover, GCE reaped millions of dollars a year in profits from this fraud scheme during the class period. Accordingly, the class action seeks to recover tens of millions of dollars in tuition that Plaintiffs and other Class members had to pay due to GCE's fraud scheme and other relief authorized by law, says the suit. Headquartered in Phoenix, AZ, GCE is a for-profit corporation that has been exclusive responsible for the marketing and recruiting efforts for Grand Canyon University. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Li Yu, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: lyu@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - and - Peter C. Soldato, Esq. Joseph Frate, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 8160 Norton Parkway Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: 440) 953-8888 E-mail: psoldato@dicellolevitt.com jfrate@dicellolevitt.com - and - Christopher J. Bryant, Esq. Eric Rothchild, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: Chris@defendstudents.org Eric@defendstudents.org GRITSTONE BIO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased securities of Gritstone bio, Inc. ("Gritstone" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GRTS) between March 9, 2023 and February 29, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Gritstone would be unable to launch the Phase 2b CORAL Study in the timeframe it had represented to investors; (2) the foregoing would impair Gritstone's ability to obtain external funding in connection with the Phase 2b CORAL Study, thereby negatively affecting Gritstone's ability to maintain its balance sheet and cash position; (3) accordingly, Gritstone overstated its ability to successfully develop and commercialize its products; and (4) as a result, Gritstone's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Gritstone should contact the Firm prior to the August 6, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Seals Seeks to Certify FLSA Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Seals, v. Gully Transportation, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00824-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a collective of individuals under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA Collective") for purposes of administering the settlement, consisting of: "all persons nationwide who were, are or will be employed by the Defendant as Yard Hostlers who do not operate as a driver, driver's helper, loader or mechanic in interstate commerce from Nov. 8, 2020 through Nov. 8, 2023." (2) approval of the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, And (3) approval of the notice and claims submission process in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds the settlement reached by the Parties to be a fair and reasonable settlement of a bona fide wage and hour dispute. At a mediation on March 4, 2024, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this case. The main terms of the agreement are as follows: -- The settlement creates and makes available a common fund of $24,500 to settle the claims of the five class members. -- Detailed notices will be provided to the class members after approval of the settlement, apprising class members of, among other things: Their individual settlement amounts, Their right to participate in the settlement if they so wish, and The procedure for claiming monies. -- Non-named settling Plaintiffs will only release the wage and hour claims arising out of their work as yard hostlers for Defendant. -- Attorneys' fees will comprise one-third of the fund ($8,166.67). -- Costs will total approximately $477.38 -- Settlement administration costs will be handled by the Plaintiff's counsel -- The Named Plaintiff will receive a service award of $1,000 for service that he provided during the litigation, and in exchange for a general release of all claims The Named Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on November 8, 2023, alleging that his employer violated the FLSA when it failed to pay him overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Gully provides transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pj4HGL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. Kevin A. Todd, Esq. Ethan A. Crockett, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 875-9339 E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com bthoenen@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 Facsimile: (816) 600-0137 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com HAIKU ASIAN: Hong Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on his behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HAIKU @ WP INC d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro; JP WHITE PLAINS, INC d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro; and SOONWAH LEE, Case No. 7:19-cv-05018-NSR-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) appointing Plaintiffs Yingcai Hong as class representatives; (3) appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy, Aaron B. Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy as class counsel; (4) permitting Plaintiffs to circulate a notice of class action by direct mail to class members and by publication; and (5) granting such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. Haiku provides classic Asian dishes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oiBAWf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com HALO INNOVATIONS: Bender Sues Over Defective Infant Sleeper ----------------------------------------------------------- CASSIDY BENDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALO INNOVATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04371 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) alleges that the Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, sells, and charges a premium for the BassiNest Flex (the "Flex"), a dangerously defective bedside bassinet sold for use as an infant sleeper. Contrary to Halo's Safe Sleep Marketing campaign and inconsistent with reasonable consumer expectations, the Flex contains an inadequate support structure with a cantilever design, which fails to hold and maintain an appropriately level or flat Sleeping Surface that is safe and consistent with the industry standards and guidance (the "Defect"). As a result, reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff and Class Members, purchased and used, and continue to purchase and use, the Flex for their infant children even though they are unknowingly placing them in unreasonably dangerous sleeping environments, says the suit. Had the Plaintiff, Class Members, and the consuming public known that the Flex was defective, is not suitable for safe infant sleep, and risks their infant children's lives, they would not have purchased it. HALO INNOVATIONS, INC. develops sleeping products. The Company manufactures sleeping blankets, swaddles, night knits, changing pad covers, crib sets, and diaper covers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Breit MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (347) 668-8445 Email: mbreit@milberg.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 3833 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: hsegui@milberg.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: eruben@milberg.com - and - Kelsey Gatlin Davies, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: kdavies@milberg.com HAPPY HOUR: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA PATRICK, DOUGLAS MORRILL, ROSEANNE MORRILL, LEISA GARRETT, ROBERT NIXON, SAMANTHA NIXON, DAVID BOTTONFIELD, ROSEMARIE BOTTONFIELD, TASHA RYAN, ROGELIO VARGAS, MARILYN DEWEY, PETER ROLLINS, RACHAEL ROLLINS, KATRINA BENNY, SARA ERICKSON, GREG LARSON, and JAMES KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVID L. RAMSEY, III, individually; HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting extending case schedule and class certification deadlines as follows: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' disclosure of experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Nov. 21, 2024 -- Deadline for Defendants' disclosure of experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Jan. 17, 2024 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' disclosure of rebuttal experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Feb. 14, 2024. -- Deadline for motions relating to admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification: April 25, 2025 -- Deadline for dispositive motions or motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: April 25, 2025. -- Deadline for responses or oppositions to motions relating to admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification and/or dispositive motions or motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: May 30, 2025. -- Deadline for replies regarding motions relating to admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification and/or dispositive motions or motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: June 20, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LeNEJB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory W Albert, Esq. Jonah L Ohm Campbell, Esq. Tallman Harlow Trask, IV, Esq. ALBERT LAW PLLC 3131 Western Ave, Suite 410 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 576-8044 E-mail: greg@albertlawpllc.com jonah@albertlawpllc.com tallman@albertlawpllc.com - and - Roger S. Davidheiser, Esq. FRIEDMAN RUBIN PLLC (SEATTLE-DOWNTOWN) 1109 1st Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 501-4446 E-mail: rdavidheiser@friedmanrubin.com The Defendants are represented by: Jack Lovejoy, Esq. CORR CRONIN, LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 812-0894 E-mail: jlovejoy@corrcronin.com - and - Damon C. Elder, Esq. Patricia A. Eakes, Esq. Andrew S. DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: patty.eakes@morganlewis.com damon.elder@morganlewis.com andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com HAPPY HOUR: Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Experts Due Nov. 21 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA PATRICK, DOUGLAS MORRILL, ROSEANNE MORRILL, LEISA GARRETT, ROBERT NIXON, SAMANTHA NIXON, DAVID BOTTONFIELD, ROSEMARIE BOTTONFIELD, TASHA RYAN, ROGELIO VARGAS, MARILYN DEWEY, PETER ROLLINS, RACHAEL ROLLINS, KATRINA BENNY, SARA ERICKSON, GREG LARSON, and JAMES KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVID L. RAMSEY, III, individually; HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge James Robart entered an order as follows: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' disclosure of experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Nov. 21, 2024 -- Deadline for Defendants' disclosure of experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Jan. 17, 2024 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' disclosure of rebuttal experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Feb. 14, 2024 -- Deadline for motions relating to admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification: April 25, 2025 -- Deadline for dispositive motions or motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: April 25, 2025 -- Deadline for responses or oppositions to motions relating to admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification and/or dispositive motions or motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: May 30, 2025 -- Deadline for replies regarding motions relating to admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification and/or dispositive motions or motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: June 20, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=un0bE3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory W Albert, Esq. Jonah L Ohm Campbell, Esq. Tallman Harlow Trask, IV, Esq. ALBERT LAW PLLC 3131 Western Ave, Suite 410 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 576-8044 E-mail: greg@albertlawpllc.com jonah@albertlawpllc.com tallman@albertlawpllc.com - and - Roger S. Davidheiser, Esq. FRIEDMAN RUBIN PLLC (SEATTLE-DOWNTOWN) 1109 1st Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 501-4446 E-mail: rdavidheiser@friedmanrubin.com The Defendants are represented by: Jack Lovejoy, Esq. CORR CRONIN, LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 812-0894 E-mail: jlovejoy@corrcronin.com - and - Damon C. Elder, Esq. Patricia A. Eakes, Esq. Andrew S. DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: patty.eakes@morganlewis.com damon.elder@morganlewis.com andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Brevard, North Carolina v. HCA Healthcare, Inc. et al. (MISSION HEALTH ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-00114-MR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Martin Reidinger entered an initial scheduling order as follows: Rule 26 Disclosures: June 17, 2024 Designation of Mediator: July 1, 2024 Completion of Discovery: Dec. 31, 2024 Retained Expert Report Disclosures: - Reports from Party w/ Burden Feb. 1, 2025 - Responsive from Party w/o Burden March 1, 2025 Completion of Retained Expert Depositions April 1, 2025 Mediation Before: May 1, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: May 1, 2025 Responses Due: June 1, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xBzoh8 at no extra charge.[CC] HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE: Johnson Sues Over Info Disclosure to Meta -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Johnson and Reade Adams, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-02129-JWB-DTS (D. Minn., June 4, 2024) alleges that Hennepin uses third-party tracking technologies to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' private and protected communications, including communications concerning highly sensitive personal health information, to third parties, without patients' knowledge or consent. By purposely embedding and deploying the Tracking Tools on Hennepin's web properties, Hennepin engages in the unauthorized disclosure of its patients' highly sensitive Personal Health Information and Personally Identifiable Information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a/ Meta and Google LLC. The compromised and disclosed personal information includes computer IP addresses, patient status, health conditions and symptoms, treatments, physicians, appointment details, and unique personal identifiers. Such private information would allow Meta to know that a specific patient was seeking confidential health care or exploring treatment for a specific condition, says the suit. The Defendant's Tracking Tools have also transmitted patients' personal information to additional unauthorized third parties for marketing and advertising purposes, including Google. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members never consented to, authorized, or otherwise agreed to allow the Defendant to disclose their Personal Information to anyone other than those reasonably believed to be part of Hennepin, acting in some healthcare-related capacity. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, to recover for harms suffered and assert the following claims: Violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Minnesota Protection of Communications Act; Invasion of Privacy; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act; and the Minnesota Health Records Act. Plaintiff Rachael Johnson is a natural person who resides and intends to remain in Minnesota. Hennepin is an integrated healthcare system that operates a trauma center, hospital, and multiple primary care clinics in Minneapolis and throughout Hennepin County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com HONDA MOTOR: Booloki Seeks Leave To File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Bolooki v. Honda Motor Company Limited, et al. (HONDA IDLE STOP LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit a Corrected Application for Leave to File Under Seal including all supporting documentation. On June 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Court their Application for Leave to File Under Seal and supporting documentation. Inadvertently, the Plaintiffs filed confidential materials on the public docket. The Plaintiffs quickly realized their error and notified counsel for Defendant and the Court's help desk. On June 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs promptly contacted the Clerk for the Honorable Judge Scarsi and provided a list of the improperly filed docket entries, which the Court temporarily sealed. This application concerns Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Class Certification3 and 41 documents and deposition transcripts marked confidential by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and are attached to the Sealed Declaration of H. Clay Barnett, III., in support of this application. In advance of filing this application to seal, the Parties conferred regarding Defendant's position on sealing and redaction, and the Parties attempted to limit sealing and redactions to the best of their ability pursuant to the Protective Order and Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b). The Plaintiffs do not oppose filing their Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum, and supporting exhibits on the public docket with no redactions. The Plaintiffs are prepared to do so if the Court is inclined to reject or otherwise limit sealing here. Honda engages in the manufacture and sale of automobiles, motorcycles, and power products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HdwkIe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Moze Cowper, Esq. COWPER LAW PC 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1840 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (877) 529-3707 E-mail: mcowper@cowperlaw.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Blake Stubbs, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com bstubbs@dicellolevitt.com - and - H. Clay Barnett III, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com Dylan.Martin@BeasleyAllen.com Rebecca.Gilliland@Beasleyallen.com - and - Andrew T. Trailor, Esq. ANDREW T. TRAILOR, P.A. 9990 Southwest 77 Avenue, PH 12 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 668-6090 E-mail: andrew@attlawpa.com HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to Oct. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class Certification Oct. 30, 2024. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Honda engages in the manufacture and sale of automobiles, motorcycles, and power products.[CC] HONDA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Bolooki v. Honda Motor Company Limited, et al (HONDA IDLE STOP LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), granting the Plaintiffs' application for leave to file under seal certain documents, deposition testimony, and portions of their Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification and certain exhibits to the Declaration of H. Clay Barnett, III. This application concerns Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Class Certification and 41 documents and deposition transcripts attached to it marked confidential by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and are attached to the Declaration of H. Clay Barnett, III., in support of this application. Because the Designating Party is best positioned to explain why information designated confidential should be sealed, the Designating Party is required to submit a declaration, within four days of filing of the application, that explains the basis for sealing the information. Failure to file a declaration or other required document may be deemed sufficient grounds for denying the application. In advance of filing this application to seal, the Parties conferred regarding the Defendant's position on sealing and redaction, and the Parties attempted to limit sealing and redactions to the best of their ability pursuant to the Protective Order and Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b). The Plaintiffs do not oppose filing their Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum, and supporting exhibits on the public docket with no redactions. Plaintiffs are prepared to do so if the Court is inclined to reject or otherwise limit sealing here. Honda is a Japanese public multinational conglomerate manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and battery-powered equipment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ecaS47 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Blake Stubbs, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com bstubbs@dicellolevitt.com - and - H. Clay Barnett III, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com Rebecca.Gilliland@BeasleyAllen.com Dylan.Martin@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Andrew Trailor, Esq. ANDREW T. TRAILOR, P.A. 9990 Southwest 77 Avenue, PH 12 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: 305-668-6090 E-mail: andrew@attlawpa.com - and - C. Moze Cowper, Esq. COWPER LAW PC 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1840 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (877) 529-3707 E-mail: mcowper@cowperlaw.com ICHIBAN GROUP: Bid for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as XUE HUI ZHANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; YUE HUA CHEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; GUI YONG ZHANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC; ICHIBAN FOOD SERVICES, INC., doing business as Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant; CHEN & JU, INC., doing business as Takara; DAVID L. IP; LIPING JU; and TYNG QUH JU, Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae D'Agostino entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court further orders that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. On Feb. 9, 2027, the Plaintiff Xue Hui Zhang commenced this putative collective and class action alleging various federal and state labor law violations against the Defendants. The complaint was later amended to include two additional Plaintiffs, Yue Hua Chen and Gui Yong Zhang, as proposed representatives. On March 3, 2020, this Court conditionally granted certification relative to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Thereafter, on May 21, 2021, the Court conditionally granted class certification as to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOZlVL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Mann, Esq. MANN LAW FIRM, PC 426 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110 ILLUMINATI LABS: Watkins & Accardi Sue Over Toothpaste's False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALANA WATKINS and JO ANN ACCARDI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ILLUMINATI LABS LLC, and RISEWELL LLC, d/b/a RISEWELL, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-03529 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2024) arises from Defendants' deceptive sale and marketing of their RiseWell Kids Mineral Toothpaste. According to the complaint, the Defendants markets and advertises that their toothpaste is free of harmful toxins and safe for children to swallow. However, despite the brand's express safety and clean ingredient claims, the toothpaste contains high levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as "PFAS." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring their claims against Defendants individually and on behalf of classes of all others similarly situated for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and New York General Business Law. Plaintiffs also assert claims for fraud, fraudulent omission or concealment, breach of Express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Aurora, CO, Illuminati Labs LLC is the parent of RiseWell LLC., which produces, manufactures, markets, and sells toothpaste throughout California, New York, and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com JOHN BURLEW: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and others so situated, v. JOHN BURLEW, in his official capacity as Daviess County Attorney, and on behalf of all County Attorneys in their official capacities, Case No. 4:24-cv-00045-GNS (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, to enter an order: -- certifying the instant action as a class action on behalf of all persons who have committed a criminal offense against a minor and are subject to Kentucky's sex offense registration scheme ("SORA"); -- certifying a defendant class consisting of all County Attorneys in the Commonwealth; and -- appointing the undersigned as Plaintiff's class counsel. The Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of SB 249, which compels him under threat of criminal prosecution to display his full legal name on any social media accounts that he operates. The Plaintiff operates multiple social media accounts that do not display his name, where he expresses various political opinions, including opinions on issues relating to SORA. As set out in the Complaint, the Plaintiff resides with his wife and children, and is concerned that if he were forced to de-anonymize himself—as the Statute would require -- that he would place himself and is family at risk of reprisal given that the Commonwealth provides anyone who would seek to do him harm with his residential address (which the provisions of SORA mandate that he keep current). Thus, should the Statute go into effect, the Plaintiff plans to deactivate his social media accounts and to refrain from speaking on platforms that the Supreme Court has previously recognized as "the modern public square," and that the government may not permissibly directly ban him from accessing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3SGieD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guy Hamilton-Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GUY HAMILTON-SMITH, PLLC 1707 L Street NW, Suite 1030 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 681-5157 E-mail: guy@guyhamiltonsmith.com JOS. A. BANK: Liz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04342 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and for declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.josbank.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alternative text (alt-text) on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com JRK PROPERTY: Perrault Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSIMILIANO PERRAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., JRK RESIDENTIAL GROUP, INC., UTILITY BILLING, INC., and TEWKSBURY APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10746-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying the claims set forth in counts II, III, VIII, and IX of the Second Amended Complaint to proceed as a class action; (ii) appointing him as Class Representative for the proposed classes; and (iii) appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel. From Oct. 16, 2020, through Jan. 16, 2022, the Plaintiff rented an apartment at the "Residences at Tewksbury Commons." Title to the Property was held by defendant Tewksbury Apartments Property Owner, LLC. The Plaintiff and other tenants of the Property, as well as tenants of four other Massachusetts apartment complexes owned and managed by the Defendants, were billed on a sub-metered basis for water usage and sewer service. Another JRK Holdings subsidiary – defendant Utility Billing, Inc. - was responsible for calculating sub-metered water and sewer bills issued to tenants. The Plaintiff proposes that two classes be certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The first class ("Class A"), for the claims set forth in Counts II and III, is defined as follows: "All persons who leased apartments in any of the properties known as The Residences at Tewksbury Commons, One Webster Apartments, The Residences at Stevens Pond, Essex Apartment Homes, and Charles Bellingham, whose tenancies commenced on or after Feb. 10, 2019,3 and after the beginning but before the end of a water/sewer billing period for which Defendants had not yet been billed by the utility provider, who were not mailed (or otherwise provided with) on the commencement dates of the tenancies, their apartment submeter readings as of said dates, and who paid all or part of the first sub-metered bill issued to them." The second class (“Class B”), for the claims set forth in Counts VIII and IX, is defined as follows: "All persons who leased apartments in any of the properties known as The Residences at Tewksbury Commons, One Webster Apartments, The Residences at Stevens Pond, Essex Apartment Homes, and Charles Bellingham, who on or after Feb. 10, 2019, were issued and paid all or part of a sub-metered sewer bill issued by Utility Billing that did not disclose the sewer rate. JRK Property owns and manages real estate investments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DrzyT0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch Street Framingham MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 872-1261 E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com - and - John R. Yasi, Esq. YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green Salem MA 01970 Telephone: (617) 741-0400 E-mail: john.yasi@yasiandyasi.com KALAMAZOO COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-04246 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.kzoo.edu/, including https://www.kcollegebookstore.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including May 2, 2024 and the last occurring on May 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the Kzoo Champion Powerblend Shorts from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase college and team merchandise, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation. 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. Mr. Knowles is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant operates the Kzoo online retail store as well as the Kzoo interactive 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 KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HAVASSY individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., PETER HEWITT and KELLY HOUSTON, Case No. 2:21-cv-04608-TJS (E.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification shall be completed by Sept. 27, 2024. 2. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than Oct. 18, 2024. 3. Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 8, 2024. 4. Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant's response no later than Nov. 18, 2024. 5. Oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on Dec. 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9A. Keller is an American technology and international real estate franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=spYeQk at no extra charge.[CC] KENDALL CREDIT: Foster Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- KERI FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENDALL CREDIT AND BUSINESS SERVICE INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22287-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On or after January 27, 2024, the Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the consumer debt, an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the original creditor of the Consumer Debt, West Kendall Baptist Hospital. However, Defendant was not lawfully licensed to collect consumer debts from Florida. Moreover, Defendant's collection activities directed at Plaintiff constitute a criminal misdemeanor under Florida law, says the suit. Based in Coral Gables, FL, Kendall Credit and Business Service Inc. is engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Patti, Esq. Victor Zabaleta, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1732 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 561-542-8550 E-mail: Tom@pzlg.legal Victor@pzlg.legal KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Final Approval of Class Settlement Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL MARTINEZ and PHILIPPE VIEUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Which Will Do Business In California As Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order as follows: 1. The motion for final approval of class settlement is denied. 2. The motion for attorneys' fees is denied as moot. 3. This action shall be stayed pending resolution of the motion for class certification in the Hamilton action. The Plaintiffs and Knight have failed to show that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court finds that in light of the denial of the Settlement Approval Motion, the fee motion is moot. Accordingly, this action shall be stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion in Hamilton. The Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for approval of this settlement after that motion is decided if they so desire. This stay is without prejudice as to any party's right to file a motion or stipulation to consolidate the two actions, or as to the Plaintiffs' right to coordinate with or work together with the Hamilton Plaintiffs to settle both actions in a way that is satisfactory to all parties. The Plaintiffs allege that Knight engaged in a systemic pattern of wage and hour violations in violation of California law. These violations included: paying solely by mileage and not for pre- and post-trip work, failing to pay for rest breaks, failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to reimburse for business expenses, and failing to pay final wages. The Plaintiffs Raul Martinez and Philippe Vieux were drivers for Knight. Knight is a trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIXlzg at no extra charge.[CC] KNOX COUNTY, IL: JBH Suit Files Amended Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H., by his next friend Debra Medlock, and A.M., by his next friend Rachael Puig, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KNOX COUNTY, CHIEF JUDGE RAYMOND A. CAVANAUGH of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, BRIDGET E. PLETZ, Director of Court Services of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, and WENDI L. STECK, Superintendent of the Mary Davis Home, Case No. 4:24-cv-04096-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), certifying a class of children who are currently, or in the future will be, detained in the Mary Davis Detention Home (the "Class"). The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the Class, including an order compelling the Defendants to develop and implement a plan to remedy the conditions at the Mary Davis Detention Home, which violate the rights of the Plaintiffs and the Class under the Fourteenth, Eighth, and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed Class meets all requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs' own experiences at MDH are exemplary of the experiences of all youth detained at the facility, making them typical of the claims and defenses of the Class. The Plaintiff J.B.H. is an adequate representative of the Class, as he has a strong interest in the outcome of this litigation, both for himself and for his peers detained in MDH, and has no interests antagonistic to the Class. The Plaintiff A.M. is an adequate representative of the Class, as he has a strong interest in the outcome of this litigation, both for himself and for his peers detained in MDH, and has no interests antagonistic to the Class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a8eJKY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Camille E. Bennett, Esq. Kevin M. Fee, Esq. Samantha Reed, Esq. Alexis Picard, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N. Michigan, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 Facsimile: (312) 288-5225 E-mail: cbennett@aclu-il.org kfee@aclu-il.org sreed@aclu-il.org apicard@aclu-il.org KROGER CO: Kirkbride Suit Seek to Permanently Seal Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to permanently seal exhibits to defendant's opposition to class certification, motion to strike colin weir, and motion to strike Kenneth Schafermeyer. The Plaintiffs move to permanently seal Exhibits A-EE Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification, Exhibits A-I of Defendant's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Colin Weir and Exhibits A-D to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Kenneth Schafermeyer. The Plaintiffs additionally request that the Court order the Defendant to refile those documents on the public docket with the redactions reflected in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I to this Motion. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y8MKi1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. MANSOUR GAVIN LPA North Point Tower 1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1400 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 523-1500, ext. 129 E-mail: ssimpkins@mggmlpa.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor, #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com KROGER CO: Leyman Sues Over Mixed Fruit Juice's Deceptive Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAUCHELLE LEYMAN and MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01001-W-VET (S.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Mixed Fruit in 100% Juice product. The Defendant labels the product as "100% Juice," with a picture of a freshly picked peach, pineapple, and pear, and half a cup of these fruits cut up in what appears to be "100% Juice," across what appears to be a background of a wooden table, evocative of fresh and natural fruit and 100 percent fruit juice components. However, the fine print ingredients, on the bottom of the packaging, listed in order of predominance by weight, reveals purchasers do not receive only "Mixed Fruit In 100% Juice," but mostly, or at least, a significant percentage, of undisclosed ingredients including water and juice concentrate, flavoring and seasoning, and synthetic preservatives. As a result of the false and misleading representations and omissions, the product is sold at a premium price, says the suit. The Kroger Co. is food company with a principal place of business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 600 W. Broadway, Ste. 700 San Diego CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-4005 Facsimile: (619) 550-4006 Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com KROGER CO: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Kroger's request to permanently seal the following: (1) portions of Kroger's Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification (Opposition), (2) Opposition Exhibits N, X, Y, Z, CC, DD, EE, FF, LL, PP, QQ RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, WW and XX; (3) portions of Opposition Exhibits A, C, H, J, L, R, and P; (4) Exhibits G and H to Kroger's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Testimony of Colin Weir Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Memorandum in Support (Weir 702 Motion); (5) portions of Exhibits A, D, and F to the Weir 702 Motion; and (6) portions of Exhibit A to Kroger's Motion to Exclude Portions of Kenneth Schafermeyer's Expert Report and Any Testimony Regarding the Same Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 401 and 403 and Memorandum in Support (Schafermeyer 702 Motion). The information that Kroger seeks to maintain under permanent seal on behalf of itself or Third Parties meets the Sixth Circuit's standard for permanent sealing. There is a compelling interest in sealing the records at issue; Kroger's interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and Kroger's request is narrowly tailored. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n4rDVN at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq. Robert N. Webner, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP Atrium Two, Suite 2000 221 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 723-4000 Facsimile: (513) 852-7869 E-mail: NLampley@vorys.com rnwebner@vorys.com - and - Selina Coleman, Esq. Frederick Robinson, Esq. Andrew Y. Lu, Esq. Michael S. Leib, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 – East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 414-9200 Facsimile: (202) 414-9299 E-mail: scoleman@reedsmith.com frobinson@reedsmith.com andrew.lu@reedsmith.com mleib@reedsmith.com LAMB WESTON: Cleveland Bakers et al. Sue Over False Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC., THOMAS P. WERNER, and BERNADETTE M. MADARIETA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00282-CWD (D. Idaho, June 13, 2024) asserts claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased shares of Lamb Weston common stock between July 25, 2023, and April 3, 2024, inclusive. Defendants knew of, or recklessly disregarded, problems associated with the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system that would hinder its successful implementation. Despite those issues, Lamb Weston pushed ahead with its implementation of an ERP system that was not ready to go live, knowing that a premature roll-out would have a material negative impact on the Company's business and operations. As a result, the statements concerning its business, operations, and prospects, including its financial guidance for fiscal 2024, lacked a reasonable factual basis. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Lamb Weston common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, says the suit. Headquartered in Eagle, ID, Lamb Weston is a food processing company that produces of frozen potato products. Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "LW." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott McKay, Esq. Nathan Pittman, Esq. NEVIN, BENJAMIN & MCKAY LLP 303 W. Bannock Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 343-1000 Facsimile: (208) 345-8274 E-mail: smckay@nbmlaw.com npittman@nbmlaw.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Ave, 10th floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0057 fschirripa@hrsclaw.com LAMB WESTON: Faces Securities Class Action Over New ERP System -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of those who acquired Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. ("Lamb Weston" or the "Company") (NYSE: LW) securities during the period of July 25, 2023 through April 3, 2024, inclusive ("the Class Period"). Investors have until August 12, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On April 4, 2024, Lamb Weston reported its financial results for its fiscal third quarter 2024 and disclosed significant problems with its transition to its new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software system. Those problems caused Lamb Weston to lose over $130 million in sales during the third quarter. The unsuccessful ERP transition resulted in Lamb Weston's "reduced visibility into finished goods inventory at [ ] distribution centers," which negatively impacted the Company's ability to fulfill customer orders, resulting in shipment delays and cancelled orders. In total, Lamb Weston's ERP system roll-out negatively impacted the Company's net sales by $135 million, net income by $72 million, and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization by $95 million. Lamb Weston also cut its sales guidance range for fiscal 2024 by $330 million, at the midpoint. The Company disclosed that it expected sales volumes in its fiscal fourth quarter 2024 to be negatively impacted by some customers that were affected by Lamb Weston's botched ERP transition, as those customers turned to Lamb Weston's competitors to meet their needs. On this news, the price of Lamb Weston shares declined by $19.59 per share, or approximately 19.46%, from $100.68 on April 3, 2024 to close at $81.17 on April 4, 2024. The lawsuit alleges that Lamb Weston made numerous material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the design and implementation of Lamb Weston's new ERP system. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the Company represented that, through the design of the Company's new ERP system, Lamb Weston had "strengthen[ed] [its] operational infrastructure." The Company also downplayed any issues it experienced with the implementation of the system as merely "usual bumps," and told investors that its financial guidance for fiscal 2024 appropriately accounted for any negative financial impact associated with the system's deployment. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lamb Weston securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this CONTACT FORM, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. 212-699-1180 https://www.kmllp.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] LGI HOMES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in McAlister ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKKI MCALISTER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed request for extension to submit its response to the Plaintiff's Motion seeking Class Certification from June 13, 2024, to June 28, 2024. Such relief will enable counsel for LGI Homes to sufficiently address the facts and legal arguments, presented by the Plaintiff, relevant to her five state law wage claims, as well as the prerequisites and requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. No party will be prejudiced by extending the deadline, particularly since the Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sought by this motion, and no trial date has been set in this action. This is the first extension that LGI Homes has sought to extend the deadline to submit its Response to Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Class Certification. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1 (c), undersigned counsel certify that this motion is being served contemporaneously on its client. LGI builds high-quality, move-in ready homes at affordable prices across the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cTFO5A at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Vance O. Knapp, Esq. Patrick J. Collopy, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3656 E-mail: vknapp@fisherphillips.com pcollopy@fisherphillips.com LIFT STATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Torres Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos O. Torres, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Lift Stations "R" US Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22264-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Torres as a non-exempt, full-time sewer pump truck operator from approximately October 23, 2023, to January 10, 2024, or 11 weeks. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff worked 42.5 hours weekly. However, the Plaintiff only received payment for 40 regular hours because Defendants unlawfully deducted from Plaintiff's wages 2.5 hours weekly as lunchtime even if Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunch hours. Among other things, the Plaintiff was not provided with pay stubs that contain accurate information such as the wage rate, number of days and hours worked, employee taxes withheld, etc., says the suit. Based in Miami, FL, Lift Stations provides environmental services specializing in lift stations, sewer maintenance, pumping, sanitizing, and associated services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LIVEPERSON INC: Steffens Sue Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA STEFFENS, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant LIVEPERSON, INC., Plaintiff v. PETER BLOCK, JOHN COLLINS, ERNEST CU, BRUCE HANSEN, KEVIN C. LAVAN, JILL LAYFIELD, ROBERT LOCASCIO, FRED MOSSLER, VANESSA PEGUEROS, WILLIAM G. WESEMANN, and YAEL ZHENG, Defendants, and LIVEPERSON, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04481 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) is a stockholder derivative action brought against LivePerson's Board of Directors and certain of its executive officers seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Steffes brings this shareholder derivative action on behalf of LivePerson against certain officers and members of the Company's Board for breaches of their fiduciary duties from May 10, 2022 to March 16, 2023. Throughout the said period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that WildHealth's Medicare reimbursements under the Medicare COVID-19 Program were suspended, instead representing to investors that, among other things, LivePerson expected continued strong performance by WildHealth and that there were no material changes in LivePerson's internal control over financial reporting. Moreover, Individual Defendants also breached their fiduciary duties by failing to correct and/or causing LivePerson to fail to correct these false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact while, during the relevant time period, Collins sold LivePerson shares at inflated prices for total proceeds of over $4,445, says the suit. LivePerson is a technology company that develops conversational commerce and AI software. Its shares trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "LPSN." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Vincent A. Licata, Esq. 825 East Gate Blvd., Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 MANHATTAN BEER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Swanson Due Dec. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Swanson v. Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05383 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 18, 2015), the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano entered an order that: -- The last date to take the first step as to any such motion practice shall be Dec. 30, 2024. -- All counsel is reminded that they are expected to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a), Local Rule 26.4, and the Court's individual rules in conducting discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Manhattan Beer is a New York–based beverage company.[CC] MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit on Crypto Accounting Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Fernandez, writing for Block Tribune, reports that an amended class action complaint was filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada against Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. and several of its current and former executives. Marathon Digital Holdings is a technology company focused on bitcoin mining and other digital asset operations. The complaint centers around the company's accounting practices related to its bitcoin holdings and mining operations during the class period. Marathon routinely mines bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies using specialized computer equipment and reports the value of its holdings each quarter. However, the plaintiffs claim Marathon misreported key financial metrics like the value of its bitcoin assets and the cost of mining new coins. It's alleged the company did not properly assess for impairment of bitcoin on its balance sheet as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The SEC reportedly sent comment letters to Marathon questioning its accounting but the company did not make this public. In late February 2023, Marathon disclosed it received another letter from the SEC about prior financial statements. The company simultaneously canceled its upcoming earnings call and said several years of reported results could no longer be relied upon. The plaintiffs state this news caused the stock to fall over 8% on March 1st. Two weeks later, Marathon restated its financials from 2021 and parts of 2022, finding material differences in things like asset valuation and costs. The complaint argues the executives knew or should have known proper accounting was not followed, especially since impairment testing is a clear rule. It's also noted the departures of two CFOs during this period raise questions. The amended class action seeks damages for investors under securities laws, alleging false statements and omissions injured shareholders. [GN] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Disabled Can't Access Property, Gil Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS GIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. and SAGAMORE PHILADELPHIA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02497 (E.D. Pa., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 36.302(e)(1). According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its property, as prohibited by the ADA. The Defendants' property has architectural barriers in parking and exterior accessible route; tables, counters, and lines; signs, doors, and controls; toilet rooms; and hotel guest rooms. As a result of the aforementioned discrimination through repeated exposure to architectural barriers, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation, says the suit. Marriott International Inc. is a hospitality company with its principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. Sagamore Philadelphia LLC is a property owner with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Koson Kuroda, Esq. 16 Robin Lake Drive Cherry Hill, NJ08003 Telephone: (609) 332-0712 Email: gregkuroda@gmail.com - and - George W. Wickhorst, III, Esq. R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. ADADVOCATES LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 481-9809 Email: george@adadvocates.org Ed@adadvocates.org MDL 3083: Okeke Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN OKEKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL (D. Mass., June 11, 2024) seeks redress for the Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) unjust enrichment, (v) invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts), (vi) bailment, (vii) declaratory judgment, as well as for violations of (viii) Massachusetts General Laws. On May 31, 2023, Progress posted a notice on its website stating it had discovered an SQL injection vulnerability in its MOVEit file transfer services and a related breach in its network and systems. The complaint asserts that the Data Breach exposed and harmed 1,225,054 individuals whose private information was in Nuance's systems as a result of Defendants' failures to uphold their equitable and legal obligations to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. This information included, but was not limited to name, address, birth date, medical diagnoses, treatments provided, medication dosages, and health insurance information, says the suit. The Okeke case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3083, IN RE: MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts-based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen H. Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Ste.1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Emily Feder Cooper, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Ste. 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ecooper@tzlegal.com MEMORIAL HERMANN: Breaches Fiduciaries Duty, Jones Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- DESRI JONES, JANET FLEMING, SANDA MOODY and TIFFANI BENOIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM, THE MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30., Case No. 4:24-cv-02105 (S.D. Tex., June 4, 2024) is a class action brought pursuant to sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Plans' fiduciaries, which include the Memorial Hermann Health System ("MHHS" or "Company") and the Board of Directors of MHHS and its members during the Class Period and the MHHS Investment Committee and its members during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plans, breached the duties they owed to the Plans, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plans by (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of risk and performance and (2) failing to control the Plans' Recordkeeping and Administration costs. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plans and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two). As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plans suffered millions of dollars of losses due to investment return damages. Had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, and the Plans' participants would have had more money available to them for their retirement, the Plaintiffs say. Ms. Jones resides in Lubbock, Texas. During her employment, Ms. Jones was subject to the excessive RKA costs of the 403(b) Plan and suffered injury to her 403(b) Plan account by paying fees well above reasonable market rates for the same. In addition, she invested in the JPMorgan Smart Retirement 2045 R6 fund. MHHS offers children health, heart and vascular care, neurosurgery, orthopedics, rehabilitation, and speech therapy services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kell A. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON 501 North IH-35, Suite 111 Austin, TX 78702 Telephone: (512) 898-9662 Facsimile: (512) 368-9144 E-mail: Kell@kellsimonlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Summary Judgment Bids in Monopoli Due July 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monopoli, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01353 (N.D. Ga., Filed April 2, 2021), Hon. Judge entered an order that the parties deadline to file motions for summary judgment is July 12, 2024. -- If no party files a dispositive motion, the consolidated proposed pretrial order shall be due no later than Aug. 2, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars in the United States.[CC] MERRILL GARDENS: Court Certifies Class of Non-Exempt Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA BUSTOS RAMIREZ, et al., v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00542-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement, is granted and the settlement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The class is certified for purposes of settlement and the class is defined as "All non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked for the Defendant in California from March 8, 2018 through June 20, 2023." Excluded from the class are those class members who submitted a timely request for exclusion from the settlement to the settlement administrator; 3. Plaintiffs Ramirez and Holguin are appointed as class representatives for the purpose of the settlement and are each awarded an incentive payment of $4,000; 4. The Court confirms the appointment Moon Law Group, PC, Bohkour Law Group, P.C., and Melmed Law Group P.C., as class counsel, for settlement purposes only; 5. Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is granted in part, and attorney fees in the amount of $206,250. are awarded as follows: $165,000. to the Moon Law Group, PC; $20,625. to Bohkour Law Group P.C.; and $20,625. to Melmed Law Group; 6. Litigation costs in the amount of $19,559.46 are awarded, payable as follows: $17,880.63 to Moon Law Group, PC, and $1,678.83 to Bohkour Law Group, P.C.; 7. ILYM Group, Inc. is appointed as settlement administrator. ILYM Group, Inc. shall fully effectuate the settlement agreement and shall receive payment of $30,000. for settlement administration services; 8. Defendant shall fully fund the gross settlement amount ($825,000.00), and also the amounts necessary for Defendant's employer payroll taxes owed on the wage portion of the Settlement Class Payments, by transmitting the funds to the Settlement Administrator no later than fourteen (14) calendar days from the Effective Date of the Settlement; 9. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ramirez and Holguin and against Defendant Merrill Gardens, LLC. and to close this action. On March 8, 2022, the Plaintiff Ramirez filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On May 5, 2022, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Ramirez Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District. On June 15, 2022, the Plaintiff Ramirez filed a first amended complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that, due to Defendant's policies, they were not always provided with meal periods and rest breaks, not reimbursed for use of their personal cell phones for work purposes and were not paid for all hours worked for the Defendant. Merrill owns and operates senior living communities. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ITHqwk at no extra charge.[CC] METHODE ELECTRONICS: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating whether Methode Electronics, Inc. ("Methode" or the "Company") (NYSE: MEI) or any of its executive officers or others violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material, adverse information to investors. The investigation focuses on investors' losses and whether they may be recovered under federal securities laws. What if I purchased Methode securities? If you bought securities and suffered significant losses on your investment, join our investigation now: Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471 There is no cost or obligation to you. What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On July 14, 2023, Methode announced that its Chief Operating Officer, Joseph Khoury, had been placed on leave and that his "powers, authority and duties . . . were suspended." Then, on December 7, 2023, Methode disclosed that Khoury had been terminated as an employee of the Company's Egyptian subsidiary and is no longer associated with the Company, stating that "the Company has eliminated the position of Chief Operating Officer for the present time." Then on March 7, 2024, Methode reported financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2024 ended January 27, 2024. Methode reported Q3 non-GAAP EPS of -$0.33 missing estimates by $0.41 and revenue of $259.5M missing estimates by $28.53 million. The Company said due to various market and operational challenges the business was facing, it would suspended forward-looking guidance; and all earlier guidance provided should no longer be relied upon. Methode stock was 30% lower in early morning trading on March 7, 2024. What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who provide original information may, under certain circumstances, receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq., (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAQUAY JACKSON AND DANA RICE INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, v. MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00697-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to respond and reply to the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a collective action. The parties thus request that the Court provide them with this additional time to properly address the issues before the Court. Defendant Mississippi Behavioral Health Services, LLC requests an extension of 14 days, until June 28, to respond to the plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class, and the plaintiffs request a corresponding extension of 14 days, until July 19, to file a reply. The plaintiffs filed their motion and supporting memorandum on May 31, 2024. Since the plaintiffs' motion was filed, MBHS's counsel had Covid-19, had to spend significant time on an unexpected and time-sensitive internal investigation for a client, and had to prepare for depositions that were not expected to go forward, along with the typical interruptions of the practice of law. To adequately respond to the plaintiffs' arguments, MBHS thus needs additional time and instead of asking only for seven days and having to ask for seven more, MBHS seeks a 14-day extension, until June 28, and will attempt to file its response before that deadline if possible. Because trial has not been set, neither the parties nor the Court will be prejudiced by the additional time. To the contrary, the additional time will allow MBHS to provide a more concise response to the plaintiffs' motion, which will benefit the Court. Mississippi Behavioral provides behavioral rehabilitation services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auksxU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Adam H. Gates, Esq. Spence J. Flatgard, Esq. Gabrielle Wells, Esq. WATKINS & EAGER PLLC The Emporium Building 400 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 965-1900 E-mail: agates@watkinseager.com sflatgard@watkinseager.com gwells@watkinseager.com MONTE'S TRATTORIA: Faces Restrepo Suit Over Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RESTREPO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTE’S TRATTORIA, LTD., PETER MOSCONI, and PEDRO MOSCONI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04482 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Jose Restrepo was employed by Defendants as a busser/runner from late 2021 to March 2024. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was subjected to Defendants' corporate practices of failing to pay minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation, and illegally retaining tips. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of their respective unpaid gratuities, liquidated damages for misappropriated and late paid gratuities, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and other appropriate relief. Monte's Trattoria, Ltd. is a New York for-profit Corporation that owns and operates Monte's Trattoria restaurant in downtown Manhattan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 MULTIPLAN INC: Anesthesia Care et al. Sue Over Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- ANESTHESIA CARE P.C., MANHATTAN MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., and NASSAU MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MULTIPLAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04919 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2024) seeks to address the alleged horizontal price-fixing conspiracy between MultiPlan, Inc. and its co-conspirators, national leading healthcare insurance providers, to reduce the reimbursements they pay to healthcare providers for out-of-network coverage. The class action arises under Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, seeking damages for Plaintiffs' injuries, and those suffered by members of the Class, resulting from MultiPlan's anticompetitive conduct. Allegedly, Multiplan's claims repricing services are designed to suppress and fix the prices insurers pay physicians for out-of-network medical care for far less than the insurance company would pay and far less than the healthcare provider requested. Headquartered in New York, NY, MultiPlan, Inc. provides healthcare cost management services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Steven J. Greenfoge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 854-4060 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: mreuben@litedepalma.com sgreefogel@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 10 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 699-8890 E-mail: ronen@ronensarraf.com - and - Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 10 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (212) 868-3610 E-mail: joseph@ronensarraf.com MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Espanol Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- BYRON ESPANOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MYEYEDR. OPTOMETRY OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01024 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its goods and services, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers after they have opted out of the Defendant's solicitations, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has allegedly caused multiple text messages to be transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 0773. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line. The Plaintiff first asked the Defendant to stop contacting him on April 2, 2023 but the Defendant continued to send him text messages on August 31, September 12 and September 30th 2023, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since Sept. 9, 2021. The Defendant's failure to honor opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant does not (1) maintain written policies and procedures regarding its text messaging marketing; (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing; and/or (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list. Accordingly, the Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, the suit claims. Additionally, the Defendant's text message spam caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. The Defendant's text messages also occupied storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephones. The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Orange County, Florida. MyEyeDr. offer frames, lenses, eyewear repairs, and contact lenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515E. LasOlasBoulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com Telephone: (954) 533-4092 - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 NBME: Seeks to Dismissal of Giri First Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. LATIKA GIRI and DR. SWECHHA SHRESTHA, v. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS (NBME), Case No. 1:24-cv-00410-CRC (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") of the Plaintiffs Dr. Latika Giri and Dr. Swechha Shrestha pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice. Dismissal is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) because each Plaintiff has released all claims she might have against NBME relating to the invalidation of her United States Medical Licensing Examination ("USMLE") results. Dismissal is also warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) because, even in the absence of Plaintiffs' written releases, the Plaintiffs cannot pursue claims under Title VII or Section 1981. Neither statute applies extraterritorially and thus neither applies with respect to the claims asserted by Dr. Giri. NBME is not the employer of Dr. Giri or Dr. Shrestha so as to be subject to Title VII, and its invalidation of their USMLE scores does not otherwise subject NBME to potential liability under Title VII. Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for discrimination under either Title VII or Section 1981. The grounds for this motion are set forth more fully in the Statement of Points and Authorities and supporting Second Declaration of Colleen Ward, filed herewith. Latika Giri filed this putative class action on Feb. 12, 2024, alleging that NBME's invalidation of her USMLE results constituted national origin and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and discrimination based on ethnicity in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. NBME is a private, not-for-profit organization whose mission is to help protect the health of the public through the development and administration of high-quality assessments of the knowledge and skills of health professionals. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SaEflU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Robert A. Burgoyne, Esq. Caroline M. Mew, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th St., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (202) 654-6211 E-mail: RBurgoyne@perkinscoie.com CMew@perkinscoie.com NEBRASKA: Filyaw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLIAN FILYAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STEVE CORSI, Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity, and MATT AHERN, Interim Director of the Division ) of Medicaid and Long-Term Care, in his official capacity, Case No. 4:24-cv-03108-BCB-JMD (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying that this action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b) as to the Plaintiff's causes of action. 2. Certifying a class defined as, "Those who, since March 1, 2023, have been or will be issued a written notice from the Defendants proposing to terminate their Nebraska Medicaid eligibility for the reason 'income exceeds standards.'" 3. Certifying counsel of record for Plaintiff as Class Counsel for the proposed class. The Plaintiff was enrolled in Medicaid and relied on the program to access critical health care until she was terminated effective May 1, 2024. More than 22,000 Nebraska Medicaid enrollees have been terminated for the reason “income exceeds standards" since April 1, 2023. The Plaintiff has been harmed by the Defendants' issuance of inadequate termination notice. The Plaintiff requests oral argument on this motion as Plaintiff believes the Court may benefit from being able to address any specific questions the Court has regarding the facts or law presented in support of this Notice and Motion. The Plaintiff estimates oral argument should last no more than one hour. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oeGfMU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey E. Arends, Esq. Sarah K. Maresh, Esq. Robert E. McEwen, Esq. James A. Goddard, Esq. NEBRASKA APPLESEED Center for Law in the Public Interest Lincoln, NE 68501-3613 Telephone: (402) 438-8853 x145 Facsimile: (402) 438-0263 E-mail: karends@neappleseed.org smaresh@neappleseed.org rmcewen@neappleseed.org jgoddard@neappleseed.org NESTED BEAN: Sells Dangerous Baby Sleepwear Products, Massari Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAURYN MASSARI and AZIZA SALAMEH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NESTED BEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01225 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for breach of warranty, fraudulent inducement-intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of weighted baby swaddles and sleep sacks. The Defendant labels and packages the products with statements and imagery designed to convey that the products are safe for babies to sleep in throughout the night, including photos of babies asleep while wearing the products, and the statements "Gently weighted Calms all night, like your hand on baby's chest" (or "like being wrapped in your embrace") and "Better sleep in 1-3 nights!" Contrary to the Defendant's representations and omissions, the overwhelming consensus amongst pediatricians and baby product safety experts is that weighted baby swaddles and sleep sacks, like the products, should not be used on infants due to the material dangers that may lead to death. The Defendant fails to warn parents and consumers that the additional weight poses severe, life-threatening risks, including the material dangers. The Plaintiff and the California Subclass would not have purchased the products if they had known the truth, says the suit. Nested Bean, Inc. is a manufacturer of infant sleepwear, with its principal place of business in the City of Hudson, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery Completion Due July 26 in Dorce Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCONNELL DORCE, CECELIA JONES, and SHERLIVIA THOMAS-MURCHISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, LOUISE CARROLL (Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development), SHERIF SOLIMAN (Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance), NEIGHBORHOOD RESTORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORP., and BSDC KINGS COVENANT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., Defendants, and 585 NOSTRAND AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION and 248 MADISON STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered a Fourth Amended Case Management Plan order: a. Fact discovery shall be completed by July 26, 2024, and shall proceed as follows: i. Requests for admission shall be served by June 26, 2024. ii. Depositions shall be completed by July 26, 2024 subject to Section 1.a.iii, below. iii. The parties shall meet and confer concerning Plaintiffs' request for a deposition of former Mayor Bill de Blasio by July 19, 2024. b. By July 31, 2024, the parties shall file a joint letter certifying the completion of fact discovery. c. Expert discovery shall be completed by December 16, 2024. d. By Dec. 19, 2024, the parties shall file a joint letter certifying the completion of expert discovery and advising whether they wish for the Court to conduct a settlement conference. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's plan dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3whBCt at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Smokes Shops Fight Back With Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Eileen Lehpamer, writing for PIXII, reports that more than two dozen smoke shops and convenience stores accused of selling marijuana without a license have filed a federal class action lawsuit against New York City. The suit alleges the city has violated their constitutional right to due process. Changes enacted in this year's state budget and the city code have given the Sheriff's Office the power to declare the shops an imminent threat to the public health, issue a fine and close them immediately for up to a year. Over 350 stores recently shut down under "Operation Padlock to Protect." They remain closed pending a hearing. "They're almost being found guilty without ever having seen a judge," attorney Lance Lazzaro of Brooklyn, who filed the lawsuit, told PIX11 News. "There's no right of confrontation, they allow hearsay evidence, and you never hear from any of the officers that conducted the search." In response to the lawsuit, a City Hall spokesperson said in a statement: "The Adams administration has been clear that the purpose of 'Operation Padlock to Protect' is to close down illegal cannabis and smoke shops to protect New Yorkers and better support the legal market by allowing justice-impacted and other legal cannabis business owners to thrive. With over 350 shops sealed thus far, we have made progress to protect our communities from dangerous, illegal products while helping to create a path to a thriving legal market." CITY HALL SPOKESPERSON Ellis Soodak, the owner of the legal cannabis shop Verdi, said business has picked up since the city's crackdown began. "It's completely ridiculous. If this was in the liquor business, or if they're selling guns without a license, they'd be shut down instantly. They're opportunists that came in, and they tried to make a quick buck," Soodak told PIX11 News. [GN] OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks to File Declaration of Class Member ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request leave to file the declaration of putative class member Colette Forjone in further support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are cognizant of this Court's direction that no further papers should be filed on this motion, however, the Plaintiffs submit that they have good cause for this late filing because putative class member Forjone was unaware of the existence of this action until June 4, 2024 after the motion was already fully submitted. Ms. Forjone would have submitted this declaration earlier had she been made aware of the lawsuit and her potential claims. Ms. Forjone is a current Co-Team Leader ("CTL") in Defendant's Auburn, New York store and her declaration lends critical support to the arguments already asserted by the Plaintiffs. The declaration does not add any new argument and thus its submission will not prejudice the Defendant. Conversely, not considering Ms. Forione's sworn declaration would be highly prejudicial to her and Plaintiffs, particularly in light of the Defendant's argument that this action does not have the support of other CTLs. Ollie's is an American chain of discount closeout retailers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fcijXD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com PATINA ORLANDO: Cosme Suit Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHYANA COSME, TIMOTHY GOCKLIN, and The Class They Seek to Represent, v. PATINA ORLANDO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a TUTTO ITALIA RISTORANTE and VIA NAPOLI REISTORANTE E PIZZERIA And WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. d/b/a EPCOT, Case No. 6:23-cv-00796-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to stay all class certification briefing. -- Since the issuance of the Order staying class certification, the Plaintiffs have noticed two depositions and Defendant Patina is in the process of setting both named plaintiffs depositions. -- Due to scheduling conflicts between counsel of all three parties, as well as those of the witnesses, none of these depositions are scheduled before July. -- Presently, class certification will be unnecessary if the Motions to Dismiss are granted in full. If the Motions to Dismiss are granted in part, or the Court grants Patina's Alternative Motion to Strike, the issues on which discovery is needed will be limited and class certification briefing may be unnecessary. On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs initiated this action and filed a Complaint. On May 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint to correct a filing error where the wrong Defendant had been named. On July 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint to add Disney as a named Defendant. On Sept. 29, 2023, Patina and Disney moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' third amended complaint. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nivvXd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Henson, Esq. Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone (407) 428-6241 Facsimile: (407) 245-3342 E-mail: jjhenson@forthepeople.com mgunter@forthepeople.com ssnider@forthepeople.com PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Sues Over Funding for Public Defense System -------------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) filed a class-action lawsuit alleging Pennsylvania does not fund indigent defense enough to provide effective counsel, the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania (PDAP) reports. Indigent defense is the legal requirement for a government to provide a defendant with an attorney if they cannot afford one. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to counsel as the right to an effective lawyer as determined in Strickland v. Washington. A report from the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice found that over 90% of Pennsylvania's Public Defenders officers do not have enough attorneys. It also found the state is short at least 350 Public Defenders. "For our courts to be fair, for our system to be just, Public Defenders need enough resources to do the job the Constitution requires," Vice President of PDAP Chris Welsh said. "Public Defenders want to provide effective assistance of counsel and client-centered representation for some of Pennsylvania's most vulnerable residents. Public Defenders cannot meet the most basic obligations of a fair justice system without funding for sufficient salaries to recruit and retain talented attorneys or without crucial support from social workers, investigators and experts." Most current funding for Public Defenders offices comes from individual counties. According to ACLU-PA, Governor Josh Shapiro allocated $7.5 million in indigent defense last year, but with 67 counties spending more than $125 million annually, it is not enough. The PDAP reports Governor Shapiro pledged $10 million in indigent funding in this year's budget. [GN] PERDUE FOODS: Tripp Suit Seeks Conditional Class 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"; and -- permitting 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 Plaintiff says that the members of the Proposed Collective all signed the same Poultry Producer Agreement authored and enforced by Perdue, and all were subject to either identical or substantially similar guidelines and supervision. Perdue controlled all members of the Proposed Collective in the same way, and it paid them all in the same manner, including by inappropriately deducting from their pay expenses that Perdue required these employees to incur for Perdue's sole benefit the Plaintiff adds. Perdue is a food production company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=unGJCb 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 PERMIAN RESOURCES: Short Sues Over Price Fixing of Crude Oil ------------------------------------------------------------ MELVIN SHORT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04506 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2024) seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws in connection with the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix crude oil prices in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants' agreement to limit their respective shale production volumes has had the effect of fixing and/or stabilizing at an artificially high-level U.S. (and global) crude oil prices, which in turn fixed and/or stabilized retail gasoline prices in the United States at an artificially high level. Moreover, the Defendants' agreement is complimented by their cooperation and collusion with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the international cartel of large oil producing nations, who also sought to raise oil prices through managing oil production during this period. Between 2017 and 2023, the Defendants met and communicated regularly with each other, and with OPEC, to coordinate their collective oil output in response to market conditions, says the suit. Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation is an oil and gas production company that acquires and processes shale oil in Texas and New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian E. Hudson, Esq. Michael J. Flannery, Esq. Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor, Ste. 12060 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com mflannery@cuneolaw.com charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com donbarrettpa@gmail.com KBRiley@barrettlawgroup.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Strupp et al. Sue Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BLACKBURN STRUPP, PREMIUM SOLUTIONS, INC., JAMES KINKEAD, JOHN SMITH, and BEST EXPEDITE, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION f/k/a PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00605 (D.N.M., June 13, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the antitrust, fair competition, and consumer protection laws by conspiring with each other to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had the purpose and effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil in and throughout the United States, and worldwide. Allegedly, the Defendants have also conspired with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, an international consortium of oil producing nations generally considered to act as an oil cartel, to constrain production of crude oil. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of persons and entities that paid artificially inflated prices for diesel fuel, seeking for injunctive relief, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, compensatory damages, and other appropriate relief. Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation produces crude oil from shale oil formations, largely in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. The company sells crude oil into the U.S. domestic market where it is refined and disseminated across the country. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nancy R. Long, Esq. Jonas M. Nahoum, Esq. LONG, KOMER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. P.O. Box 5098 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5098 Telephone: (505) 982-8405 E-mail: nancy@longkomer.com jonas@longkomer.com email@longkomer.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Brett Cebulash, Esq. Kevin Landau, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLC 123 Williams St., Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com bcebulash@tcllaw.com PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Securities Suit Over 11.46% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises PetMed Express, Inc. ("PetMed" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PETS) investors that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors. PetMed investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or click here to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. On June 11, 2024, PetMed issued a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2024. Among other items, PetMed reported a net loss per share of $0.25, compared to a net loss per share of $0.01 in the year-ago period. Although PetMed reported a net increase in sales year over year, that was outweighed by an increase in overall operating expenses. PetMed had approximately $55.3 million in cash at the end of fiscal year 2024, compared to approximately $104.1 million at the end of fiscal year 2023. On this news, PetMed's stock price fell $0.54 per share, or 11.46%, to close at $4.17 per share on June 12, 2024. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] PLAINSCAPITAL BANK: Burks Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATTI BURKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLAINSCAPITAL BANK., Case No. 3:23-cv-02472-N D (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey entered an order: -- granting PCB's motion to compel individual arbitration of Burks' Claims; and -- granting Burks's motion to dismiss, dismissing without prejudice all claims in this action. Burks argues that courts have held that until a class action is certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the claims of potential class members cannot be considered. Burks cites Biscone v. Jetblue Airways Corp. to support her argument. Burks's reliance on Biscone is misplaced, as it discusses whether federal jurisdiction exists when the prospective class members' federal claims provide the basis for removal to federal Court. That is not the issue this Court faces. Instead, the Court examines whether it can dismiss putative class claims prior to class certification. Because the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice, any class member would still be entitled to bring a separate action against PCB. This suit has not garnered such great publicity that putative class members would likely have relied on the suit in their decision to not file an individual suit. Furthermore, the cost to parties to provide notice cannot be justified in a case where the named plaintiff herself concedes that an arbitration provision in the operative agreements controls the dispute and seeks to voluntarily dismiss her own individual claims in favor of arbitration. Accordingly, the Court finds that notice to the putative class is not necessary and dismisses without prejudice both Burks’s individual claims and the putative class claims. Burks brings this putative class action claiming that PCB unlawfully disclosed her and other class members' personal identifying information. PlainsCapital offers leading services including personal banking, commercial banking, and wealth management. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E1H1WF at no extra charge.[CC] PPG INDUSTRIES: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Class Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00838-WSH-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting this joint motion and extending the deadline to complete class certification discovery to Sept. 23, 2024. Pursuant to the Court's Order on March 18, 2024, class certification fact discovery is set to close on June 24, 2024. Due to the complexity of the issues in this case, and the resulting complexity of ongoing discovery, the Parties request additional time to complete class certification fact discovery. Accordingly, the Parties also request that the Court reschedule the Post-Discovery Status Conference currently scheduled for June 26, 2024, to a date convenient for the Court after Sept. 23, 2024. The Parties will both benefit from the requested extension, as it will allow them additional time to complete necessary discovery in advance of the filing of Plaintiffs' certification motion(s). Neither party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. There has been only one previous extension of discovery in this matter. PPG is a supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ktr9QN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. Sarah Sears, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert W. Pritchard, Esq. Katelyn W. McCombs, Esq. Sean P. Dawson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-7628/7641/7601 Facsimile: (412) 774-1957 E-mail: rpritchard@littler.com kmccombs@littler.com sdawson@littler.com PREGIS LLC: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Bazinett ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lori Bazinett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Pregis, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00790-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order: -- Any motion to join any person as a party to July 31, 2024 this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this July 31, 2024 action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file a status Sept. 18, 2024 report on or before: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are June 3, 2024 to be exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must July 10, 2024 be served by: -- All discovery in this matter is to be May 1, 2025 completed on or before: A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4meln at no extra charge.[CC] PRIVATE NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Processors' OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Harris, an Arizona Resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Private National Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01328-SMB (D. Ariz., June 4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective Members' overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were compensated with a salary and bonuses. They also worked off the clock hours without overtime compensation. In 2021, the Defendant changed Plaintiff's pay classification from non-exempt to exempt. Since 2021, the Defendant has misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee. In 2022, the Plaintiff worked at least 60 hours per week. In 2023, the Plaintiff worked between 40 and 60 hours per week. In 2024, the Plaintiff worked between 40 and 55 hours per week. However, the Plaintiff did not receive any additional compensation for overtime hours worked. The Defendant also did not incorporate the Plaintiff's bonuses into her overtime, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff for the Defendant with a title of a CDL III Pipeline Accounts Manager, Home Loan Specialist III, or Senior Loan Processor since July 2016. Private is a real estate company which conducts mortgage-related business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com www.weilerlaw.com PRO CUSTOM: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 8 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIEMCZYK v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-07846-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael Hammer entered an order granting request for a one-month extension to the class certification deadlines ordered by the Court on Apr. 26, 2024. Event Current Requested Deadline Extension Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 7, 2024 July 8, 2024 Certification Defendant's Opposition Motion July 29, 2024 Aug. 30, 2024 for Class Certification Plaintiffs' Reply in Support Aug. 30, 2024 Sept. 30, 2024 of Class Certification A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bVsfJ8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net The Defendant is represented by: Thomas J. Cotton, Esq. SCHENK, PRICE, SMITH & KING, LLP 220 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932-0991 Telephone: (973) 539-1000 E-mail: tjc@spsk.com PRO CUSTOM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Walters Extended to July 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTERS et al., v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00247-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael Hammer entered an order granting request for a one-month extension to the class certification deadlines ordered by the Court on Apr. 26, 2024. Event Current Requested Deadline Extension Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 7, 2024 July 8, 2024 Certification Defendant's Opposition Motion July 29, 2024 Aug. 30, 2024 for Class Certification Plaintiffs' Reply in Support Aug. 30, 2024 Sept. 30, 2024 of Class Certification Pro Custom provides renewable energy services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qKE2sL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net The Defendant is represented by: Thomas J. Cotton, Esq. SCHENK, PRICE, SMITH & KING, LLP 220 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932-0991 Telephone: (973) 539-1000 E-mail: tjc@spsk.com PRO VACATION: Stone Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHALINA STONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PRO VACATION GROUP LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00085-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery against the Defendant for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vqcncY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com PROENTEL INDY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Pinell et al. Suit Say ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Antonio Pinell, Juan Francisco Jarquin, Gerald Oswaldo Urbina and Michael Antonio Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROENTEL INDY LLC d/b/a Proentel USA and Julio Guerrero, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00998-MPB-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 11, 2024) arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as technical specialists and were regularly required to work more than 40 hours in a week. However, the Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages to Plaintiffs. They also failed to keep proper time records tracking time worked. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek compensation for Defendants' negligence under supplemental jurisdiction theories of recovery. Based Indianapolis, IN, Proentel Indy LLC operates a business in the telecommunications industry, providing services to the wireless, telecommunications and energy sectors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC 6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300 Chicago, IL. 60646 Telephone: (773) 415-4898 E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Henson Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH HENSON and DIANA DASALLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS and PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE CO., Ohio corporations, Case No. 5:22-cv-00182-M (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Myers II entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, the sealing requests are granted and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. Common issues do not predominate over individual ones, rendering a class action inferior to other methods of dispute resolution. As a result of this denial, this court may no longer exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. In addition, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, this court likewise lacks diversity subject matter jurisdiction. The absence of subject matter jurisdiction compels dismissal (without prejudice) of this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Plaintiffs Sarah Henson and Diana Dasalla, both North Carolina citizens, purchased automobile insurance from the Defendants. Their respective form insurance policies with Progressive provide that, if their vehicles are totaled in an accident, Progressive will pay them the "Actual Cash Value" ("ACV") of the vehicle. The Plaintiffs were involved in separate car accidents, in which their vehicles were totaled. The Plaintiffs did not demand independent appraisals of their loss. Instead, years after accepting claims settlements from Progressive, they instituted this action, on their own behalf as well as a putative class of similarly situated individuals, in which they allege that Progressive paid them less than ACV, in violation of the Policy. Progressive operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rGppO5 at no extra charge.[CC] PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boyd Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE BOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06818 (D.N.J., June 7, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, the suit added. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. provides financial services throughout the United States and several locations worldwide. The Company offers a variety of products and services, including life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension, and retirement related services, as well as administration and asset management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq. SCIOLLA LAW FIRM, LLC Land Title Building, Suite 1910 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (267) 328-5245 Facsimile: (215) 972-1545 Email: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC, Esq. 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com PURDUE PHARMA: Court Refuses to Stay $150MM Opioid Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that In a recent class action lawsuit, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to stay the implementation of a $150 million settlement between Canada and the Canadian Governments over opioid-related healthcare costs. The motion to stay was brought by the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, Lac La Ronge Indian Band, the City of Grand Prairie, and the Corporation of the City of Brantford. The moving parties sought to halt the settlement until Purdue Canada demonstrated that it was not unlawful, prejudicial, or an abuse of process. The settlement, approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, involved claims to recover healthcare costs expended by 14 federal, provincial, and territorial governments in Canada. The negotiations lasted over two years and culminated in an agreement reached in May 2022. The court found no merit in the moving parties' claims that Purdue Canada needed to prove its financial stability before proceeding with the settlement. The moving parties argued that Purdue Canada, which had benefited from a stay of proceedings granted by the Ontario court, should disclose its financial status to ensure the settlement's fairness. They expressed concerns about Purdue Canada's ability to satisfy any future judgments, suggesting that the company might be insolvent or unable to pay additional claims. The Ontario Superior Court, however, noted that Purdue Canada was not a debtor in the ongoing Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States but was related to the Purdue US companies through common ownership by the Sackler families. The related party stay granted by the Ontario court was intended to pause litigation and facilitate a global resolution of opioid-related claims. Still, it did not restrict Purdue Canada from negotiating settlements. Despite the moving parties' concerns about Purdue Canada's solvency, the court found that the evidence did not support these claims. Purdue Canada's general manager testified that the settlement payments could be made over seven years without compromising the company's operations. The court emphasized that the settlement was structured to allow Purdue Canada to remain a going concern while making the necessary payments. The court also noted that other Canadian litigants had successfully obtained lift stay orders to pursue their claims against Purdue Canada, indicating that the moving parties had similar opportunities to advance their actions. Additionally, the court found no evidence that Purdue Canada had failed to act in good faith throughout the proceedings. Ultimately, the court ruled that there was no sufficient basis to grant the requested orders or stay the settlement, affirming that Purdue Canada had acted in good faith and had negotiated the settlement at arm's length with the Canadian Governments. The motion was dismissed, allowing the settlement to proceed. [GN] RAYTHEON: Job Ads Amount to Age Discrimination, Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Emilie Shumway of HRDIVE reports that Raytheon Technologies Corp., a major aerospace and defense company with nearly 200,000 employees, "intentionally and effectively excludes nearly all older workers from qualifying for, competing for, and obtaining many jobs at Raytheon," according to a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged the company writes targeted job postings that use phrases like "recent college graduates," "new college graduate," "new graduate" and "recent graduate" and requires applicants to have limited work experience, provide a copy of their college transcript and list their month and year of college graduation. According to the lawsuit, the 67-year-old lead plaintiff has applied for at least seven such positions at Raytheon in the past few years. He "met all the qualifications, except he was not a recent college graduate and he did not have less than 12 or 24 months of relevant work experience," the lawsuit said, resulting in the company failing to consider him. Such conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the plaintiff and his representation -- including the AARP Foundation -- said. The plaintiff is also bringing the lawsuit under the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of qualified applicants aged 40 and older who applied for and were denied or were deterred from applying to one of Raytheon's "recent graduate positions." Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against Raytheon from engaging in age discrimination, front and back pay, and damages. Raytheon denied the allegations in a statement to HR Dive. "RTX complies with all relevant age discrimination laws and we're committed to maintaining a diverse workforce," the company said. "We believe these claims are entirely without merit and we will actively defend our hiring practices." When it comes to age discrimination claims, job ads are a common trip wire for companies. Last June, in a settlement that also featured the AARP Foundation, Target agreed to monitor its job ads to ensure they don't target younger workers and committed to expand its recruitment efforts by recruiting on websites focused on older workers, using images of older workers and participating in job fairs that commonly reach older workers. [GN] RED LOBSTER: Parket Named as Plaintiff in WARN ACT Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Baker, writing for KRON4, reports that a former employee at a Bay Area Red Lobster has been named as the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleging the restaurant chain failed to provide adequate notice in nationwide layoffs last month. George Parker was an employee at the Rohnert Park Red Lobster, one of several locations that were abruptly closed in May. According to the lawsuit, which was filed by Los Angeles law firm Melmed Law Group, Red Lobster violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN Act), and the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (California Warn Act). Parker, and the other California Red Lobster workers, were let go abruptly on May 13, without the required 60 days advance notice, the lawsuit alleges. "The mass termination on or about May 13, 2024, violated the notice requirements of the WARN Act because it failed to give Plaintiff, the Federal Class members, and the California Class members at least sixty (60) days' advance written notice of termination," the suit states. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, was in two parts; one for Federal WARN Act Class Allegations, and another for California WARN Act Class Allegations. According to the lawsuit, the defendants "failed to pay Plaintiff and each of the Federal Class Members their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, health and life insurance premiums, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation" for 60 days following their abrupt terminations. Red Lobster also "failed to provide employee benefits including health insurance" for 60 days from and after the termination dates. The lawsuit is seeking damages for WARN Act violations up to the amount of $15,150 per employee. [GN] RETRO SNACKS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Reid Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- NADRECA REID, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. RETRO SNACKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04473 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The inaccessibility of Defendant's website has deterred Plaintiff from making an online purchase of the Sticky Cinnamon and the Build Your Own Bundle toaster pastries. Moreover, the Defendant failed to take actions to correct the website's access barriers in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members, says the suit. Based in Montreal, Canada, Retro Snacks, Inc. is a Delaware Foreign business corporation that owns and operates the website, eatflings.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to view and purchase the various flavors of toaster pastries and learn about promotions, among other features. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone. (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com REVLON INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Givens Due Dec. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME GIVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REVLON, INC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00857-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered a first amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Mediation must occur by this date: Nov. 10, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiff to file June 18, 2024 amended pleadings (A motion for leave to amend is required): Deadline for Defendant’s final amended July 2, 2024 pleadings (A motion for leave to amend is required): Completion of class certification fact Nov. 10, 2024 discovery necessary for class certification briefing: Deadline to file motion for class Dec. 10, 2024 Certification: Plaintiff's Disclosure of experts to be Dec. 10, 2024 relied upon in support of Motion for Class Certification” Deadline to file opposition to motion Jan. 11, 2025 for class certification: Defendants' Disclosure of experts to Jan. 11, 2025 be relied upon in support of Motion for Class Certification: Reply in support of class certification: Feb. 25, 2025 Class certification hearing March 20, 2025 Deadlines concerning discovery remaining after a ruling on Plaintiff’s class certification motion, deadlines to designate merits experts, objections to expert witnesses, dispositive motions, and a pretrial schedule will be addressed after the Court has decided the motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to Cancel the February 6, 2025, Final Pretrial Conference. Revlon is an American multinational company dealing in cosmetics, skin care, perfume, and personal care. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LcbDhc at no extra charge.[CC] RISEWELL LLC: Faces False Ads Class Action Over Toothpaste Safety ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that A proposed class action lawsuit alleges RiseWell Kids Mineral Toothpaste is falsely advertised as safe and "clean" given that the product contains high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as forever chemicals. The 36-page toothpaste PFAS lawsuit says that although RiseWell advertises the Kids Mineral Toothpaste as "natural," "safe to swallow" and chemical free, the product, according to commissioned lab testing, contains more than 188 parts per billion of the human-made, synthetic substances, which do not break down quickly and build up in the body over time after repeated exposure. The PFAS test results for RiseWell Kids Mineral Toothpaste stand in stark contrast to the manufacturer's marketing claims, and no reasonable consumer would expect a product touted as safe to swallow, natural and toxin-free to contain PFAS chemicals, the suit contends. "Nonetheless, Defendants attempt to make its claims credible to consumers by promising consumers that their labeling practices are more trustworthy than competitors' labeling practices," the filing alleges. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are groups of complex chemicals often used to make nonstick cookware, water-repellant clothing, and stain-resistant fabrics; they can also be found in firefighting foams and items that resist grease and oil, the filing explains. Per the suit, PFAS exposure, such as through water supplies or products packaged with PFAS-containing material, have been linked to cholesterol increases, hormone and immune system disruptions, and an increased risk of cancers, among other adverse health effects. In children, the suit emphasizes, PFAS exposure has been linked to a lower antibody response for some vaccines, thus rendering kids more vulnerable to diseases from which they otherwise would be immunized. The presence of PFAS in RiseWell Kids Mineral Toothpaste is "particularly alarming" since the product is intended specifically for children, and the mouth and oral tissue serve as "efficient entry points" for PFAS in both children and adults, the case says. According to the proposed class action lawsuit, the plaintiff's counsel commissioned a Department of Defense Environmental Lab Accreditation Program-certified lab to test the RiseWell kids' toothpaste at issue. Testing of the product packaging and toothpaste itself showed that the product was contaminated with unacceptably high levels of PFAS, the complaint relays. In particular, the plaintiff's testing revealed the presence of perflourodecanoic acid in the toothpaste, which, according to a study of children between three and 11 years old, found that the chemical was "significantly associated with dental caries," namely tooth decay or cavities, the filing shares. "Defendants ironically note that '[t]he lack of regulation within the cosmetic industry permits the use of harmful ingredients, making it easy for many companies to hide behind labels like "natural ingredients," assuring consumers instead that, unlike its shifty competitors, RiseWell "let[s] you know every ingredient in all of [its] products,"'" the lawsuit reads. "Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, this promise does not include disclosing high levels of toxic PFAS chemicals." The RiseWell toothpaste class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who bought RiseWell Kids Mineral Toothpaste and all substantially similar products from June 11, 2020 to the present. [GN] RIVERDALE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RIVERDALE MANAGEMENT GROUP LTD., RIVERDALE AUTO CLINIC LLC, and RIVERDALE ELITE WASH LLC and JAMES PACKES and SAMANTHA PINEIRO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04474 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Morales was employed by Defendants as a car wash attendant while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around November 2019 until in or around February 2024. Allegedly, 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 willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Located in Bronx, NY, The Riverdale Management Group Ltd. offers auto repair and car cleaning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ROBERT HALF: Williams Balks at Irrevocable Resignation Requirement ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREG WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of ROBERT HALF, INC., Plaintiff v. ROBERT HALF, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-0612 (Del. Ch., June 5, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Robert Half, seeking declaratory relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective July 17, 2023. According to the complaint, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders' exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C. Sections 141(k), 211, and 141(b). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also impermissibly subverts the stockholder franchise. Absent the relief requested herein, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the Company's directors, says the suit. Robert Half, Inc. is an international human resource consulting firm. The company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive offices in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 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 ROBERT LUNA: Class Cert Hearing in Stewart Continued to August 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Stewart et al., v. Robert Luna et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II, entered an order granting the stipulation and continuing the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, from June 17, 2024, to Aug. 26, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs may submit additional briefing and evidence no later than July 29, 2024, and the Defendants may submit a response no later than August 12, 2024. On June 12, 2024, the parties submitted a joint stipulation indicating that the parties have an Informal Discovery Conference with Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, and requesting that the Court continue the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The parties also indicate that they have "been engaged in informal settlement discussions, and are in the process of confirming a private mediator and coordinating a date certain or a mediation with the hopes of reaching a global settlement of this case.” A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xHg5RJ at no extra charge.[CC] ROBLOX CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Roblox Corp. (NYSE:RBLX) securities between November 15, 2023 and May 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until August 12, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Roblox class action lawsuit. Captioned Li v. Roblox Corp., No. 24-cv-03484 (N.D. Cal.), the Roblox class action lawsuit charges Roblox and certain of Roblox's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Roblox class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-roblox-corp-class-action-lawsuit-rblx.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Roblox class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 12, 2024. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Roblox is an online entertainment publisher and distributor which also sells advertising space on those platforms. The Roblox class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Roblox's projected revenue outlook and anticipated bookings growth, due largely to expansion in Roblox's available platforms, changes in Roblox's digital technology (such as avatars), Roblox's shared economy with content creators, and advertising revenue. According to the Roblox class action lawsuit, in fact, Roblox faced difficulty converting daily active users into bookings and eventually blamed the very technology and platform growth Roblox lauded as revolutionary and revenue-generating for this bookings problem. The Roblox class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 8, 2024, Roblox revised down its fiscal year 2024 bookings guidance to $4.0 billion to $4.14 billion and revised down total revenue to $3.30 billion to $3.40 billion. On this news, the price of Roblox stock fell more than 22%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Roblox securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Roblox class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Roblox class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Roblox class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Roblox class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm was ranked #1 on the ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row Robbins Geller topped the list. And in those three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ROLLIN'R TRUCKING: Cartagena Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Orlando Cartagena, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Rollin' R Trucking LLC, One Cargo LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-01092 (M.D. Fla., June 13, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other federal regulations. Rollin'R Trucking employed Plaintiff Cartagena from approximately April 25, 2024, to May 13, 2024, or two weeks plus four days. On or about May 14, 2024, the Defendant fired Plaintiff and refused to pay Plaintiff his hard-earned wages for two weeks of work with a minimum of 84 working hours each. The Plaintiff was not paid at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate as required by law. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cartagena seeks to recover minimum wages for all hours worked during his entire employment period, liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by law. Rollin'R Trucking LLC and One Cargo LLC are transportation and trucking companies based in Orlando, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Filing of Fourth Amended Complaint Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DUARTE, et al., v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Brenda Weksler recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part, consistent with this order. Judge Weksler further recommended that: -- The Plaintiffs' request to amend their co-fiduciary claim is denied. If the Plaintiffs wish to amend this claim they must file a motion for reconsideration. -- The Plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint to add Plaintiffs Rick Ruberton and Linda Ruberton is granted. -- The Plaintiffs must file a revised Fourth Amended Complaint that solely adds Plaintiffs Rick Ruberton and Linda Ruberton within 30 days of the date of the Order. The Court entered an order that discovery is reopened for the sole purpose of allowing the Defendants to depose Plaintiffs Rick Ruberton and Linda Ruberton. If Defendants wish to depose the Ruberton Plaintiffs, they must do so within 60 days of the date of this Order. The Court further ordered that the parties are to meet and confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification within 14 days of the date of this Order. The Plaintiffs timely sought leave to amend within the discovery period. Though discovery has since closed, other case deadlines have not yet passed. And any potential prejudice to the Caesars Defendants can be mitigated by reopening discovery to allow them to depose the Rubertons. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to allow the addition of the Ruberton Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiffs' co-fiduciary claim was dismissed with prejudice, the Plaintiffs were required to move for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal order to amend this claim. The Court therefore denies the Motion as to the co-fiduciary claim. But because the Caesars Defendants failed to establish that they would be prejudiced by the addition of the two plaintiffs, the Court grants the Motion to allow the Rubertons to join the case. The Plaintiffs brought this ERISA action because they allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and caused Plaintiffs' retirement plans to lose more than $100 million in potential investment earnings. The Plaintiffs initially brought a co-fiduciary claim against the Caesars Defendants1 for allegedly enabling the Russell Funds' poor investment strategies. The Court, however, dismissed said claim. The Plaintiffs have thrice amended their complaint, each time adding or removing named Plaintiffs Russell operates as an investment advisor. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GMo5GC at no extra charge.[CC] RXO INC: Smith Sues Over Irrevocable Resignation Requirement ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL SMITH, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of RXO, INC., Plaintiff v. RXO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-0611 (Del. Ch., June 5, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Company public stockholders, against the Defendant to seek declaratory relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective November 1, 2022. According to the complaint, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders' exclusive right to select the members of the Board. The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement is contrary to 8 Del. C. Sections 141(k), 211, and 141(b). The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also impermissibly subverts the stockholder franchise. Absent the relief requested herein, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the Company's directors, says the suit. RXO, Inc. provides transportation brokering services. The Defendant is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive offices in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 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 SAINT LUKE'S: Fails to Pay Nurse's OT Wages, Kaiser Says -------------------------------------------------------- Vicki Kaiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saint Luke's Health System, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00786 (E.D. Mo., June 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant's practice of failing to relieve nurses and technicians of their duties during meal periods, while simultaneously using timekeeping software to deduct meal periods from the total time paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting for meal periods which nurses/technicians were not free to take without interruption), had the effect of depriving nurses and technicians of overtime compensation due to them under the FLSA in each workweek in which they worked more than 40 hours, and straight-time compensation at their respective contractual hourly rate(s) in weeks in which they worked fewer than 40 hours in a week, the lawsuit contends. Despite Defendant's actual knowledge that the Plaintiff and the putative Class and Collective Action Members worked during supposed "meal breaks," the Defendant willfully failed to compensate them for such work, electing instead to accept the benefits of their work without compensation, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff is a registered nurse who began working for the Defendant on Feb. 20, 2017, through Nov. 15, 2023. She earned $47.00 per hour. Saint Luke's is a faith-based, nonprofit aligned health system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Homeless Mistreatment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Nelson, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that early one morning in 2022, Christy Gillette was woken by sheriff's deputies. The officers told her to move or face arrest. Gillette, who's now 51, had been sleeping outside near the Santee Drive-In and responded that she couldn't leave without her walker. The deputies instead threw the walker away, along with the cremated ashes of her husband and son. That story is part of a new class-action lawsuit alleging that officers and government workers from around the region are repeatedly, and illegally, throwing out homeless residents' personal property in East County. More than a dozen people joined the suit to say they've lost items that were sentimental (like a great-grandfather's pocket knife or a daughter's first tooth), potentially valuable (a horoscope book from 1888) and life-saving (insulin), as well as hard-to-replace government documents like birth certificates. But their attorneys also argue that a lack of shelter beds countywide combined with new ordinances boosting penalties for sleeping outside are effectively criminalizing poverty. "Defendants' actions are making the homelessness crisis worse," according to the lawsuit filed in San Diego federal court. Their "constant and relentless threats of criminal punishment upon Citizens for being poor and unhoused are a cruel and ineffective approach that betrays a deep, willful misunderstanding of the problem." Representatives for many agencies accused of mistreatment did not want to speak on the matter. Santee Mayor John Minto said he wasn't yet familiar enough with the accusations to weigh in while spokespeople for the California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, the County of San Diego and San Diego's City Attorney declined comment. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department did not respond to a question about the suit. Homeless residents have long objected to losing the few things they own to clean-up crews, and one attorney on the case, Scott Dreher, has previously fought and won similar battles in other parts of the region. But East County has generally received less attention and Hope for the Homeless, a Lakeside-based nonprofit that's part of the lawsuit, is one of just a few groups advocating specifically for people in that area. Shelter is also scarce. El Cajon's East County Transitional Living Center is essentially the only all-purpose facility for multiple cities and efforts to create more beds in Lakeside, Santee and Spring Valley failed after neighbors complained. June 17's filing blasted the status quo. Caltrans staffers once allegedly arrived for an encampment sweep several days earlier than announced, the lawsuit said. Officials justified the rush by citing the threat of wildfires, but the crew appeared to only get rid of personal property while leaving piles of freshly cut shrubbery in the sun. Residents of encampments often get paper notices ahead of a sweep, and those signs sometimes include a line where a number can be written for people to call in order to claim their property. Yet that line is often left blank, according to the suit. Having a number to call may not improve much. Last year, a lawyer dialed a number written on a cleanup notice only to be directed to a different office. The attorney left a voicemail at the new number. Nobody called back. They reached out again. Still nothing. The suit also suggested some items may have been stolen by those doing the sweeps. One man said he watched "Caltrans, SDPD officers, and Sheriff's deputies sort through and place . . . valuable items from the site into their vehicles," the lawsuit said. "When he went to reclaim his belongings pursuant to the posted 'Notice,' nothing was provided." All of this is illegal under the U.S. and California constitutions, the group said. The suit asked for a jury trial, the return of people's property and an unspecified amount of compensation, among other demands. The case's fate could be affected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to decide later this year how much leeway cities should have when clearing encampments. [GN] SANDRA ROPKA: Initial Disclosures in Intact Suit Due July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTACT INSURANCE GROUP USA LLC et al., v. SANDRA ROPKA, Case No. 2:24-cv-00668-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead entered an order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement. Event Date Deadline for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) July 3, 2024 Conference Initial Disclosures under Fed. R. July 17, 2024 Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Combined Joint Status Report and July 24, 2024 Discovery Plan as Required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f) A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HZhJDr at no extra charge.[CC] SANTA MONICA, CA: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA and SHERMAN A. PERRYMAN, individually and as class representatives, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs on July 5, 2024, will move the Court for an order as follows: -- preliminarily approving the settlement and certifying a class for settlement purposes only with the class defined as follows: Owners of vehicles impounded by employees of defendants City of Santa Monica and/or Santa Monica Police Department at any time from July 28, 2020 through Nov. 22, 2022, where such impounds were pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code § 14602.6(a)(1); -- preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Reyes Contreras Murcia and Sherman A. Perryman as settlement class representatives; -- preliminarily appointing attorneys Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Christian Contreras and Donald W. Cook as class counsel for settlement purposes; -- preliminarily find that the terms of the settlement as set forth in ECF 61-1 hereto are fair, reasonable, adequate and comply with F.R.Cv.P. 23(e); -- approving the form, substance and requirements of the proposed Class Notice (ECF 61-2); the Opt-Out Form (ECF 61-3) and the Update Form (ECF 61-4); -- setting a date for final approval of the class settlement, as well as a date for a class member (a) to object to the settlement and any of its terms, including attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards; or (b) to exclude him- or herself from the settlement by opting-out; -- setting a date for distribution of settlement funds to class members; and -- setting a date for hearing Plaintiffs' motion for an award of Attorneys' fees and costs. Pursuant to L.R. 7-3 and the settlement agreement the parties reached, Plaintiffs’ understanding is that defendants will not oppose this motion. The Plaintiffs sued the City of Santa Monica, its police department and three city officials. Individually, the Plaintiffs Reyes Contreras Murcia and Sherman A. Perryman sue contending the defendants wrongfully seized and impounded under Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6 Plaintiffs respective vehicles (Murcia vehicle impounded July 23, 2022; Perryman vehicle impounded June 24, 2021). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4quq2R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Contreras, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS, A PROF. CORP. 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (323) 435-8000 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101 E-mail: cc@contreras-law.com - and - Donald w. Cook, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com - and - Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com SCISSORTAIL ENERGY: Reps Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Scissortail Energy, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00352-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Class Representatives ask the Court to enter an order granting: 1. final certification of the Settlement Class; 2. final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class; and 3. final approval of the Notice to Class Members. The Court properly certified the Settlement Class and, because Class Representatives have proven that each of the requirements for certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) remain satisfied, this finding should be confirmed with the final certification of the Settlement Class under Rule 23. Because the proposed Initial Plan of Allocation was formulated by competent and experienced Counsel and is based on the type and extent of each Class Member's particular loss, the Court should approve it as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Defendant is an operator of natural gas and energy pipelines in central and eastern Oklahoma. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lWAY8P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – James U. White, Jr., Esq. WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C. Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com SCOTT SEMPLE: Vega Allowed to File Renewed Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harry Vega, et al., v. Scott Semple, et al., , Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-MEG (D. Conn.), Hon. Judge Maria Garcia entered an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification with the modifications to the class definition. The Defendant is directed to file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs will provide notice to putative class members, who will have the opportunity to opt out of the lawsuit if they choose to do so. The parties are directed to meet and confer to discuss (1) any modifications to the class definition, (2) class notice, and (3) the best approach for briefing the medical conditions issue. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed class notice and propose deadlines for briefing the issue of medical conditions, other than lung cancer. The parties will address whether further expert discovery is needed, propose a schedule for completion of this discovery (if it is necessary) and address whether this issue is better addressed in a motion for summary judgment. A status conference will be scheduled thereafter. This is not a recommended ruling. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge, who may therefore direct the entry of a judgment of the district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Appeals may be made directly to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. It is so ordered. The Court modifies the three Proposed Classes and certifies the following: (1) Declaratory/Injunctive Relief Class: "Post conviction inmates or pre-trial detainees currently in DOC custody—who are incarcerated at Garner and/or have been incarcerated at Garner at any point from June 18, 1993 through the present—who are suffering ongoing violations of their federal constitutional rights related to radon exposure and/or will require periodic medical monitoring to determine the impact of the radon exposure and provide treatment, in the event monitoring reveals class members suffered physical symptoms as a result of their exposure to excessive levels of radon." (2) Current Inmate Damages Class: "Post-conviction inmates or pre-trial detainees currently in DOC custody—who are incarcerated at Garner and/or have been incarcerated at Garner at any point from June 18, 1993 through the present—who developed lung cancer or may be diagnosed in the future with lung cancer as a result of exposure to radon levels exceeding the EPA standard." The diagnoses of chronic, nonmalignant lung diseases (such as COPD, emphysema, chronic interstitial pneumonia, pulmonary fibrosis) and degenerative conditions (such a multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Paget's disease of the bone) may be included at a later time. (3) Former Inmate Damages Class: "Individuals no longer in DOC custody—who were post-conviction inmates or pre-trial detainees at Garner at any point from June 18, 1993 through the present—who developed lung cancer or may be diagnosed with lung cancer in the future as a result of exposure to radon levels exceeding the EPA standard." The diagnoses of chronic, nonmalignant lung diseases (such as COPD, emphysema, chronic interstitial pneumonia, pulmonary fibrosis) and degenerative conditions (such a multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and Paget's disease of the bone) may be included at a later time. The Plaintiffs allege exposure to indoor radon gas while housed at Garner Correctional Institution from June 18, 1993 to the present. They also allege that the Defendants "intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs based on non-penological reasons" that are not "rationally related to a legitimate government purpose." The Plaintiffs include Michael Cruz, Jeffrey Perry, Lee Grenier, Tavorus Fluker, Anthony Rogers, Thomas Marra, Lawrence Townsend, Terrence Easton, Lamont Samuel, John Bosse, J. Michael Farren, Brett Fennessy and Emisael Tirado. The Defendants include James Dzurenda, Lee Arnone, Theresa Lantz, James Armstrong, Lawrence Meachum, Henry Falcone, Steven Link, David Batten, Angel Quiros, Rollin Cook, Denise Dilworth, Anthony Corcella, Craig Washington, and Richard Pease. A copy of the Court's ruling dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xTVvnj at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT REHABILITATION: Scott Hardt Named as Class Representative ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN et. al. v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the claims in Count III of the Third Amended Complaint as a Class Action for violations of the Illinois State overtime wage law 820 ILCS 105/4(a) (the "Illinois Minimum Wage Law" or the "IMWL") on behalf of the putative class of similarly situated therapists who worked for Select Rehabilitation LLC in the state of Illinois; -- designating named Plaintiff Scott Hardt, as Class Representative; and -- appointing the undersigned counsel and their firms as class counsel. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request the right to conduct discovery on the Illinois Therapist class and submit a revised or renewed motion within 120 days. The Plaintiffs present declarations from Illinois class members attesting to working off the clock in an effort to meet productivity expectations (requirements), in addition to declarations from Program Managers who attest to knowledge of the same and Select's practice of both pressuring Therapists to meet productivity expectations and daily enforcement of the same. Therapists do not want to lose their job, so they suffer to work off the clock. The Court can apply common sense and agree that hourly employees do not voluntarily forfeit up to 5 or more hours of pay at time and 1/2 each week if they could report and claim this time for just completing the mandatory job duties and responsibilities assigned to them. This practice and scheme has permeated the work culture at Select across the U.S, including Illinois for years. The Plaintiffs have amply demonstrated that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. The merits of the claims and Select's arguments in opposition are best left for another day. On Feb. 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint seeking Rule 23 Class Action treatment of the Illinois state law claims. The operative complaint, the Third Amended Complaint added Scott Hardt as a named Plaintiff and class representative for the class of Illinois Therapists on the claim for overtime wages in Count III under Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). Select is a provider of contract rehabilitation services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w88BX8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road #225 Tampa, FL 33626 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com - and - Benjamin L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW P.A. 123 18th Avenue N., Unit A Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 580-6060 E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com SHOWS CALI: Court OKs Renewed Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRIS CALOGERO, et al. V. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06709-BWA-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ashe entered an order: -- Granting Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification; -- Certifying umbrella class in the form of the following subclasses: The umbrella class consists of all Louisiana residents who received a Road Home homeowner's grant for personal, family, or household purposes to whom defendants Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLP, Mary Catherine Cali, and/or John C. Walsh sent a collection letter in the form of exhibit 4 and/or exhibit 5 of the second amended complaint within the one-year period prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and who also fall into one or more of the following three subclasses: Subclass 2 (which relates to Plaintiffs' second claim) consists of those to whom SCW sent a collection letter in the form of exhibit 4 and/or exhibit 5 (which letter did not state that the alleged debt was not legally enforceable or otherwise acknowledge a potential statute-of-limitations problem and that a payment would renew the debt) more than ten years after the grant agreement was signed or the State was notified of his or her alleged duplicate payments. Subclass 3 (which relates to Plaintiffs' third claim) consists of those to whom SCW sent a collection letter in the form of exhibit 4 and/or exhibit 5 which stated that "you may also be responsible for attorney fees," who did not receive duplicate payments after the grant agreement was signed. Subclass 4 (which relates to Plaintiffs' fourth claim) consists of those to whom SCW sent a promissory note in the form of exhibit 6 of the second amended complaint obligating them to repay alleged grant overpayments, without advising that signing the instrument would revive any statute of limitations that had run against legal action on the alleged debt. -- appointing Calogero and Randolph as class representatives for the umbrella class and subclasses 2 and 3, and -- appointing Randolph as class representative for subclass 4, and their attorneys are appointed as class counsel. The case arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), stemming from SCW's attempt to collect repayment of grant funds Plaintiffs received from the Louisiana Road Home program following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Shows, Cali is a law firm based out of Downtown Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wcDFyn at no extra charge.[CC] SILVERBOW RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Crescent ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating SilverBow Resources, Inc. (NYSE: SBOW), relating to its proposed merger with Crescent Energy Company. Under the terms of the agreement, SilverBow shareholders will receive 3.125 shares of Crescent Class A common stock for each share of SilverBow common stock, with the option to elect to receive all or a portion of the proceeds in cash at a value of $38 per share. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/silverbow-resources-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SIRUSXM CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Subscription Pricing Details ------------------------------------------------------------------ Siskinds LLP announced the filing of a proposed consumer class action against SiriusXM Radio Canada Inc. and SirusXM Canada Holdings Inc., which provides satellite radio and in-app streaming subscriptions, with ad-free music, celebrity-hosted talk, in-depth sports analysis, select play-by-play, and more. The class action alleges that SiriusXM breached the Competition Act and Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002 by failing to provide fair and transparent pricing details. Specifically, the class action alleges SiriusXM's misrepresented their subscription plan prices by concealing the additional Music Royalty and Administrative ("MRF") mandatory fee, which increased the monthly cost of SiriusXM radio plan subscriptions by up to 20.07%. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons in Canada, excluding Quebec, who purchased a SiriusXM Radio subscription plan from March 1, 2010 to July 18, 2024. Linda Visser, a partner and class action lawyer at Siskinds LLP stated: "Consumers are entitled to full and fair disclosure about prices. Misleading information, such as undisclosed fees, can result in consumers paying higher prices." Class Member Inquiries: If wish to join or receive updates on this prospective class action, we encourage you to complete the information form on the Siskinds LLP website at siskinds.com/siriusxm by clicking "Join". Inquiries can also be directed to SiriusXM@siskinds.com or toll-free at 1-800-461-6166. About Class Counsel Siskinds LLP Siskinds LLP is a pioneer in class action lawsuits and has been recognized as a top-tier Canadian firm by the Chambers and Partners, a global legal review organization, in their 2024 guide. The class actions team, comprised of 25 lawyers admitted to practice in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, New York State and Australia, acts exclusively for plaintiffs. https://www.siskinds.com/class-actions/ [GN] SMG FOOD: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ordono Extended to Oct. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines as follows: 1. Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is now Oct. 9, 2024. 2. Defendant's deadline to oppose is Nov. 8, 2024. 3. Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to Defendant's Opposition is now Nov. 29, 2024. 4. The hearing for Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until Dec. 12, 2024, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. Because the discovery process is ongoing, the Plaintiff requires additional time to complete the necessary discovery to file his Class Certification motion. On Jan. 18, 2024 the Court entered an order establishing a schedule for class certification briefing. SMG is a food service company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIkBd6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 315-0510 Facsimile: (323) 774-6021 E-mail: skroll@bcklegal.com SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ordono Due Oct. 9 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al. Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order approving parties' joint stipulation: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is now Oct. 9, 2024. -- The Defendant's deadline to oppose is Nov. 8, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to the Defendant's Opposition is now Nov. 29, 2024. -- The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be continued until Dec. 12, 2024, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. On Jan. 18, 2024 the Court entered an order establishing a schedule for class certification briefing. Since that time the parties have each served and responded to written discovery and have met and conferred regarding the same. SMG is a food service company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BroXpp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 315-0510 Facsimile: (323) 774-6021 E-mail: skroll@bcklegal.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: July 1 Opposition to Class Cert Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: -- Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on July 1, 2024, -- Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be due on Aug. 19, 2024, and -- The hearing remains on calendar for Sept. 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. On June 11, 2024, the Defendant asked Plaintiffs to stipulate to a modification of the opposition and reply brief deadlines as Defendant's counsel, Megan F. Clark, who is chiefly responsible for drafting the opposition to the Motion, has been suffering from personal health issues impacting her ability to prepare the opposition. Counsel for the Plaintiffs agreed to modify the opposition and reply brief deadlines on the Motion. The proposed modifications to the briefing schedule will not impact the Sept. 5, 2024 hearing date on the Motion or any other deadlines for the case. On June 2, 2022, the Court entered Pretrial Order No. 1, setting a Motion for Class Certification briefing schedule. On Feb. 29, 2024, the Court held a case management Conference and modified the briefing schedule on the Motion. Southwest is a major airline in the United States that operates on a low-cost carrier model. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a7mAbX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason M. Erlich, Esq. ERLICH LAW FIRM, P.C. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 390-9140 Facsimile: (510) 369-3876 E-mail: jason@erlichlawfirm.com - and - Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com The Defendant is represented by: Annie Lau, Esq. Megan F. Clark, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com mclark@fisherphillips.com SPORTS RESEARCH: Class Action Settlement in Capaci Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. 2. The court preliminarily certifies the class for the purposes of settlement. 3. The court preliminarily appoints plaintiff Cynthia Ford as class representative for settlement purposes. 4. The court preliminarily appoints the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as class counsel for settlement purposes. 5. The court preliminarily finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice. 7. The court appoints Classaura as settlement administrator. 8. Plaintiff shall file a motion for attorney's fees and costs, as well as any incentive payment, no later than July 22, 2024, and notice it for hearing for the date of the final approval hearing set forth below. 9. The Plaintiff shall, no later than Sept. 26, 2024, file and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any objections to the settlement. On April 14, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for class certification, and certified the following classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to plaintiff's claims under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation: -- Nationwide Class: "All persons who purchased Sports Research Cambogia that was labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" in the United States since April 26, 2015. The class is limited to those Who purchased the Product for personal and household use, and not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or return the Product." -- California Sub-Class: "All persons who purchased Sports Research Cambogia that was labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" in the State of California since April 26, 2015. The class is limited to those who purchased the Product for personal and household use, and not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or return the Product." The Plaintiff alleges that SR "markets 'Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia', a dietary supplement that Defendant falsely claims is an effective aid in 'weight management' and 'appetite control,' despite the fact that the Product's only purportedly active ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid ('HCA') and extra virgin organic coconut oil, are scientifically proven to be incapable of providing such weight loss benefits. " Sports Research provides health and wellness products that complement your lifestyle and enhance your well-being. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LXgUIG at no extra charge.[CC] SPORTS RESEARCH: Class Settlement in Capaci Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Order. 2. The court preliminarily certifies the class, as defined in section 6.1 of the Settlement Agreement, for the purposes of settlement. 3. The court preliminarily appoints plaintiff Cynthia Ford as class representative for settlement purposes. 4. The court preliminarily appoints the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as class counsel for settlement purposes. 5. The court preliminarily finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. The court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice. 7. The court appoints Classaura as settlement administrator. 8. The Plaintiff shall, no later than Sept. 26, 2024, file and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any objections to the settlement. On April 14, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for class certification, and certified the following classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to plaintiff's claims under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation: Nationwide Class: "All persons who purchased Sports Research Cambogia that was labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" in the United States since April 26, 2015. " The class is limited to those who purchased the Product for personal and household use, and not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or return the Product. " California Sub-Class: "All persons who purchased Sports Research Cambogia that was labeled "weight management" and/or "appetite suppression" in the State of California since April 26, 2015." The Plaintiff alleges that SR "markets 'ports Research Garcinia Cambogia,' a dietary supplement that Defendant falsely claims is an effective aid in 'weight management' and 'appetite control,' despite the fact that the Product's only purportedly active ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid ('HCA') and extra virgin organic coconut oil, are scientifically proven to be incapable of providing such weight loss benefits." Sports Research provides health and wellness products that complement your lifestyle and enhance your well-being. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2M3SXJ at no extra charge.[CC] STOP & SHOP: Fuller Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD FULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09824-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c): 1. Certifying all persons who purchased adhesive patches purporting to deliver lidocaine for "Up to 8 hours" sold by the Defendant under the CareOne (TM) brand in New York, from Nov. 17, 2019 through the present, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case; Defendant; any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; and persons who purchased the Product for the purpose of resale; 2. Appointing Edward Fuller as representative of the Class; and 3. Appointing Sheehan & Associates P.C. as Class Counsel. Stop & Shop is a regional chain of supermarkets located in the northeastern United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aWBSZk at no extra charge.[CC] 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 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com SUMMIT HEALTH: Faces T.G. Suit Over Private Info Disclosure ----------------------------------------------------------- T.G., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUMMIT HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC; META PLATFORMS, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; PUBMATIC, INC.; MICROSOFT CORPORATION; AND MAGNITE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06972 (D.N.J., June 12, 2024) asserts claims for common law invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law in connection with the unlawful disclosure of sensitive personal information. Summit Health runs a website, citymd.com, which allows potential patients to book appointments, research medical information, and check pertinent updates from doctors in connection with services at its brick-and-mortar locations. However, it failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated website users that its website has embedded tracking technologies that disclose an individual's identifying information to third parties, including Google and Meta Platforms, says the suit. Based in New Jersey, Summit Health Management controls and/or operates over 400 urgent care and other medical clinics as well as telemedicine services throughout the New York City metropolitan area, parts of upstate New York and Long Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and parts of Oregon that operate under the "CityMD" tradename. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad St., Ste. 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com - and - Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. Edward Ciolko, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC One World Trade Center, 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com ed.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com blake.yagman@sterlingtonlaw.com SUNNOVA ENERGY: Williams Balks at Resignation Requirement Bylaws ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREG WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of SUNNOVA ENERGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff v. SUNNOVA ENERGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-0614 (Del. Ch., June 5, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Sunnova Energy, against the Defendant to seek declaratory relief invalidating the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective October 25, 2023. According to the complaint, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement allows the Company's board of directors to usurp stockholders' exclusive right to select the members of the Board. Allowing the Board to make a determination that causes an irrevocable resignation to become "effective" is functionally the same as permitting the Board to remove a director and just as invalid. For the same reasons, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement interferes with a stockholder's fundamental right to elect directors, says the suit. The Irrevocable Resignation Requirement also impermissibly subverts the stockholder franchise. Absent the relief requested herein, the Irrevocable Resignation Requirement will continue to interfere with stockholders' statutory and equitable rights to choose the Company's directors, the suit alleges. Sunnova Energy International, Inc. is an adaptive energy services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Irene R. Lax, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 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 SWIFT PORK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Vail Extended to Sept. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS VAIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT PORK COMPANY, d/b/a JBS USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving the second stipulated order extending class certification discovery and briefing deadlines as follows: Action or Event Previous Updated Deadline Deadline Deadline for the Parties to On or before On or before attend private or judicial June 14, 2024 June 27, 2024 mediation: Deadline for completing all July 8, 2024 Aug. 7, 2024 discovery on class certification issues: Plaintiff's deadline to move Aug. 9, 2024 Sept. 6, 2024 for class certification: Defendant's deadline to file Sept. 30, 2024 Oct. 30, 2024 opposition to motion for class certification: Plaintiff's deadline to file Oct. 25, 2024 Nov. 22, 2024 reply to Defendant's opposition to class certification: The Parties have agreed to participate in private mediation with Bill Baten on June 27, 2024, which occurs after the June 14, 2024, deadline in the scheduling order as was necessary to accommodate the mediation. Swift Pork produces and processes meat products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9hNuZl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: H. Max Kelln, Esq. Benjamin Broadhead, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 237-0300 Facsimile: (317) 237-1000 E-mail: h.max.kelln@faegredrinker.com ben.broadhaed@faegredrinker.com SYNERGY CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Construction Helpers, Montoya Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE WALTER GONZALES MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERGY CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. and SYNERGY HOLDING PARTNERS LLC and NAUMAN HUSSAIN and ELI ARIEL ESPINOZA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04090 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements. Mr. Montoya worked for the Defendants as a construction helper from in or around February 2021 until in or around October 2023. Synergy Construction Group Inc. is a construction company with a principal executive office located at 55 Rome Street, Farmingdale, New York. Synergy Holding Partners LLC is a holding company with a principal executive office located at 55 Rome Street, Farmingdale, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Reached $36 Mil. Settlement in Speakes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTOPHER SPEAKES, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Michael Kalb, AND KALYANASUNDARAM sUBRAMANIAN, Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-08318-ALC-OTW Hon. Andrew L. Carter Jr., U.S.D.J. Hon. Ona T. Wang, U.S.M.J. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons who purchased Taro common stock on the open market on a United States stock exchange from July 2, 2014 through November 3, 2016, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PENDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiff City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund ("Lead Plaintiff" or "Atlanta Firefighters"), on behalf of itself and all members of the Class, and Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Taro" or the "Company"), Michael Kalb, and Kalyanasundaram Subramanian (collectively, "Individual Defendants," and, together with Taro, "Defendants," and, together with both Taro and Lead Plaintiff, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $36,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrew L. Carter Jr., either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on August 23, 2024, at 11 a.m. in Courtroom 1306 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine: (i) whether the Court should approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against Defendants, and the releases specified in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated April 10, 2024 (and in the Notice), should be granted; and (iii) whether Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application should be approved. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.TaroSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91388 Seattle, WA 98111 www.TaroSecuritiesLitigation.com (855) 208-4121 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP Michael S. Bigin, Esq. 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10006 www.bernlieb.com (212) 779-1414 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than August 16, 2024. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than August 2, 2024. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than August 2, 2024. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about the proposed settlement or your eligibility to participate in the settlement should be directed to lead counsel or the claims administrator using the contact information above. BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] TASKUS INC: Gets July 19 Extension to Submit Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered Gary Stein an order extending the deadline for the Defendants to submit their opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion, with any accompanying expert reports to July 19, 2024. The deadline for Plaintiffs to submit their reply is likewise extended to August 23, 2024. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d), and Your Honor's Individual Practices in Civil Cases I.G., we request that the Court extend certain deadlines set forth in the Feb. 20, 2024, Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The Parties seek a one-week extension to file both Defendants’ class certification opposition brief and Plaintiffs’ reply brief. The Parties seek this extension because Lead Plaintiff Humberto Lozada is not available for a deposition until July 10, 2024, two days prior to the current class certification opposition brief deadline. This is the first extension the Parties have sought for class certification briefing, and the first extension sought since the Scheduling Order was entered. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation for companies including Facebook and DoorDash. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M0GhbE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Evan A. Kubota, Esq. Thayne Stoddard, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com nkulesa@bfalaw.com ekubota@bfalaw.com tstoddard@bfalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig S. Waldman, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: cwaldman@stblaw.com TD Bank: Filing of Report Objections Due June 28 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 1, 2021), the Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall entered an order granting the parties' request for an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation on the motion for class certification. -- The Defendant shall file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before June 28, 2024. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any responses to objections on or before July 29, 2024. The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. TD is an American national bank.[CC] TENNECO INC: DOL Backs Unenforceability of Suit Waivers in 401(k) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Mulholland, writing for PlanAdvriser, reports that the Department of Labor filed an amicus brief to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in May which argued that a mandatory arbitration provision in a 401(k) plan document is unenforceable if it is tied to a class-action waiver. The case in question is Tanika Parker et al. v. Tenneco, Inc., et al. First brought in April 2023, the suit alleges that Tenneco and its affiliates maintained a plan with excessive fees. Tenneco argued that the case should be sent to arbitration individually, per their plan documents. The district court disagreed, because the combination of mandatory arbitration and a class action waiver compels the participant to forfeit a statutory right, namely to secure plan-wide relief for fiduciary misconduct. The defendants then appealed to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The DOL filed an amicus brief for the case in December 2023 at the appeals court. The department argued that "the district court correctly refused to compel arbitration because the Arbitration Procedure includes a non-severable provision precluding Plaintiffs from obtaining in arbitration the very relief that ERISA expressly allows them to seek in court," that being plan-wide remedies. The DOL asked the court to uphold the ruling that "the Representative Action Waiver is unenforceable because it prevents the effective vindication of Plaintiffs' statutory right to seek plan-wide relief." In May, DOL sent a supplementary amicus brief to the 6th Circuit. This was in reaction to a decision of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in another case, Cedeno v. Sasson, on May 1 that the class action waiver was unenforceable. The DOL wrote that the plaintiff's "avenue for relief under ERISA is to seek a plan-wide remedy, and the specific terms of the arbitration agreement seek to prevent Cedeno from doing so," which renders the agreement unenforceable. The U.S. 3rd and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal have also previously ruled this way in similar cases. The Supreme Court in October 2023 declined to hear two cases concerning the enforceability of mandatory arbitration and class action waivers in plan documents. Those cases, from the 10th and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeals, the defendants' moves to force individual arbitration and prevent a class action remedy were denied. [GN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Xian Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA XIAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04726 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2024) is a class action against Ticketmaster and Live Nation for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Ticketmaster customers' personal identifying information including names, addresses, phone numbers, and partial credit card details from hackers. According to the complaint, an investigation by Live Nation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files (the "Data Breach"). To date, the Defendants have yet to notify impacted individuals directly. The Defendants and their employees failed to properly implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the PII. Had Defendants properly monitored their networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner, or prevented the breach from occurring at all, says the suit. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct as the PII that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach, the suit asserts. Ticketmaster, LLC owns an event ticket selling website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.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 TRULIEVE INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIANA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIEVE, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60952-AHS (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2024) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its property, goods and services, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers after they have opted out of the Defendant's solicitations, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff requested, via phone call with the Defendant, to opt-out of Defendant's text messages. The Defendant subsequently acknowledged that the Plaintiff would be opted out of Defendant's text messages. However, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging the Plaintiff, including on May 9, 2024. On May 10, 2024, the Plaintiff again requested, via phone call with the Defendant, to opt-out of Defendant's text messages. The Defendant again acknowledged that the Plaintiff would be opted out of the Defendant's text messages. But the Defendant again ignored the Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging the Plaintiff, including on May 12 and 13, 2024. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone that received the Defendant's texts messages for personal purposes and the number is the Plaintiff's residential telephone line. Overall, the Defendant sent Plaintiff nine (9) text messages after the Plaintiff's first opt-out request, six (6) of which were sent after the Plaintiff's second opt-out request, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of the Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Trulieve operates as a medical cannabis company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com TYCO FIRE: Settlement Deal in Camden Suit Wins Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v. TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, Case No. 2:24-cv-02321-RMG (D.S.C.), Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order as follows: -- Preliminary Approval Of Settlement Agreement The Court finds that the requirements of Rules 23(a)(1)-(4), 23(b), and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied for purposes of preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement such that notice of the Settlement Agreement should be directed to Eligible Claimants and a Final Fairness Hearing should be set. -- Findings Regarding the Settlement Class The Settlement Class consists of, only for purposes of the Settlement Agreement: (a) Every Active Public Water System in the United States of America that has one or more Impacted Water Sources as of May 15, 2024. An "Impacted Water Source" means a Water Source that has a Qualifying Test Result showing a Measurable Concentration of PFAS. The following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (a) The City of Marinette Waterworks, denoted as Water System ID "WI4380395" in the SDWIS; provided, however, that the City of Marinette Waterworks will be included within the Settlement Class if it so requests. (b) Any Public Water System that is owned and operated by a State government and cannot sue or be sued in its own name. (c) Any Public Water System that is owned and operated by the federal government and cannot sue or be sued in its own name. (d) Any privately owned well that provides water only to its owner's (or its owner's tenant's) individual household and any other system for the provision of water for human consumption that is not a Public Water System. The following Class Representatives are preliminarily appointed for purposes of the Settlement: City of Camden; California Water Service Company; City of Benwood; City of Brockton; City of Delray Beach; City of Freeport; City of Sioux Falls; City of South Shore; Coraopolis Water & Sewer Authority; Dalton Farms Water System; Martinsburg Municipal Authority; Township of Verona; and Village of Bridgeport. Tyco manufactures fire protection and general industrial machinery. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DqiBjV at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Feds for Freedom Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDS FOR FREEDOM, ELIZABETH SOLIDAY, et. al., v. LLOYD J AUSTIN, III, Secretary of Defense, United States Department of Defense, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES NAVY, VICE ADMIRAL GILBERT R CISNEROS, JR., Under Secretary of Defense, United States Department of Defense, CARLOS DEL TORO, Commander, Secretary of the Navy, VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM J. GALINIS, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, CAPTAIN JAMES MOSMAN, Commander, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Case No. 3:23-cv-05490-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Bryan entered an order that: -- The Individual Federal Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' individual-capacity claims is granted; -- The Defendants' Official Capacity Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; -- All claims are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend; -- Any pending motions are stricken, and this case is closed. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address. The Plaintiffs contend that at the end of September of 2021, Defendant Captain Mosman, Commander of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (“PSNS”), emailed civilian employees encouraging them to get a COVID-19 vaccine or receive an exemption or face possible discipline to include dismissal. The Plaintiffs in this case (including Feds for Freedom who brought the Texas case under the name "Feds for Medical Freedom") complain that after the Texas court issued its decision, the Defendants did not make a decision on their requests for religious exemptions from the vaccine requirements. Instead, they contend that the Defendants waited until the President rescinded the vaccine mandate, effective May 12, 2023, and "canceled" the requests. They maintain that the Defendants harmed them by making them feel segregated, harassed, coerced, and shamed. Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure nation's security. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dq7Imq at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Displaced Students Sue for Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- Peter Crimmins, writing for WHYY, reports that former students of the University of the Arts in Philadelphia have filed a class-action lawsuit against the school in the wake of its closure. The law firm Sauder Schelkopf, based in Berwyn, Pennsylvania, filed the lawsuit with the United States District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania. It names two students, Katherine Anderson, who relocated to Philadelphia from Texas to attend UArts, and Ian Callaghan-Kenna of Pennsylvania, both rising sophomores who had enrolled for fall 2024. The suit indicates that upon the discovery phase of the proceeding, there will be many more plaintiffs, perhaps thousands. "Plaintiffs and other similarly situated students have been left displaced, stranded, confused, and abandoned by the University," the suit reads. "Instead of offering clear guidance or any effective plan for navigating the sudden and unexpected transition, the University has shirked its responsibilities entirely." The suit makes six counts against UArts: breach of contract, implied breach of contract, unjust enrichment, common fraud, and violations of state unfair trade practices laws in both Pennsylvania and Texas. It seeks monetary compensation to recover amounts paid to UArts. "The abrupt closure of UArts has caused considerable financial distress to its now former students who relied on its continuing operation and accreditation when they enrolled, obtained loans and, in many instances, relocated to Philadelphia to attend," said attorney Joe Sauder. "We look forward to pursing this litigation on their behalf." [GN] US PAROLE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Lewis Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v. U.S. PAROLE COMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline by 18 days until July 1, 2024, to oppose Plaintiffs' renewed motion for certification of class and appointment of class counsel. These deadlines include multiple responsive briefings in several matters, fact discovery in the coming months, multiple Joint Status Reports, and responses to pleadings in recently assigned cases. Additional time is also necessary for the undersigned to research the issues and arguments raised by Plaintiffs and prepare an appropriate response. Furthermore, the Defendants' requested July 1, 2024, deadline coincides with the deadline for Defendants' reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants submit that a single deadline for both filings would advance judicial economy here. The Plaintiffs bring this mandamus action to compel the Commission to hold an early termination parole hearing or terminate their parole. On May 14, 2024, the Defendants moved to stay further briefing on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion pending this Court's decision on their Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as moot. On May 30, 2024, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Stay further briefing on Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and ordered Defendants to file their opposition by June 13, 2024. US Parole is responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GcgJSn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Erika Oblea, Esq. Stephanie R. Johnson, Esq. 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2567 E-mail: Erika.Oblea@usdoj.gov Stephanie.Johnson5@usdoj.gov VALVE CORPORATION: Court Clarifies Order on Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v. Valve Corporation (VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order providing the following clarification: -- Motion for Class Certification - Figure 5, page 26: Defendant may redact the descriptor for each axis, including the numerical values, but no more. - Page 26, lines 17–21: Defendant may redact the effective commission and quantity sold dollar figures (before and after PMFN removal) but no more. -- Rietveld Report - Paragraph 172, sentences 4 and 5: Defendant may redact the dollar figures included in these sentences, except for the $300 million figure, but no more. No additional redactions are permitted with respect to the class certification motion or the Rietveld Report. The Court extends the deadline for filing final redactions, as noted in the Court's prior order to June 24, 2024. Valve is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Imzomb at no extra charge.[CC] VERIZON BUSINESS: Class Settlement in Hogue Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HOGUE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00852-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class and PAGA Representative Action Settlement is granted upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Order. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive award is granted. 3. The court grants final approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement. 4. The settlement class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) as defined in section 2 of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 5. The form, manner, and content of the Class Notice meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). 6. The Plaintiff Jeffrey Hogue shall be paid a service payment of $5,000.00 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 7. Class counsel shall be paid $204,600.00 in attorney's fees, and $19,293.64 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 8. ILYM shall be paid its fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 9. The LWDA shall be paid $37,500.00 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. On Dec. 27, 2021, Jeffrey Hogue, a former salesperson for defendant, filed this putative class action in state court against Verizon Business Network Services, LLC asserting claims for: failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to provide meal periods. The Plaintiff alleges that Verizon misclassified him as exempt from California’s overtime requirements, when in fact plaintiff and the class members should have been classified as non-exempt. The parties have defined the settlement class as "all individuals who worked for Verizon Business in California in a Covered Client Executive position during the Class Period." Verizon provides telephone voice and data communications services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=06HAI2 at no extra charge.[CC] W.L. GORE: Case Management Conference Continued to July 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oraliza v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00415 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 27, 2023), Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order approving the stipulation and continuing the Case Management Conference until July 18, 2024. -- If the matter does not settle, the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion is due on July 16, 2024. -- All future dates will remain on the case schedule until the Parties file a final settlement. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. W. L. Gore is an American multinational manufacturing company specializing in products derived from fluoropolymers.[CC] WALT DISNEY: Settlement Payout Begins in Dream Key Pass Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashleigh Jackson, writing for NewsNation, reports that some Disneyland fans who purchased a Dream Key pass nearly three years ago will be able to claim their piece of a $9.5 million class-action lawsuit settlement as early as this week, according to an email obtained by NewsNation parent company Nexstar. The lawsuit, filed by California passholder Jenale Nielsen in 2021, alleged the company misled customers into believing its most expensive yearly pass would have "no blockout dates" when making reservations at Disneyland Resort theme parks. However, when Nielsen attempted to reserve certain dates in November 2021, the complaint stated that she could not do so. While Disney denied any wrongdoing, both parties decided to settle last July to avoid trial. About 103,435 people who purchased the now-discontinued Dream Key pass between Aug. 25, 2021, and Oct. 25, 2021, will get paid as part of the settlement, NewsNation affiliate KTLA previously reported. After attorney fees and other legal expenses, eligible passholders will receive approximately $65. The settlement administrator said it will automatically send checks to claimants' last known mailing addresses unless they chose to receive an electronic payment. (The deadline to change payment elections was back in January.) Nexstar's Scott Gustin posted a notification on X from the settlement administrator stating that electronic payment links will be emailed to those who qualify June 14. Passholders will have until Sept. 12 to claim their money, according to the notice. The Dream Key was offered through Disney's Magic Key pass program. It has since been replaced with the Inspire Key, the resort's costliest pass that offers the fewest blockout dates. [GN] WEBMD LLC: Kindler Can File Corrected Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kindler, et al., v. WebMD, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00094(W.D. Mo., Filed Feb. 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file corrected motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their proposed Amended Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal.[CC] WEBMD LLC: Sweeton Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON and JASON MOSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00094-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting their Motion for Class Certification; (2) appointing Dr. Sweeton as a class representative of the Kansas class and Dr. Moss as a representative of the Missouri class; (3) appointing as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) the attorneys of DLM LAW LLC, WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR, L.L.C. and CLAYTON JONES, and (4) directing the parties to submit an agreed-upon class notice or submit any disputes they may have over class notice within 21 days of a class certification order so that notice may be issued promptly. Plaintiffs Tamera Sweeton and Jason Moss (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully request that this Court certify Count II of their First Amended Class Action Complaint for class action treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Count II alleges a cause of action for infringement of the common law right of publicity. Because this claim is susceptible to common proof and the proposed class satisfies all other requirements of Rule 23, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification can and should be granted. The Plaintiffs seek to certify both a Missouri and a Kansas class defined as follows: The Missouri Class "All natural persons who, during the time period Dec. 21, 2017, to the present, (a) maintained an office address in Missouri; (b) appeared as a basic profile in the WebMD CareO directory on the doctor.webmd.com website and (c) did not claim their profile." "Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding over this or any related case. The class definition also excludes all shareholders, officers and employees of Defendant. The Kansas Class "All natural persons who, during the time period Dec. 21, 2017, to the present, (a) maintained an office address in Kansas; (b) appeared as a basic profile in the WebMD CareO directory on the doctor.webmd.com website and (c) did not claim their profile." Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding over this or any related case. The class definition also excludes all shareholders, officers and employees of Defendant. Each of these proposed classes satisfy each of the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p9Pe4L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Marcus, Esq. DLM LAW LLC 4700 Belleview Ave, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 256-4699 Facsimile: (816) 222-0534 E-mail: dmarcus@dlmlaw.com - and - Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: Bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Clayton Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES ATTORNEY AT LAW 405 Foxwood Drive Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com WELLS FARGO: Matula Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS O. MATULA JR., individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(K) Plan, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WELLS FARGO; WELLS FARGO EMPLOYEE BENEFIT REVIEW COMMITTEE; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03504 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2024) arises out of Defendants' misuse of employees' 401(K) plan assets for Defendants' own benefit, instead of for the benefit of employee-participants. Plaintiff Matula claims that Defendants violated its fiduciary duties, as well as Employee Retirement Income Security Act's anti-inurement and self-dealing and prohibited transactions provisions. Allegedly, the Defendants have wrongfully and consistently used forfeited nonvested plan assets for its own benefit, to reduce future employer contributions, rather than for the benefit of Plan participants. The Defendants' allocation of forfeited fund assets to reduce its own employer contributions benefited Defendants, but harmed the Plan and participants in the Plan, by reducing Plan assets, not allocating forfeited funds to participants' accounts, and/or by causing participants to incur expenses that could otherwise have been covered in whole or in part by forfeited funds, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo & Company is engaged in banking and financial business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com WORLDPAC INC: Parties Seek to Revise Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ANAYA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WORLDPAC, INC.; ADVANCED AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-02184-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to issue an Order revising the existing class certification and pretrial/trial related deadlines and setting the following schedule: Event Current Date Proposed Date Deadline for Plaintiff to File Aug. 1, 2024 Feb. 3, 2025 Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Defendants to File Aug. 30, 2024 March 3, 2025 Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Plaintiff to File Sept. 13, 2024 March 17, 2025 Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Hearing for Class Certification Sept. 30, 2024 March 31, 2025 Fact Discovery Cut-Off Nov. 20, 2024 June 2, 2025 Motion Cut-Off Jan. 15, 2025 July 25, 2025 Final Pretrial Conference Feb. 10, 2025 Aug. 11, 2025 Trial March 4, 2025 Sept. 9, 2025 Worldpac distributes motor vehicle equipment and aftermarket replacement automotive parts. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rYllQm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Cassandra A. Castro, 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 ccastro@lelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Robert Yang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.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 ***