/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240625.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 25, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 127
Headlines
1444 FLATBUSH: Faces Labor Najera Suit Over NYLL, FLSA Violations
3M COMPANY: Hollingsworth Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Hritz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Janeiro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Johns Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Moore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Plair Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Tipton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
A&A SERVICES LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Moser Alleges
ALDO GROUP: Richmond Sues Over Unlawful Printing of Store Receipts
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ennis Sues Over Abusive Telephone Marketing
ASTOR & STONE: Rivera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
ATHIRA PHARMA: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 25
BANK RHODE: Improperly Assessed Overdraft Fees, Gasior Suit Claims
BAY AREA REAL: Court Grants Bid to Stay Proceedings in Grace Suit
BAY AREA REAL: Grace Allowed to File Amended Complaint by July 17
BENEDICTINE COLLEGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Senior Says
BLUE DIAMOND: Ravizee Sues Over Crackers' Misleading Packaging
BOSTON POST: Pichardo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BREW CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carriveau Suit Claims
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Segovia Suit Over Spy Pixel Trackers
CAPITAL ONE: $16 Mil. Settlement Claims Deadline Set July 17
CAPITAL ONE: Hewitt Sues Over Unlawful Retirement Account Agreement
CARMACUATRO LLC: Ricco Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
CENCORA INC: Day and Lovato Sue Over Private Data Breach
CENCORA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Castellano Says
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Dion Suit Alleges
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Russo Says
CENCORA INC: Harrell Sues Over Compromised Patients' Health Info
CGM LLC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $1.5 Mil.
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Covington Class Suit
CIGNA HEALTH: S.F. Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
CIMAREX ENERGY: Class Settlement in Sagacity Suit Has Final Nod
CINMAR LLC: Simpson Sues Over False Home Decors' Discount Prices
CITRUS MEMORIAL: Beattie Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COCA-COLA CO: Lurenz May File Second Amended Complaint by July 10
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Says
COMODO GROUP: Loses Bid to Strike Expert Opinions in Johnson Suit
D.W. TRANSPORT: Bradley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DAISY FLORAL: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
DANIEL BEERS: Joint Bid to Strike Amended Lynn Complaint Granted
DAVIS CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DOCGO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jegeleviciute Alleges
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Smith Suit Over Illegal Background Check
DUFRESNE SPENCER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Parker Alleges
EAGLE LENDING: Faces Matthews Class Suit Over High-Interest Loans
EI DU PONT: Faces Cooper Suit Over C8 Contaminated Water
EL PASO III: Pachero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Soto Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info
FOCUS DC LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges
FOR LIFE: Class Cert Hearing in Iglesias Continued to August 15
FOUR HANDS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Mulkey Suit Alleges
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Bid to Approve Settlement in Rainford Suit Nixed
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Delicato Sues Over Unprotected Info
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, Retter Says
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Moure Says
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Mays Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
GARDAWORLD SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cannon Says
GEORGE ADAMS: Class Settlement in Cothran Suit Has Prelim. Approval
GOBRANDS INC: $400K Class Settlement in Beer Suit Has Final Nod
GRITSTONE BIO: Faces Poslajko Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
HAMIDO SEAFOOD: Cruz Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
HEART OF HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Averette Alleges
HIGH HORSE: Faces Ochoa Labor Suit Over Improper Tip Retention
HIRSCHBACH MOTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailey Suit Alleges
HOLICITY HOLDINGS: $16.5MM Settlement to be Heard on July 30
HONDA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Seek to Strike Bid to File Docs Under Seal
HONEYWELL INT'L: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Funkhouser-Ward
INMARKET MEDIA: Bid to Consolidate in Kruger Suit Granted in Part
INMARKET MEDIA: Bid to Consolidate in Willis Suit Granted in Part
INTERNATIONAL SHOPPES: Lazar Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: July 26 Talcum Settlement Voting Deadline Set
KEVIN JOHNSON: Class Settlement in Colon Suit Has Prelim. Approval
KEYSTONE SERVICING: Blazovic Sues Over Retention of Residual Equity
LEEANN'S LOCKER: Commercial Property Inaccessible, De La Torre Says
LEESBURG MANOR: Blanco et al. Sue Over Excessive Media Fees
LG SMART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camacaro Alleges
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Amended Hubiack Complaint
LIVE NATION: Lipeles Alleges Deceptive Madonna Concert Tickets
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Andretta Sues Over Breaches of Privacy Rights
MAIN LINE: Bid to Dismiss Smart Suit Granted Without Prejudice
MAIN LINE: Smart Given 30 Days to File Second Amended Complaint
MCLAREN BAY: Gloss Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
MDL 3083: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Devis Suit Alleges
MDL 3083: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Romine Suit Alleges
MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Deceptive Ticket Prices
METRO KNOXVILLE: Sullivan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
MY DAILY CHOICE: Angel Sues Over Unsecured Customers' Private Data
NEBRASKA: Fails to Provide Medicaid Coverage Notice, Filyaw Says
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Religious Head Covering Suit for $17.5MM
NOHER INC: Properties Violated ADA, Del La Torre Suit Alleges
NORTHEAST REMSCO: Moran Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
NVIDIA CORP: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
OKLAHOMA: AG Negotiates Settlement in Inmates Class Suit
OLIVE & COCOA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tucker Suit Says
OLO INC: $2.98MM Awarded to Class Counsel in Steamship Trade Suit
OLO INC: $9-Mil. Settlement in Steamship Trade Suit Has Final Nod
OLO INC: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Steamship Trade Suit
PACIFIC RIM LAND: Cruz et al. Allege WARN Act Violations
PARTY CITY: Marquez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Info
PEGASYSTEMS INC: $35MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 19
PLAYBILL ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tucker Alleges
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Henson Bid for Class Certification Tossed
REDA HOME: Clark Suit Seeks HR Directors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Li Suit Over Drop in Share Price
S1 SECURITY: Rosello Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Violates Homeless People's Rights, Hope Says
SAS INSTITUTE: Faces Suit Over Room Rental Price Conspiracy
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Appeals FLSA Suit Ruling to 5th Circuit
SHAKE SHACK: Violates Delaware General Corp. Law, Garfield Says
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Court Tosses Potvin Complaint w/o Prejudice
SHENANDOAH HOLDINGS: Commercial Property Inaccessible, Suit Says
SHOES FOR CREWS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Declerk Suit Claims
SIRIUS XM: Faces Scott Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SN SERVICING: Gregg Files Appeal in FDCPA Suit
SONDER HOLDINGS: Faces Park Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
SPICY PIZZA: Alonso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPRINGER NATURE: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Lee Says
STOP & SHOP: Argento Sues Over Misleading Labeling of Brand Eggs
STRAUCH MANAGEMENT: Newman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: August 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
TARO PHARMA: $36MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 23
TESLA INC: Doss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Cousino Sues Over Worker Misclassification
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dickey-Johnson and Chapman Sue Over Data Breach
TICKETMASTER: Blake Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
U-DRIVE ACCEPTANCE: Court Grants Lloyd's Bid for Summary Judgment
U.S. XPRESS: Rogers Sues Over Improper Employment Hiring Scheme
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE: Yamada Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
UNITED STATES: W.D. Washington Dismisses Feds for Freedom v. DoD
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Faces Anderson Suit Over Abrupt Closure
USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses Tarkett Suit With Leave to Amend
USAA GENERAL: Maryland Court Narrows Claims in Black Class Suit
VENICE HMA: Class Settlement in Tetreault Suit Has Prelim. Approval
VITALS CONSUMER: Sweeton Allowed to File Corrected Class Cert Bid
WALGREEN CO: Barreca Sues Over Mislabeled Personal Care Products
WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Hearings Continued to July 11
WORLDPAC INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Anaya Extended to Oct. 7
WP COMPANY: N.D. California Grants Bid to Dismiss Hirlinger Suit
X-MODE SOCIAL: Egan and Egan Allege Sale of Sensitive Personal Data
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Over Fix Rental Pricing Conspiracy
ZELA INTERNATIONAL: Competello Sues Over Blind's Access to Website
ZOCDOC INC: Smith Files Appeal
*********
1444 FLATBUSH: Faces Labor Najera Suit Over NYLL, FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILSON ADONI NAJERA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 1444 FLATBUSH MEAT CORP. d/b/a CHOP
SHOP FRESH MEAT MARKET and LUIS BERNARDO LAUREANO, as an
individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-04063 (E.D.N.Y., Date, 2024) seeks to
recover damages for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiff's
employment at 1444 Flatbush Meath.
As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor
laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The employees similarly situated are the
collective class.
-- Collective Class:
"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
butchers, food preparers, stockers, or other similarly titled
personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay
provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for
Defendants, other than the executive and management positions,
who have been subject to Defendants’ common practices,
policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including
willfully failing and refusing to pay required minimum and
overtime wage compensation."[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
3M COMPANY: Hollingsworth Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Hollingsworth, 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-02608-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 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 -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
3M COMPANY: Hritz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Ann Hritz as executor of the Estate of Norman Michael Hritz,
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-02375-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 pancreatic 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: Janeiro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Janeiro, 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-02338-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
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: Johns Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayland Johns, 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-02341-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
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: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emmett Johnson, 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-02342-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
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: Moore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Moore, 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-02589-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: Plair Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Plair v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03412-RMG (D.S.C., June 7, 2024)
is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing
the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
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 or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, 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 or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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.
Bobby Plair is a resident and citizen of Port St. Joe, Florida. He
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. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
Product. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and
significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or
Military bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting
activities, the suit asserts.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Tipton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Louis Tipton, 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-02605-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
A&A SERVICES LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Moser Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA MOSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A&A SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SAV-RX, Defendant,
Case No. 8:24-cv-00215-RFR-MDN (D. Neb., June 11, 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.
A&A SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SAV-RX is a medication benefit management
solutions provider to health plans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Mandy Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
Ashley Crooks, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
acrooks@hausfeld.com
ALDO GROUP: Richmond Sues Over Unlawful Printing of Store Receipts
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD RICHMOND and BRIAN MCAVOY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALDO GROUP INC., and
ALDO U.S. INC., Defendants, Case No. 2484CV01527 (Mass. Sup. Ct.,
Suffolk Cty., June 10, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of printing more than
the last five digits of credit and debit card account numbers on
transaction receipts despite clear requirements of the FACTA to
mask certain credit and debit card information on printed receipts.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers have suffered injury including
violation of statutory rights and protected interests, invasion of
privacy, and exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft, says
the suit.
The Aldo Group Inc. is a Canadian multinational premium retailer
headquartered in Montreal, Quebec.
Aldo U.S. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aldo Group, doing
business in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremy A. Cohen, Esq.
CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
160 Speen Street, Suite 309
Framingham, MA 01701
Telephone: (508) 309-4880
Facsimile: (508) 597-7722
Email: jeremy@cwlawgroup.com
- and -
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 589-0588
Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
Email: scott@scottdowens.com
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Ennis Sues Over Abusive Telephone Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRE ENNIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., CROWN FDO
L.L.C., ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE NORTH CAROLINA DEALERSHIP HOLDINGS
L.L.C., RP CGR FVL D, LLC, CGR FVL D, LLC, COUGAR CDJR HOLDCO, LLC,
and RANELLA CONSULTING, INC. f/k/a HUDSON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00085-BO (E.D.N.C., June 14, 2024)
arises from Defendants' abusive telephone marketing practices that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Starting on March 13, 2024, the Plaintiff began receiving text
messages to his residential, non-commercial telephone number, and
ended up receiving text messages on at least March 19, March 29,
April 10, April 13, and April 22, 2024 despite his opt-out text
messages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action to
enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the TCPA alleging that
Defendants violated the TCPA by making telemarketing calls in the
form of text messages to Plaintiff and other putative class members
listed after they had previously requested to no longer receive
such communications, says the suit.
Headquartered in Duluth, GA, Asbury Automotive Group, Inc is a
holding company that engages in vehicle dealerships in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwatlney@carolinalaw.com
ASTOR & STONE: Rivera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO VICTOR RIVERA PINOS, JOBA RIVERA PINOS, JAIME GUILLERMO
RIVERA PINOS, ELSA BEATRIZ PUENTA TACURI, ESTELA EUGENIA DUARTE
ALVARADO, GLORIA MAGDALENA DUARTEALVARADO, LUIS CESAR ZHIGUISACA
GUAMAN, and MANUEL ANTONIO MENA SABILLON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASTOR & STONE INC. and
DIMITRIOS TSOUMAS, as an individual, Case No. e 1:24-cv-04358
(S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' alleged violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants
located at 647 East 14th Street, New York City.
The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a wage notice
at the time of his hire or at any time during his employment in
violation of the NYLL. The Defendants allegedly failed to provide
Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours
worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in
violation of the NYLL. As a direct result of the Defendants'
violations and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements, Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm, resulting from
Plaintiff's inability to identify Plaintiff’s employer to remedy
his compensation problems, lack of knowledge about the rates of pay
he was receiving and/or should have receiving for his regular hours
and overtime hours, terms, and conditions of his pay, and
furthermore, an inability to identify his hourly rate of pay to
ascertain whether he was being properly paid in compliance with the
FLSA and NYLL -- which he was not, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages.
The Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and
all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.
Astor & Stone Inc. provides painting, carpentry and construction
management services. Defendant Dimitrios Tsoumas owns and operates
Astor & Stone Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
ATHIRA PHARMA: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 25
------------------------------------------------------------
Nacif, et al. v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No:
2:21-cv-00861-TSZ (W.D. Wash).
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND PAYMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Athira Pharma, Inc. ("Athira") publicly traded common
stock during the period from September 17, 2020, through June 17,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, that the above-captioned litigation (the
"Action") has been certified as a class action for settlement
purposes, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as explained in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Final Approval Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Payment of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"),
available at www.AthiraSecuritiesSettlement.com.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $10,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action and related claims.
A hearing will be held on October 25, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, at the United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 15206, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101, to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated December 15, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be
approved; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses
should be approved.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected and
you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have
not yet received the Notice, Proof of Claim Form ("Claim Form"),
and Exclusion Request (Opt-Out) Form, you may obtain copies by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at Athira Pharma Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N.
Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, (866) 274-4004. Copies
can also be downloaded from the website
www.AthiraSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Class, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
to the Settlement Administrator postmarked (or bearing other proof
of mailing) no later than September 6, 2024, if sent by mail, or
submitted online at www.AthiraSecuritiesSettlement.com no later
than September 6, 2024. If you are a member of the Class, you do
not exclude yourself from the Class, and you do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the
Settlement Administrator no later than September 6, 2024 by
following the instructions in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you cannot share in
the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation (including the cy pres recipient), or Co-Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses, must either be
mailed to the Settlement Administrator postmarked (or bearing other
proof of mailing) no later than September 6, 2024 (if you are not
represented by an attorney), or no later than October 11, 2024 (if
you are represented by an attorney), or be presented to the Court
by attending the Settlement Hearing, according to the instructions
in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's Office, Athira, or
other Defendants, or their counsel. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the
Settlement Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, Claim Form, and
Exclusion Request (Opt-Out) Form, should be made to Co-Lead
Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (888) 773-9224
Email: settlements@glancylaw.com
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (888) 219-6877
Email: settlementquestions@labaton.com
Requests for the Notice, Claim Form, and Exclusion Request
(Opt-Out) Form should be made to:
Athira Pharma Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
(866) 274-4004
info@strategicclaims.net
www.AthiraSecuritiesSettlement.com
BANK RHODE: Improperly Assessed Overdraft Fees, Gasior Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER GASIOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK RHODE ISLAND, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00227 (D.R.I., June 10, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, or in alternative, unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful business practice of
assessing (a) $35 overdraft fees on debit card transactions
authorized on sufficient funds, and (b) multiple $35 fees on an
item. According to the complaint, these practices breach promises
made in the Defendant's Personal Deposit Agreement and Disclosures
and its Overdraft Opt-In Form. The Plaintiff and other customers of
have been injured by the Defendant's improper fee maximization
practices, says the suit.
Bank Rhode Island is a banking company in Rhode Island. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE
& CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C.
2 Dexter Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860
Telephone: (401) 728-6060
Email: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com
- and -
David M. Berger, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325
Columbus, OH 43240
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: skj@classlawgroup.com
mht@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 625-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
BAY AREA REAL: Court Grants Bid to Stay Proceedings in Grace Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, grants the
Motion to Stay Proceedings in the lawsuit captioned Christina
Grace, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Marin
Association of Realtors; North Bay Association of Realtors;
Northern Solano County Association of Realtors, Inc.; Solano
Association of Realtors, Inc.; RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.; Anywhere Real
Estate Inc.; Vanguard Properties, Inc.; Twin Oaks Real Estate Inc.;
Windermere Real Estate Services Company Inc.; Rapisarda & Fox,
Inc.; Realty ONE Group, Inc.; Keller Williams Realty, Inc.;
Compass, Inc.; eXp World Holdings, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-06352-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Defendant Anywhere Real Estate Inc. ("Anywhere"), RE/MAX LLC
("RE/MAX"), and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. ("Keller Williams")
(together, "Settling Defendants"), filed a Motion to Stay
Proceedings as to Anywhere, RE/MAX, Keller Williams on May 23,
2024. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff Christina Grace filed a statement
of non-opposition.
The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without
oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. Good cause
appearing, the Court grants the unopposed motion. The case is
stayed as to Settling Defendants Anywhere, RE/MAX, and Keller
Williams pending the expiration of the time to appeal the Final
Judgment, or the expiration of any appeals of the Final Approval of
the nationwide Class Action Settlements and the accompanying Final
Judgment in Burnett v. National Association of Realtors, Case No.
19-cv-00332 ECF No. 1487 (W.D. Mo.).
The parties will jointly provide an update to the Court within
forty eighty (48) hours of either a final decision on appeal in
Burnett, if any, or the expiration of the time to appeal the Final
Judgment if no appeals are taken, or by Dec. 17, 2024, whichever
date comes first.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/598y7yve from PacerMonitor.com.
BAY AREA REAL: Grace Allowed to File Amended Complaint by July 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, signed a
Stipulation and Order extending deadline to file amended complaint
and setting briefing schedule in the lawsuit styled Christina
Grace, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; Marin
Association of Realtors; North Bay Association of Realtors;
Northern Solano County Association of Realtors, Inc.; Solano
Association of Realtors, Inc.; RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.; Anywhere Real
Estate Inc.; Vanguard Properties, Inc.; Twin Oaks Real Estate Inc.;
Windermere Real Estate Services Company Inc.; Rapisarda & Fox,
Inc.; Realty ONE Group, Inc.; Keller Williams Realty, Inc.;
Compass, Inc.; eXp World Holdings, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-06352-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The deadline for the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint is
extended to July 17, 2024.
Plaintiff Christina Grace, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Defendants Bay Area Real Estate Information
Services Inc. ("BAREIS"), Windermere Real Estate Services Company
Inc. ("Windermere"), and eXp World Holdings, Inc. ("eXp")
(collectively, "Certain Defendants"), by and through their counsel
of record, filed the stipulation.
On May 29, 2024, the Court granted Defendant BAREIS's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. On the same day, the Court stayed
proceedings as to Marin Association of REALTORS(R), North Bay
Association of REALTORS(R), Northern Solano County Association of
REALTORS(R), Solano Association of REALTORS(R), Inc., Twin Oaks
Real Estate, Inc., and Vanguard Properties, Inc., until 30 days
after the District Court for the Western District of Missouri's
ruling on the final approval motion in the NAR action.
The Court previously stayed proceedings as to Defendants Rapisarda
& Fox, Inc., Realty ONE Group, Inc., and Compass, Inc. Defendants
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Anywhere Real
Estate Inc. filed an unopposed motion to stay.
There are presently three Defendants against which the Plaintiff's
claims are proceeding: BAREIS, Windermere, and eXp. The deadline
for BAREIS and Windermere to opt in to the NAR settlement was June
18, 2024.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint is June 26,
2024. eXp's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint, which Defendant Windermere joined in, will be moot upon
the filing of the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
To promote efficiency and avoid wasting resources, counsel for the
Plaintiff and Certain Defendants stipulate to the following:
1. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
is extended three weeks, from June 26, 2024, to July 17,
2024;
2. Certain Defendants' deadline to answer or file motions to
dismiss is Aug. 23, 2024;
3. The Plaintiff's deadline to oppose any motions to dismiss
is Sept. 20, 2024; and
4. The deadline to file any replies is Oct. 11, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated June
10, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mt4st535 from
PacerMonitor.com.
JILL M. MANNING -- jmanning@pwfirm.com -- PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP, in
San Francisco, California 94111; DANIEL L. WARSHAW --
dwarshaw@pwfirm.com -- BOBBY POUYA -- bpouya@pwfirm.com -- NAVEED
ABAIE -- nabaie@pwfirm.com -- ERIC J. MONT -- emont@pwfirm.com --
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP, in Sherman Oaks, California 91403, Attorneys
for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class.
JASON A. ZWEIG -- jzweig@bartkolaw.com -- BARTKO LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois 60606, Attorneys for Defendant Bay Area Real Estate
Services, Inc.
MATTHEW D. SEGAL -- matthew.segal@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES, LLP, in
Sacramento, California 95814; EDWARD C. DUCKERS --
ed.duckers@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES, LLP, in San Francisco,
California 94104, Attorneys for Defendant Windermere Real Estate
Services Company Inc.
Jason W. McElroy -- jason.mcelroy@saul.com -- William E. Adams --
william.adams@saul.com -- Matthew J. Antonelli --
matt.antonelli@saul.com -- Francis X. Riley --
francis.riley@saul.com -- James Morsch -- jim.morsch@saul.com --
SAUL EWING LLP, in Washington, D.C. 20006-3434, Attorneys for
Defendant eXp World Holdings, Inc.
BENEDICTINE COLLEGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Senior Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BENEDICTINE COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11511 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.benedictine.edu, 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.
BENEDICTINE COLLEGE is a private Benedictine liberal arts college
in Atchison, Kansas, United States. It was established in 1971 by
the merger of St. Benedict's College for men and Mount St.
Scholastica College for women. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
BLUE DIAMOND: Ravizee Sues Over Crackers' Misleading Packaging
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANA RAVIZEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 7:24-cv-00759-ACA (N.D.
Ala., June 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for its false, misleading,
and deceptive representations and omissions, and comparisons, with
respect to the almond and rice cheddar cheese flavored crackers'
contents, attributes, features, origins, amount, quantity,
ingredients, comparisons, and/or quality.
According to the complaint, the labeling of the Product violated
the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act") and thereby violated
the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, because the
representations, omissions, packaging, labeling, and/or
comparisons, created the erroneous impression it contained more of
the crackers than it did, and that the contents would be greater
than they were, when this was false, because it consisted of more
than 60% empty space and less than 40% crackers.
Allegedly, the Product is "misbranded" because "its container is so
made, formed, or filled as to be misleading," since (1) its
"[opaque cardboard] container does not allow the consumer to fully
view its contents," and (2) it consists of "[sixty percent] empty
space . . . for reasons other than" those specifically authorized.
That the packages contain only 39.8% crackers was concluded by
measuring the level to which the crackers were filled, 2 15/16
(2.9375) inches, and dividing this by the box's height of 7 3/8
(7.375) inches.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover for economic injury, financial
damages, and/or economic loss she sustained, based on the
misleading labeling, packaging, and/or comparisons of the Product,
a deceptive practice under the ADTPA.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product between June 2023 and May 2024,
at grocery stores, big box stores, drug stores, warehouse club
stores, independent retail stores, convenience stores, bodegas,
and/or other similar locations, in Alabama, and/or other area.
The Defendant is a cooperative of almond growers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
CHARLES M. THOMPSON, P.C.
101 Mohawk Drive
Trussville, AL 35173
Telephone: (205) 995-0068
Facsimile: (866) 610-1650
E-mail: cmtlaw316@gmail.com
BOSTON POST: Pichardo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SECUNDINO GARCIA PICHARDO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. BOSTON POST FOOD CORP. d/b/a C-TOWN,
and RAMON VARGAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-04520 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums; unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to time shaving; liquidated damages; and attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
In Sept. 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to
work as a deli person for Defendants' C-Town supermarket, located
at 4008 Boston Road, The Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants terminated in June 22, 2022.
The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated the Family and
Medical Leave Act when they would not allow Plaintiff to go to
physical therapy sessions for an ankle injury that worsened as a
result Plaintiff not being able to go to the physical therapy
sessions.
BOSTON POST FOOD CORP. is a company engaged in the food
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
BREW CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carriveau Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CARRIVEAU, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. BREW CITY PIZZA INC., and DOUGLAS W. BARETZ,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00745 (E.D. Wis., June 14, 2024) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March
2023 to February 2024 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store located in Madison, WI. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was
subjected to Defendants' reimbursement policy and methodology that
fail to reflect the realities of delivery drivers' automobile
expenses. As a result, the Plaintiff was paid below the federal
minimum wage, says the suit.
Brew City Pizza, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise
stores in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Segovia Suit Over Spy Pixel Trackers
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA SEGOVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-06730 (D.N.J., June 6, 2024) is a class action on behalf of
persons in the State of Arizona that opened emails sent to them by
Burlington due to the Defendant's violations of Arizona's
Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act.
The Defendant is a large American retailer, boasting revenue of
$9.7 billion in 2023. To entice residents to visit their stores and
to maximize sales, the Defendant solicits customers to sign up for
its email list. The Plaintiff and Class members are subscribers to
Defendant's email list. The Defendant embeds hidden spy pixel
trackers within its emails. These trackers capture and log
sensitive information including the time and place subscribers open
and read their messages, how long it takes for subscribers to read
the email, subscribers' location, subscribers' email client type,
subscribers' IP address, subscribers' device information and
whether and to whom the email was forwarded to.
The Defendant never received subscribers' consent to collect this
private information. The Defendant's invasive surveillance of
Plaintiff's sensitive reading habits and clandestine collection of
her confidential email records invaded her privacy and intruded
upon her seclusion. By failing to receive consent from Plaintiff
and Class members, Defendant is violating Arizona's Telephone,
Utility and Communication Service Records Act, a statute that
prohibits procuring or attempting to procure the communication
service records of email recipients without their authorization,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona, residing in Mesa, Arizona.
Within the past two years, Plaintiff has received promotional
emails from Defendant. Dating back to August 2020, Plaintiff has
frequently opened emails from Defendant to review promotional
materials. The Plaintiff most recently opened one of Defendant's
emails in January 2024, the suit alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: ykopel@bursor.com
CAPITAL ONE: $16 Mil. Settlement Claims Deadline Set July 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Hallas, writing for The Gazette, reports that Capital One
customers have until midnight to see if they benefit from the
bank's $16 million settlement to resolve claims that it charged
unlawful fees for some transactions.
The settlement is a victory for customers who claimed Capitol One
violated its account terms by failing to refund insufficient funds
or overdraft fees it charged for represented check or ACH
transactions. Capitol One agreed to the settlement without
admitting to being at fault.
Capital One account holders who were charged a represented fee
between Sept. 1, 2015, and Jan. 12, 2022, are not required to
provide anything to submit a claim.
Customers wishing to exclude themselves from or object to a
settlement claim have until June 17 to submit a written objection
to the settlement administrator.
The final approval hearing will be held on July 15.
Eligible customers who do not exclude themselves will automatically
receive a settlement payment.
Last month, Walmart announced that Capital One would no longer be
the exclusive credit card issuer of its rewards program.
The card, which had no annual fee, had been offered since 2019.
While it offered 2% return for in-store purchases, it mostly pushed
delivery and pick-up orders with a 5% return on those purchases.
However, credit card services will continue to be offered by
Capital One.The news came after U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk
Failla of Manhattan ruled on a lawsuit that Walmart filed against
Capital One regarding the partnership. According to the retailer,
Capital One was slow to post transactions to users' accounts and to
replace lost and stolen cards. Failla ruled in Walmart's favor,
allowing the company to end the contract earlier due to "repeated
customer service failures."
Capital One, which is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is the
ninth largest bank in the United States in terms of assets,
according to MarketWatch last month, which stand at more than $468
billion. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Hewitt Sues Over Unlawful Retirement Account Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HEWITT and LYNNE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and INSPIRA
FINANCIAL TRUST LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04839 (N.D. Ill., June 11,
2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and all other persons in the United States who were
owners of a Capital One individual retirement account transferred
by Capital One to Millennium.
According to the complaint, Millennium acted dishonestly and
unfairly, and was unjustly enriched, by sweeping customer cash to
banks, pocketing the lion's share of the interest paid by those
banks as "compensation" and assessing excessive fees, and then
paying Plaintiffs and other members of the Class yields that were
neither "competitive" nor "based on the interest rate environment"
as promised in the Millennium IRA Agreement.
Capital One historically paid high interest rates to IRA investors,
like Plaintiffs, whose IRA cash savings were invested in high yield
cash savings products such as high yield savings accounts and
certificates of deposits ("CDs"). Capital One was the IRA custodian
for those accounts.
Capital One had from January 2018 through September 30, 2019, paid
1.0% APY (annual percentage yield) interest on the Plaintiffs' IRA
cash savings. Even in the low interest rate environment of late
2021 through June 2022 (and after deciding to exit the IRA
business) Capital One paid 0.40% APY. Capital One paid even higher
yields on available IRA CDs.
Beginning in or around 2021, Capital One notified Plaintiffs
(separately) and other members of the Class that Capital One would
be resigning as IRA custodian and planned to transfer their IRA
accounts to Millennium, which would become the successor Custodian,
says the suit.
Plaintiff Hewitt is domiciled in the State of New Jersey. Hewitt
had been a Capital One Traditional IRA accountholder since at least
2016. On June 13, 2022, Capital One resigned as the custodian of
Hewitt's IRA and appointed Millennium as the new custodian of his
account.
Plaintiff Thompson is domiciled in the State of North Dakota.
Thompson has been a Capital One Traditional IRA account holder
since at least January 2016. On Jan. 24, 2022, Capital One resigned
as the custodian of Thompson's IRA and appointed Millennium as the
new custodian of her account.
Capital One, N.A. is a national bank with its principal place of
business in McLean, Virginia. Defendant Capital One, N.A. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation.
Inspira Financial Trust LLC (formerly known as Millennium Trust
Company) is a business trust and an IRA custodian with its
principal place of business in Oak Brook, Illinois. Neither
Millennium nor Inspira is a bank or a licensed broker dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Philip Curley, Esq.
ROBINSON CURLEY P.C.
200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1550
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 663-3100
Facsimile: (312) 663-0303
E-mail: pcurley@robinsoncurley.com
- and -
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
pblack@wolfpopper.com
tbrennan@wolfpopper.com
CARMACUATRO LLC: Ricco Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Ricco, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Carmacuatro LLC, Carma Cinco, LLC, d/b/a The Knife, Case No.
1:24-cv-22277 (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2024) is an action to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Ricco as a full-time restaurant
employee from approximately Feb. 15, 2022, to Feb. 19, 2024, or 105
weeks. However, without the benefit of discovery, the Plaintiff’s
relevant employment period with overtime hours is 78 weeks. The
Plaintiff was paid a salary of $56,500.00 annually. During his
employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was misclassified as a
manager. However, according to his primary duties, Plaintiff was a
regular restaurant employee. The Plaintiff had duties as a cashier
and was responsible for the salad bar, side dishes, desserts, and
drinks. The Plaintiff had additional duties as a cleaning employee
and performed all kinds of general restaurant work, the suit says.
The Defendant operates two Argentinian restaurants.[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
CENCORA INC: Day and Lovato Sue Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DAY and HELEN LOVATO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENCORA, INC., THE LASH
GROUP, LLC, GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, and GLAXOSMITHKLINE PATIENT ACCESS
PROGRAMS FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02631 (E.D. Pa.,
June 14, 2024) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and
exfiltrated the highly sensitive data of patients.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a result of
Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately secure this highly
sensitive consumer data. Moreover, the private information
compromised in the data breach included at least Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' first name, last name, address, date of birth,
health diagnosis, and/or medications and prescriptions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants,
seeking redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserting
claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) breach of
implied contract; (iv) breach of contractual duties owed to
third-party beneficiaries; (v) unjust enrichment; (vi) bailment;
and (vii) breach of fiduciary duty.
Headquartered in Conshohocken, PA, Cencora is a Delaware
corporation that provide pharmaceutical solutions to pharmacies,
pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare providers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 854-4060
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: mreuben@litedepalma.com
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Catherine B. Derenze, 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
cderenze@litedepalma.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Mandy Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
CENCORA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Castellano Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MAURISA CASTELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC.; and THE LASH GROUP,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02568 (E.D. Pa., June 12, 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.
Cencora, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
offers end-to-end pharmaceutical commercialization solutions,
over-the-counter healthcare products, home healthcare supplies and
equipment, and related services to healthcare providers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
Andrea L. Bonner, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
abonner@shublawyers.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DeMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Dion Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DREW DION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-02562 (E.D. Pa., June 11, 2024) is class action suit
against the Defendants for their 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.
The Defendants are a Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based
pharmaceutical solutions organizations that specializes in
pharmaceutical services, including providing drug distribution and
solutions for doctor’s offices, pharmacies, and animal
healthcare.
As a condition of receiving Defendants' services, Defendants'
customers, patients, and other affiliated persons are required to
provide, and entrust, Defendants with sensitive and private
information, including PII and PHI.
On Feb. 27, 2024, Cencora filed a Form 8-K with the Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing that it has been impacted by a
data breach that resulted in the theft of sensitive information
(the "Data Breach").
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
Feb. 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.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Cencora's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patients' Personal Information from
the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack. By being entrusted with
Plaintiff's and class members' Personal Information for its own
pecuniary benefit, Cencora assumed a duty to Plaintiff and class
members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security
measures to secure, protect, and safeguard Plaintiff's and class
members' Personal Information against unauthorized access and
disclosure.
As a result of the Defendants' inadequate security and breach of
their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and
Plaintiff and class members have now had their sensitive Personal
Information stolen and exfiltrated, as confirmed by Defendants. Due
to the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered
injury and ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket
expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, the diminution in value
of their Personal Information from its exposure, and the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, the suit further
asserts.
Plaintiff Dion provided Personal Information to, or otherwise had
Personal Information provided to, Cencora in connection with
receiving health-related services from Cencora.
Cencora is a global pharmaceutical sourcing and distribution
services companies. In Aug. of 2023, Cencora announced the
completion of its name and stock ticker change from
AmerisourceBergen Corporation.[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 -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: dperrt@masonllp.com
CENCORA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Russo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cencora, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02582 (E.D. Pa., June
12, 2024) is a class action against Cencora for its failure to
properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information and personal health information.
According to Defendant's Notice of Data Breach, Cencora, Inc., the
PII and PHI may have included patients' names, addresses, dates of
birth, health diagnosis, and/or medications and prescriptions.
The Plaintiff contends that Cencora failed to comply with industry
standards to protect information systems that contain PII and PHI.
The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Cencora,
Inc. to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information
that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security
practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure
in the future.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was hired to protect, says the suit.
Cencora, Inc., formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American
drug wholesale company and a contract research organization that
was formed by the merger of Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in
2001.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
Andrea L. Bonner, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
abonner@shublawyers.com
- and –
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esquire, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Truist Place, Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
CENCORA INC: Harrell Sues Over Compromised Patients' Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK HARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC., THE LASH GROUP, LLC,
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB PATIENT
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02524
(E.D. Pa., June 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within Cencora's systems following a data breach
on or around February 21, 2024. The Defendants also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Cencora, Inc., formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American
drug wholesale company and a contract research organization based
in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
The Lash Group, LLC is a subsidiary of Cencora, Inc., located in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is an American multinational
pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. is a
charitable organization with its principal place of business
located in Princeton, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
CGM LLC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $1.5 Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers can receive payments and
credit monitoring benefits from a $1.5 million CGM data breach
settlement.
The settlement benefits consumers who received a data breach
notification from CGM informing them their information may have
been compromised in a December 2022 data breach.
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim CGM failed to
implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have
protected consumers from a December 2022 data breach. During the
breach, hackers allegedly gained access to sensitive consumer
data.
CGM is a software as a service solutions company that serves
wireless and broadband companies.
CGM hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.5 million
to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the CGM data breach settlement, class members
can receive three years of credit monitoring and identity theft
protection. These services include three-bureau monitoring and $1
million in identity theft insurance.
Class members can also receive cash payments from the settlement.
Individuals who experienced documented data breach-related expenses
can receive up to $400 for ordinary losses, $20 per hour for up to
four hours of lost time and up to $4,000 for extraordinary losses.
Class members who do not have documented losses can receive an
alternate cash payment estimated to be around $20, though actual
payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid
claims filed.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 27, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
26, 2024.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Aug. 26, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who received a data breach notification from CGM
informing them their information may have been compromised in a
December 2022 data breach
Potential Award
$4,400
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, invoices, account statements, credit reports, insurance
claims and other documentation of data breach-related losses NOTE:
If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
08/26/2024
Case Name
Cain, et al. v. CGM LLC d/b/a CGM Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02604-SEG,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Final Hearing
08/26/2024
Settlement Website
CGMSettlementSupport.com
Claims Administrator
Cain v. CGM, Inc.
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
(833) 425-4613
Class Counsel
Brandon Wise
Pieffer Wolf Carr
KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
935 Gravier St #1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 523-2434
Defense Counsel
Amanda Harvey
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
426 W Lancaster Ave,
Devon, PA 19333
Phone: (267) 930-4770 [GN]
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Covington Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled JAMES
COVINGTON, Plaintiff v. CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00710-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff James Covington commenced this proposed class action, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against
Defendants Childtime Childcare, Inc., and Learning Care Group,
Inc., alleging violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Pending is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Defendants own and operate more than 40 childcare centers in
the State of New York.
From January 2023 to April 2023, Covington was employed, performing
custodial services, at one of the Defendants' childcare centers,
located in Delmar, New York. The Defendants were required to pay
Covington--and the proposed class, which consists of similarly
situated employees--on a weekly basis because he qualified as a
manual worker under the NYLL.
However, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Covington and the
proposed class on a weekly basis, and, instead, made payments on a
bi-weekly basis. The Defendants' belated wage payments deprived
Covington and the proposed class of the time value of their earned
money, resulting in tangible financial loss. Additionally, the
Defendants willfully failed to supply the Plaintiff and the
proposed class with wage notices, as required by NYLL.
In June 2023, Covington filed a class action complaint, alleging
that the Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to pay timely
wages and failing to provide wage notices, and that, accordingly,
Covington and the proposed class are entitled to statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest pursuant to the
NYLL.
Now pending is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of standing and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Defendants argue, among other things, that Covington has not
alleged an actual, concrete injury sufficient to confer standing
and, as such, his claims must be dismissed.
Mr. Covington contends that he has standing to bring his NYLL
Section 191 claim because he has alleged economic harm, namely, the
lost time value of his earned money and expenses incurred due to
his late payment of bills, caused by the belated payment of wages
by the Defendants. On the other hand, Covington does not oppose
dismissal of his NYLL Section 195 claim without prejudice.
Here, in support of the NYLL Section 191 claim, Covington alleges
that, because he and other manual workers are dependant upon their
wages for sustenance, they suffered economic harm due to the
Defendants' failure to timely pay wages, which caused them to pay
bills late, impairing their ability to keep up with regular
expenses, and which causes them to lose the "time value" of the
money owed.
Judge Sannes finds that such allegations are sufficient to
establish Article III standing for the NYLL. Therefore, Covington
has established Article III standing to bring the NYLL Section 191
claim. As for the NYLL Section 195 claim--because Covington has not
opposed the motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of the claim--it
must be dismissed if the Defendants' arguments are facially
meritorious, Judge Sannes explains.
The Defendants argue that Covington lacks standing to assert a NYLL
Section 195 claim because "technical violations" of wage notice
requirements, such as lack of certain information in wage
statements, do not cause "tangible injury" and, therefore, cannot
constitute the requisite concrete harm.
Judge Sannes holds that the Defendants' arguments satisfy their
lightened burden and, accordingly, the NYLL Section 195 claim is
dismissed without prejudice.
The Defendants move to dismiss the NYLL Section 191 claim for
failure to state a claim, arguing that NYLL Section 191 does not
provide Covington with an express or implied private right of
action.
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum-Decision and Order, the
Court disagrees.
The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of, and the conclusion
reached by, the majority of its sister courts and sees no reason to
depart from such rulings. Therefore, the Defendants' motion is
denied, insofar as it seeks dismissal of the NYLL Section 191
claim, because the Court predicts that the Court of Appeals would
agree with the First Department's decision in Vega v. CM and
Associates Construction Management, LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144, 1145-47
(1st Dep't 2019), and find that a private right of action (either
express or implied) exists for the violation of the pay frequency
requirement contemplated by NYLL Section 191.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: granted
as to Covington's NYLL Section 195 claim, and denied as to his NYLL
Section 191 claim.
The Court holds that Covington's NYLL Section 195 claim is
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge
Katz to schedule further proceedings in accordance with this
Memorandum Decision and Order. The Clerk will provide a copy of
this Memorandum Decision and Order to the parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated
June 10, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/39ysjcan from
PacerMonitor.com.
Mohammed Gangat, Esq., Law Office of Mohammed Gangat, in New York,
NY 10017, for the Plaintiff.
Kelly M. Cardin -- kelly.cardin@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in New York, NY 10022, for the
Defendants.
CIGNA HEALTH: S.F. Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
S.F., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
their first amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled S.F., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-CV-00213-DAK, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah.
The Plaintiffs bring benefit claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
On July 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies on Sept. 1, 2023.
On May 1, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
through an Order entered by Judge Dale A. Kimball.
The appellate case is captioned S.F., et al v. Cigna Health and
Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24-4062, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 3,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants S.F., et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Brian Smith King, Esq.
BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
420 East South Temple, Suite 420
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-1739
Defendants-Appellees CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al. are represented by:
Richard Diggs, Esq.
Warren Haskel, Esq.
Joshua B. Simon, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 547-5400
- and -
Lauren Forsythe, Esq.
Ethan Thomas, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
- and -
David Reed Gardner, Esq.
Clayton H. Rather, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
15 West South Temple Street, Suite 1600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) 204-9989
CIMAREX ENERGY: Class Settlement in Sagacity Suit Has Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma issued an Order and Judgment
granting final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit
styled SAGACITY, INC.; THE DUNCAN GROUP, LLC; AND HITCH
ENTERPRISES, INC., on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO.; MAGNUM HUNTER
PRODUCTION, INC.; PRIZE ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.; CIMAREX ENERGY
COMPANY OF COLORADO; KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 6:17-cv-00101-GLJ (E.D. Okla.).
The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Sagacity,
Inc., The Duncan Group, LLC, and Hitch Enterprises, Inc., on behalf
of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons described
here (collectively, the "Settlement Class") against Cimarex Energy
Co., Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., Prize Energy Resources, Inc.,
Cimarex Energy Company of Colorado, and Key Production Company,
Inc., for the alleged underpayment of royalties on natural gas,
natural gas liquids, and associated hydrocarbons produced from
wells located in Oklahoma during the Claim Period.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Parties executed a Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Agreement, together with the documents referenced
therein and exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions
for the proposed Settlement of the Litigation. For the reasons set
forth in this Order and Judgment, the Court grants the Class
Representatives' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement & Brief in Support.
On March 4, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement and issued an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement, Certifying the Class for Settlement
Purposes, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for
Final Fairness Hearing (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). In the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, inter alia, certified the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes, finding all requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied with
respect to the proposed class settlement, and preliminarily
approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in
the best interest of the Settlement Class.
After the Court issued the Preliminary Approval Order, due and
adequate notice by means of the Notices of Settlement was given to
the Settlement Class, notifying them of the Settlement and the
upcoming Final Fairness Hearing. On June 7, 2024, in accordance
with the Preliminary Approval Order and the Notices of Settlement,
the Court conducted a Final Fairness Hearing.
The Court, having reviewed the Settlement, the Settlement
Agreement, and all related pleadings and filings, and having heard
the evidence and argument presented at the Final Fairness Hearing,
now finds, orders, and adjudges as follows.
The Court, for purposes of this Judgment, adopts all defined terms
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and incorporates them as
if fully set forth here. The Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this Litigation and all matters relating to the
Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over the Defendants
and Class Members.
The Settlement Class, which was certified in the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, is defined as follows:
All royalty owners in Oklahoma wells (a) operated and leased
by Cimarex Energy Co., (b) operated by Cimarex Energy Co. of
Colorado, Inc. and leased by Prize Energy Resources, Inc. or
Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., and (c) operated or leased
by Key Production Company, Inc. that have produced gas or
gas constituents (such as residue gas or natural gas
liquids) from Jan. 1, 2013, to Nov. 30, 2023.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Mineral Management
Service (Indian tribes and the United States) and the State
and Counties of Oklahoma; (2) Defendants, their affiliates,
and employees, officers and directors; (3) Any NYSE or
NASDAQ listed company (and its subsidiaries) engaged in oil
and gas exploration, gathering, processing, or marketing;
(4) royalty owners who have already filed and still have
pending lawsuits for underpayment of royalties against
Defendants, including: Fortis Minerals II, LLC, Fortis
Sooner Trend, LLC, FMII STM, LLC, Sooner Trend Minerals,
LLC, and Phenom Minerals, LLC; (5) all royalty owners that
expressly authorized in their leases the deduction of
processing costs from royalties; and (6) all royalty owners
to the extent their wells are both subject to the class
action settlement in Chieftain Royalty Co. v. QEP Energy,
No. 5:11-cv-00212-R, and the well was subsequently acquired
by Defendants or any of their affiliates.
For purposes of clarification, and as requested by the U.S.
Department of Interior, the exclusion related to the Minerals
Management Service (Indian tribes and the United States) includes
agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America and any Indian Tribe as defined in 30 U.S.C. Section
1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined in 30 U.S.C. Section
3702(2).
For substantially the same reasons as set out in the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds that the Settlement
Class should be and is certified for the purposes of entering this
Judgment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
The Court also approves the efforts and activities of the
Settlement Administrator and the Escrow Agent in assisting with
certain aspects of the administration of the Settlement, and
directs them to continue to assist Class Representatives and Class
Counsel in completing the administration and distribution of the
Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, this
Judgment, any Distribution Schedule approved by the Court, and the
Court's other orders.
The Settlement Administrator is directed to refund to the
Defendants the gross amounts attributable to Class Members under
the preliminary Distribution Schedule who timely and properly
submitted a Request for Exclusion or who were otherwise excluded
from the Settlement Class by order of the Court in accordance with
the timing, terms, and process detailed in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court also finds, among other things, that Class
Representatives, the Defendants, and their Counsel have complied
with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to
all proceedings and filings in this Litigation. The Court further
finds that Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately
represented the Settlement Class in entering into and implementing
the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Judgment dated June 10,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5f5vksva from
PacerMonitor.com.
CINMAR LLC: Simpson Sues Over False Home Decors' Discount Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARA SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CINMAR, LLC and FRONTGATE MARKETING, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-04753 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2024) contends that the
Defendants list purported regular prices and advertise purported
discounts from those listed regular prices on their website, but in
fact, the Defendants' discounts are routinely available.
According to the complaint, everything about Defendants' price and
purported discount advertising is false. The Defendants also
advertise that their Products have a lower discount price as
compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or
strikethrough font. The regular prices the Defendants advertise are
not actually Defendants’ regular prices, because Defendants'
Products are routinely available for less than that. The purported
discounts Defendants advertise are not the true discount the
customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are
the purported discounts time-limited and limited to a certain
period of time, says the suit.
Mrs. Simpson bought a Product from the Defendants from their
website, www.frontgate.com. When Mrs. Simpson made her purchase,
Defendants allegedly advertised that a sale was going on, and so
Defendants represented that the Product Mrs. Simpson purchased was
being offered at a steep discount from the purported regular price
that Defendants advertised.
The Defendants sell and market furniture and home decor products
online through the Frontgate brand and website,
www.frontgate.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
christin@dovel.com
CITRUS MEMORIAL: Beattie Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA BEATTIE, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CITRUS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a HCA FLORIDA CITRUS HOSPITAL,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00301 (M.D. Fla., June 14, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid ER
nurse in Iverness, FL from approximately April 1990 until October
2021. The Plaintiff and other patient care employees regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week. However, they were subjected to
Defendant's uniform auto-deduct policy and were deprived of
overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. The Defendant
automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from Plaintiff's and its
other patient care employees’ recorded work time for so-called
"meal breaks" regardless of whether they actually received a bona
fide meal break, says the suit.
Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Citrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.
operates as a full-service medical facility offering a wide range
of healthcare specialties, including orthopedics and an ER. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
(813) 379-2565
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
gdesane@wfclaw.com
- and -
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 766-4000
E-mail: carl@fitz.legal
COCA-COLA CO: Lurenz May File Second Amended Complaint by July 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH
LURENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY and THE SIMPLY ORANGE
JUICE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-10941-NSR (S.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiff is granted leave until July 10, 2024, to file a
Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Joseph Lurenz brings this action, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, against Defendants The Coca-Cola
Company and The Simply Orange Juice Company for (1) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) violation of New York's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (3) violation of New York's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (4) breach of express warranty; (5)
violation of N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 199-a; (6) negligence
per se; and (7) unjust enrichment.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants formulate, manufacture,
market, and sell the Simply(R) Tropical juice drink (the
"Product"). The Plaintiff contends that the Product is falsely
labeled as an "All Natural" juice drink that is "made simply" with
"all-natural ingredients," when, in fact, the Product contains
"multiple" substances among the thousands of chemical compounds
commonly referred to collectively as "PFAS," including
Perfluorooctanoic acid and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid.
The Plaintiff asserts that the danger of PFAS chemicals are well
known and PFAS have been indisputably linked to negative health
effects. The Product's label does not list PFAS as an ingredient,
but through independent testing, the Plaintiff has found the
presence of multiple PFAS substances in the Product and
"concerning" levels of PFAS. The Plaintiff's independent testing
was conducted on a sample collected in July 2022.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged misbranding of the Product
as all natural and not containing PFAS chemicals, the Plaintiff
asserts economic injury, though he does not claim that he or anyone
else was physically harmed as a result of consuming the Product.
The Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on Dec. 28, 2022. The
Defendants initially sought leave on May 22, 2023, to bring a
motion to dismiss the initial Complaint. The Plaintiff responded on
May 25, 2023, opposing leave and informing the Court that he would
avail himself of his right to amend as a matter of course pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The Court, inter
alia, directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. He,
then, filed the Amended Complaint on July 17, 2023.
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant Motion, as well
as a memorandum of law, and reply, in support thereof. The
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendants' Motion. The
Defendants also submitted multiple notices of supplemental
authority to the Court.
The Plaintiff asserts a price-premium theory of injury. In other
words, the Plaintiff alleges that he was injured because he "paid
more for" the Product than he allegedly would have if he had known
that the Product contained or risked containing PFAS and, thus,
risked users to PFAS exposure.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that he
suffered an injury-in-fact under the price-premium theory. Judge
Roman says to assert a price-premium theory of injury, the
Plaintiff must plausibly allege that he purchased a Product that
was misbranded, i.e., that contained PFAS. The Plaintiff's
contention that the Product he purchased contained PFAS is based
solely on a single independent test he had commissioned that was
conducted in accordance with accepted industry standards for
detecting the presence of PFAS and detected material levels of
multiple PFAS.
But the findings from that test, as alleged in the Amended
Complaint, do not plausibly allege any injury with respect to the
Products the Plaintiff himself purchased, Judge Roman opines. In
addition, the Plaintiff did not test the Product that he actually
purchased, but rather merely "a sample." The fact that the
Plaintiff did not actually test the Products that he purchased does
not automatically mean that he lacks standing. But the Plaintiff
also does not allege that the presence of PFAS in the Products is
so widespread as to render it plausible that he purchased a
mislabeled Product at least once.
In sum, Judge Roman opines, the Amended Complaint's allegations
boil down to describing general and unspecific results of testing,
without meaningfully linking those results to the Plaintiff's
actual purchased Products. The Court is, therefore, unable to
conclude that the Plaintiff has Article III standing, and
accordingly, dismisses the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
The Plaintiff has requested leave to replead in the event the
Amended Complaint is dismissed.
Although the Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once
following a prior round of briefing in which the Defendants alerted
him to the potential deficiencies in his argument for standing,
Judge Roman notes that the Plaintiff did not previously have the
benefit of a Court ruling putting him on notice of these
deficiencies.
In the interests of justice, therefore, the Plaintiff is granted
leave to file a motion to amend, tendering a proposed second
amended complaint that meets the requirements of constitutional
standing as discussed.
For these foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff is granted
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. If he chooses to do so,
he will have until July 10, 2024, to file a Second Amended
Complaint. The Defendants are then directed to answer or otherwise
respond by July 31, 2024.
If the Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint within
the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such
failure, any claims dismissed without prejudice by this Order will
be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed
to terminate the motion at ECF No. 31.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated June 10,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6xrs25 from
PacerMonitor.com.
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Columbia Sportswear Company, Case No.
0:24-cv-02242-DSD-DLM (D. Minn., June 11, 2024) arises because the
Defendant's Website, www.columbia.com, is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant
to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class;
and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices,
and procedures, the details of which are more fully described
below, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the
future. The Plaintiffs 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.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. In
addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Defendant Columbia Sportswear Company is an Oregan Company and is
headquartered at 14375 Northwest Science Park Drive, Portland,
Oregon. The Defendant has physical Columbia locations within and
around the State of Minnesota.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, shirts, pants, short's, jackets, shoes, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
COMODO GROUP: Loses Bid to Strike Expert Opinions in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMODO GROUP, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04469-JKS-LDW (D.N.J.), Judge
Jamel K. Semper of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey denies, in its entirety, the Defendant's motion to strike
expert opinions.
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Comodo Group, Inc.'s
Motion to Strike the Opinions of Plaintiff Michael Johnson's
expert, Anya Verkhovskaya, for Sanctions, and for the
Decertification of the Modified Class. The Plaintiff filed a brief
in opposition. The Defendant replied.
Between 2012 and 2016, the Defendant made cold sales calls for its
then affiliate, Comodo CA Ltd., which was in the business of
issuing/selling Secure Sockets Layer ("SSL") Certificates to
website owners. SSL Certificates are encryption keys that enable
website owners to securely transfer data to and from their
customers. Each Certification contains expiration date information
and contains the user's (i.e., website operator's) name and
telephone number.
The Defendant used an automated computer program to compile a
database of SSL Certificates, their expiration dates, and their
users' names and telephone numbers. The Defendant formulated sales
leads containing phone numbers for soon-to-expire Certificates and
loaded the leads into a dialing platform called "VICIdial."
VICIdial is a "predictive dialer" that automatically called stored
leads throughout the day when it expected that one of the
Defendant's sales agents was available to take an already dialed
and connected call. VICIdial can dial leads randomly, sequentially,
or by some internal rank -- this setting can be changed by pressing
a button. The Defendant used the "internal rank" setting. VICIdial
also permits sales agents to leave prerecorded messages by pressing
a button. The Defendant's sales agents only used this option when
calls were sent to voicemail.
The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on July 22, 2016. In the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint, filed Sept. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendant's calling practices violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227,
et seq.
On Jan. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and certified the following class: "(1) All
persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number
Comodo made a telemarketing call (3) using the VICIdial ATDS or a
prerecorded voice [(4)] within four years of the filing of the
complaint" (the "January 2020 Opinion"). The January 2020 Opinion
also denied the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert,
Anya Verkhovskaya ("Ms. Verkhovskaya").
On Sept. 1, 2021, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2) and with the Defendant's consent, the Plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Complaint, withdrawing his ATDS-related claims. On
May 6, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the
Class Definition and certified the following Modified Class: "(1)
All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone
number Comodo made a telemarketing call (3) using a prerecorded
voice (4) within four years of the filing of the complaint" (the
"May 2022 Opinion").
On March 15, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for approval of the notice
plan. As part of his motion, the Plaintiff included an affidavit of
Ms. Verkhovskaya, dated March 15, 2023, ("March 15, 2023
Affidavit"), which outlined the reverse-append process utilized to
compile the class list. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant requested
the Court permit the deposition of Ms. Verkhovskaya to address her
March 15, 2023 Affidavit and class list. The Court granted the
Defendant's application and ordered Ms. Verkhovskaya's deposition
be taken on or before May 31, 2023. The Defendant took Ms.
Verkhovskaya on May 25, 2023.
On July 14, 2023, the Defendant filed its opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of the Notice Plan, which included
a declaration by the Defendant's counsel that identified purported
issues with the class list. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed its
reply, which included a declaration of Ms. Verkhovskaya, dated Aug.
24, 2023 ("August 24, 2023 Declaration").
On Nov. 17, 2023, the Defendant filed the instant motion to strike
the opinions of Ms. Verkhovskaya in their entirety, for sanctions,
and to decertify the Modified Class. The Plaintiff filed an
opposition brief and the Defendant filed a reply.
The Defendant raises multiple arguments in support of its motion to
exclude the opinion of Ms. Verkhovskaya. First, the Defendant
argues Ms. Verkhovskaya's opinions should be excluded pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for lack of reliability. The Defendant
also argues her opinions should be excluded pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because she made "false statements in
her Third Report." Finally, the Defendant seeks the exclusion of
Ms. Verkhovskaya's Third Report and her prior opinions because of
the inconsistencies in her prior statements and opinions. The
Plaintiff challenges each of these bases.
As previously expressed in its January 2020 Opinion, the Court
holds that the vendors that Ms. Verkhovskaya utilized have been
reliably used in past TCPA litigations to identify telephone number
users/subscribers and their addresses. Accordingly, the Court
denies the Defendant's motion to exclude Ms. Verkhovskaya's opinion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The Court disagrees with the Defendant's characterization of the
Aug. 24, 2023 Declaration as offering new opinions, new methods,
and new testimony that were not timely disclosed. Rather, Judge
Semper says, Ms. Verkhovskaya's Aug. 24, 2023 Declaration is an
elaboration of her previously issued opinions for creating the
Notice List. Accordingly, the Court finds the Aug. 24, 2023
Declaration is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(e).
In support of its motion for decertification of the Modified Class,
the Defendant argues the Plaintiff cannot meet the ascertainability
and predominance requirements set forth by Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff challenges these
assertions and contends the Modified Class is ascertainable and
predominated by common questions.
Judge Semper finds that the Plaintiff has met his burden, while the
Defendant has failed to meet its burden of showing a change in
circumstances or controlling law that would warrant the drastic
step of decertifying the modified class. Accordingly, the Court
denies the Defendant's motion to decertify the Modified Class.
Finally, the Defendant requests expert discovery be reopened to
permit it time to evaluate the opinions outlined in the Aug. 24,
2023 Declaration and methods by which Ms. Verkhovskaya compiled the
Revised Class List. The Plaintiff challenges this request and
claims reopening expert discovery will cause more delay to the
notice of class members and to the resolution of this case.
The Court will allow expert discovery to be reopened to permit the
Defendant to evaluate the Aug. 24, 2023 Declaration and the Revised
Notice List of Potential Class Members.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to
Strike the Opinions of Ms. Verkhovskaya, for Sanctions, and for the
Decertification of the Modified Class.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4md9uv82 from PacerMonitor.com.
D.W. TRANSPORT: Bradley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD BRADLEY v. D.W. TRANSPORT SERVICES INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00093-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., June 11, 2024) is brought by the
Plaintiff, and all similarly situated employees who join this
collective action, for unpaid wages and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as a driver for the Defendant.
Indiana, but conducting business throughout Florida, including in
Alachua County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Hannah E. Debella, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
hdebella@wfclaw.com
aketelsen@wfclaw.com
DAISY FLORAL: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL MOBLEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. DAISY FLORAL SERVICES CORP d/b/a GRACELAND FLORIST, JOSEPH
EDWARDS, JR., JOSEPH EDWARDS a/k/a ROGER, and ANNMARIE HOLZBERG,
Case No. 7:24-cv-04418 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, and unpaid overtime, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks from the Defendants unlawful wage
deductions/unpaid tools of the trade, unpaid compensation for
non-productive hours as piece-rate worker, unpaid compensation due
to piece-rate shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs. The Plaintiff further alleges, pursuant to the New York
State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), that the Defendants engaged in
discriminatory employment practices against the Plaintiff on the
basis of race discrimination. Due to the Defendants' common
policies, practices and patterns of conduct, he and Class Members
have all been injured in that they have been uncompensated or
under-compensated, says the Plaintiff.
In January 2021, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work
at Graceland Florist, located at 527 Gramatan Avenue, Mount Vernon,
New York 10552 and 537 E Third Street, Mount Vernon, New York 10553
as a delivery driver. The Plaintiff, a Black-American was subjected
to a hostile work environment on the basis of race, and ultimately
constructively terminated on Feb. 23, 2024.
Graceland is a family-owned floral business, owned and operated by
related individuals over several generations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clara Lam, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 295-5828
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com
DANIEL BEERS: Joint Bid to Strike Amended Lynn Complaint Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David A. Ruiz of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' Joint
Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint filed in the lawsuit
entitled VICKY LYNN, Plaintiff v. DANIEL J. BEERS, Defendants, Case
No. 5:24-cv-00153-DAR (N.D. Ohio).
On Feb. 1, 2023, a class action complaint was filed in the District
Court of South Carolina. On Jan. 25, 2024, this action was
transferred to the Northern District of Ohio after the latter
determined that this action was related to an action before this
Court--Glasgow v. Beers, et al., 5:21-cv-2001-DAR.
On March 28, 2024, this Court instructed all Defendants to file an
Answer no later than April 26, 2024, notwithstanding the fact that
a defendant may also have filed a motion to dismiss.
On the same date, the Court denied several motions to dismiss as
moot to the extent they asserted a lack of jurisdiction before the
South Carolina District Court. The Court further denied without
prejudice the Defendants' Motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim subject to potential refiling after the Court holds a status
conference.
Notwithstanding these instructions, two sets of Defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss. Those motions are denied without
prejudice as premature, Judge Ruiz holds.
On May 17, 2024, without leave of Court and contrary to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The
Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint,
indicating the Plaintiff had failed to seek their consent or leave
of Court.
Judge Ruiz grants the Motion to Strike. No motion for leave to
amend the Complaint will be filed until the parties have discussed
the issue of amending the pleadings at a planning meeting and until
the Court holds a case management conference providing further
instructions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckecx4r from PacerMonitor.com.
DAVIS CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEBER SOLIZ and LEVI SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JAMES G. DAVIS CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, and CHARLES A. KLEIN & SONS, INC., Case No. e
1:24-cv-00974 (E.D. Va., June 6, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, the Virginia Minimum
Wage Act, and the Virgina Overtime Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs are construction workers who performed HVAC-related
construction work on the Unity Homes at Ballston project located at
4201 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
The Project, which celebrated its grand opening on April 15, 2024,
is an $85 million development consisting of 144 affordable
apartment units, a space for the Central United Methodist Church, a
childcare facility, and a commercial kitchen for food distribution.
According to the complaint, the companies that employed Plaintiffs
cheated them out of the wages they were due under federal and
Virginia law, severely undermining their financial situations while
they worked to build affordable housing for Arlington residents.
Defendants Davis Construction, a Virginia corporation and general
contractor on the Project, and Charles Klein, a Maryland
corporation and subcontractor to Davis Construction on the Project,
cheated their workers by:
(a) failing to pay overtime wages;
(b) failing to pay all wages for all hours worked;
(c) failing to pay minimum wages; and
(d) misclassifying Plaintiffs as independent contractors.
In addition to being joint employers of Plaintiffs, under Virginia
law, Defendants are liable for the wage theft of their
subcontractors, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Nicole Rubin, Esq.
Ricardo Perez, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
Facsimile: (202) 296-9600
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
nrubin@murphypllc.com
rperez@murphypllc.com
DOCGO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jegeleviciute Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MIGLE JEGELEVICIUTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOCGO, INC.; and RAPID RELIABLE
TESTING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04468 (S.D.N.Y., June 11,
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 Jegeleviciute was employed by the Defendants as a
COVID-19 tester.
DocGo, Inc. operates as a health care distribution company. The
Company offers mobile health services and integrated medical
mobility solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Smith Suit Over Illegal Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDDIE JONATHAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR TREE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00384 (E.D. Va., June 14, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Plaintiff Smith was denied employment with Dollar Tree based upon a
standardized background screen conducted by Sterling Infosystems,
Inc. Allegedly, Sterling included on its report criminal
convictions that did not belong to the Plaintiff, but rather a
different person of the same name. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
brings this class action on behalf of applicants for employment,
transfer, and/or promotion with Dollar Tree, Inc., alleging that
the Dollar Tree systematically violates the rights of job
applicants about whom it obtains consumer reports or background
checks provided by section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by using
consumer reports to take adverse employment actions without,
beforehand, providing the person who is the subject of the report
sufficient and timely notification and a copy of the report and a
summary of rights under the FCRA. Allegedly, these failures leave
applicants without any meaningful opportunity to correct any errors
on the report or to discuss the content of the report with Dollar
Tree, says the suit.
Headquartered in Chesapeake, VA, Dollar Tree operates a network of
over 8,000 low-priced retail stores across the United States and
Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
E-mail: drew@clalegal.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
DUFRESNE SPENCER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Parker Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALYN PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE DUFRESNE SPENCER GROUP, LLC d/b/a ASHLEY FURNITURE
HOMESTORE, Case No. 4:24-cv-02202 (S.D. Tex., June 10, 2024) sues
the Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally
identifiable information from cybercriminals.
On Jan. 15, 2024, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized party
had gained access to its information technology environment between
May 15, 2023-June 5, 2023 and during that time the unauthorized
party accessed and/or acquired files on the Defendant's systems
which contain the personal information. The compromised PII
includes names, dates of birth, driver's licenses, banking
information (i.e., account number, routing number), and digital
signatures.
As a result of the Data Breach, and in light of their Private
Information now being in the hands of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff
and Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm. This substantial and imminent risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, the lawsuit asserts.
Had the 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 lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was
accessed and exfiltrated during the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff was a customer of Ashley Furniture HomeStores and
financed furniture purchased through the Defendant, and provided
her Private Information to the Defendant in order to receive
Defendant's home furnishing goods and/or services.
The Defendant is a large home furnishings retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
EAGLE LENDING: Faces Matthews Class Suit Over High-Interest Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MADELAINE MATTHEWS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EAGLE LENDING, LLC d/b/a FINEDAY FUNDS, WOLF RIVER
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, GENA KAKKAK, DANA WAUBANASCUM, SPENCER
GAUTHIER, JOEY AWONOHOPAY, MYRNA WARRINGTON, DOUGLAS COX, RACHEL
FERNANDEZ, DAYNELL GRIGNON, REBECCA BRUNETTE, CRYSTAL
CHAPMAN-CHEVALIER, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15, Case No.
1:24-cv-02524-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 10, 2024) challenges the legality
of Fineday's high-interest loans and seeks damages and declaratory
relief against co-conspirators participating in the illegal scheme,
including, most importantly, those whose identities have been
deliberately concealed.
The Defendants and others not yet known to the Plaintiff have been
knowingly participating in the illegal lending enterprise, which
has made and is making and has collected and is collecting on
grossly usurious loans. More specifically, the Plaintiff seeks
relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"); the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("Georgia RICO"); and Georgia's usury and
licensing laws, the Plaintiff contends.
On Dec. 28, 2023, while in Georgia, Ms. Matthews applied for a
$1,400 loan, via the internet, from Fineday Funds, which was for
her personal use. The loan agreement generated from the information
she entered provided for a repayment sum of more than $6,700,
payable in eighteen bi-weekly payments of $375.03. Ms. Matthews'
loan from Fineday charged an Annual Percentage Rate of 617.862%,
requiring her to repay more than $5,300 in finance charges in nine
months on a $1,400 loan. By comparison, Georgia's interest rate cap
on small-dollar loans like Plaintiff's is only 8%, which is
seventy-seven times lower than the rate charged to the Plaintiff.
Fineday and others have likely collected tens of millions of
dollars on void loans and in violation of federal and state usury,
licensing, and criminal statutes, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Defendants are jointly and severally liable in their individual
capacities to the Plaintiff and the RICO Class for actual damages,
treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1964(c).
Ms. Matthews is a Georgia consumer who received illegal,
high-interest loans over the interne Eagle is a commercial
enterprise and instrumentality of the Menominee Indian Tribe of
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: matt@kellyguzzo.com
EI DU PONT: Faces Cooper Suit Over C8 Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY COOPER and ASHLEY COOPER v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. : 2:24-cv-03198-EAS-EPD
(S.D.W.Va., June 11, 2024) is a civil action brought by the
Plaintiff and on behalf of thousands of other similarly situated
Leach class members who were exposed to the C8 contaminated water
which Defendant released.
The suit seeks equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages,
costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiffs, and any other
damages which the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily
injury and property damage arising from the intentional, knowing,
reckless and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in
connection with contamination of human drinking water supplies used
by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise
controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia,
known as the "Washington Works Plant."
As a result of the Defendant's alleged negligent, improper,
inadequate, inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its
ownership, operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the
Plant, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek
redress and damages.
DuPont owned and operated a manufacturing facility in Wood County,
West Virginia known as the "Washington Works Plant" until at least
2015. DuPont was in control of the Washington Works Plant, the
activities conducted at the facility, and all chemicals and/or
emissions which were used and/or released from the facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Clark, Esq.
Brad Layne, Esq.
KAYSER LAYNE & CLARK, PLLC
Post Office Box 210
610 Viand Street
Point Pleasant, WV 25550
Telephone: 304 675-5440
Facsimile: 304 675-5455
E-mail: matthew.clark@kayserlayneclark.com
brad.layne@kayserlayneclark.com
- and -
Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
Brett Thompson, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com
EL PASO III: Pachero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Pacheco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. El Paso III Enterprises, L.L.C. d/b/a Mountain View
Health & Rehabilitation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00199 (W.D. Tex., June
7, 2024) seeks damages for the Defendant's failure to pay 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 and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually as an FLSA collective
action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
hourly-paid nurse and technician employees of Defendant who, like
Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day
workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this
lawsuit was filed and forward.
The Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit as a Rule 23 class action
asserting state law claims for unpaid straight-time compensation
owed at a contractual hourly rate, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated hourly-paid nurses and technicians who
worked at Mountain View at any time during the state statutory
period before this Complaint was filed up to the time of class
certification who, as a result of Defendant's practice of deducting
meal breaks from each shift worked and not paying for the same, did
not receive all of the straight time pay at their contractual
hourly rate to which they were entitled in the weeks of their
employment in which said nurses and technicians worked 40 hours or
less.
The Defendant made a policy/practice of failing to relieve nurses
and technicians of their duties during meal periods, while
simultaneously using timekeeping software to deduct thirty minutes
or one hour from the total time paid per shift, the lawsuit
says.[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
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Soto Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA SOTO v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04724 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2024) is brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against FBCS, to seek redress for the Defendant's conduct
leading up to, surrounding, and following a data vulnerability and
breach incident that exposed the personally identifiable
information of hundreds of thousands of their customers.
FBCS is a national debt collection agency that handles collection
accounts throughout the country. It gathers significant information
on customer accounts from other financial institutions that place
collection files with it. FBCS was hired or retained by U.S. Bank,
N.A., to assist it in debt collection matters. In doing so, FBCS
obtained significant amounts of data from U.S. Bank regarding
Plaintiff and Class Members, including financial information and
other personal information.
According to the complaint, FBCS failed to safeguard the
confidential PII of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals.
This class action is brought on behalf of Class Members whose PII
was accessed sensitive information through the Defendant's computer
system without the Plaintiff permission or knowledge.
FBCS's failure to implement or maintain adequate data security
measures for personal information directly and proximately caused
injuries to Plaintiff and the Class. FBCS failed to take reasonable
steps to employ adequate security measures or to properly protect
sensitive PII despite well-publicized data breaches at numerous
businesses and financial institutions in recent years. FBCS failed
to implement basic security measures to prevent unauthorized access
to this information, the suit alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Seth B. McCormick, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
Facsimile: (312) 610-5646
E-mail: Bryan.Thompson@cclc-law.com
Seth@cclc-law.com
Rob.Harrer@cclc-law.com
FOCUS DC LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JULIEN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOCUS DC LLC; and NEBIU ALI, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01687 (D. Colo., June 11, 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 Harris was employed by the Defendants as a doorman.
Focus DC LLC operates as a government relations firm. The Firm
provides consulting around legislative affairs and regulations
services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen B. Lebau, Esq.
LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
502 Washington Avenue – Suite 720
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (443) 273-1201
Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
Email: sl@joblaws.net
- and -
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
jtb@jtblawgroup.com
FOR LIFE: Class Cert Hearing in Iglesias Continued 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 Hon. Judge Thomas
Hixson entered an order granting the parties' request that the
Court continue the hearing on Plaintiffs' class certification
motion and Defendant's motion to strike from June 20, 2024 to 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 Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbtncI 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
FOUR HANDS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Mulkey Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JON MULKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FOUR HANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00635 (W.D. Tex., June 10,
2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
On Dec. 27, 2023, the Defendant was hacked. But the Defendant did
not realize that it was hacked until almost two weeks later on
January 8, 2024. The Defendant did not immediately notify its
employees that hackers had breached its systems. Instead, the
Defendant waited until May 16, 2024, before it began to notify
victims of the breach -- over four months after they became aware
of the Data Breach, the suit claims. Because of Defendant's Data
Breach, at least the following types of PII were compromised:
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers,
financial account number, passport numbers, and state ID card
numbers. Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, the Plaintiff has
suffered -- and will continue to suffer from -- anxiety, sleep
disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Such injuries go far
beyond allegations of mere worry or inconvenience. Rather, the
Plaintiff's injuries are precisely the type of injuries that the
law contemplates and addresses, the suit asserts.
In total, the Defendant allegedly injured at least 1,472 persons --
via the exposure of their PII -- in the Data Breach. These 1,472
persons include current and former employees.
Plaintiff Jon Mulkey is a former employee of Four Hands having
worked as the company's IT director for over 20 years.
The Defendant is a designer and wholesaler of well-crafted
furniture and decor based in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, 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
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Bid to Approve Settlement in Rainford Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona denies without prejudice the parties' joint motion to
approve settlement agreement in the lawsuit titled Nickeisha
Rainford, Plaintiff v. Freedom Financial Network LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02014-DWL (D. Ariz.).
The lawsuit is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"). The Court previously granted the parties' stipulation
regarding conditional certification. The parties have now settled
and have filed a joint motion to approve their settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement would resolve the FLSA claims
of 46 individuals, including the Plaintiff, who maintain live
claims.
In Part I of the joint motion, the parties state that employees
cannot waive claims for unpaid wages under the FLSA without court
approval, and that Arizona courts follow the practice of providing
such approval.
Although some Arizona courts do follow that practice, the Court
recently issued an order in a different action in which it
acknowledged that it had previously engaged in the process of
approving settlements in individual FLSA actions but explained
that, upon careful reflection, it now joined the growing number of
courts that have concluded that judicial approval is neither
authorized nor necessary in this circumstance, citing Evans v.
Centurion Managed Care of Arizona LLC, 686 F. Supp. 3d 880, 881 (D.
Ariz. 2023).
Additionally, Judge Lanza says, although Evans only involved an
individual FLSA action, and thus, did not address whether
settlement approval is required in an FLSA collective action, other
courts have concluded that approval is not required in the
collection-action context, either. Judge Lanza cites these cases:
Walker v. Marathon Petroleum Corp., 684 F. Supp. 3d 408, 412-13
(W.D. Pa. 2023); Askew v. InterCont'l Hotels Corp., 620 F. Supp. 3d
635 (W.D. Ky. 2022); and Kennedy v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2024
WL 1361838, *4 (S.D. Cal. 2024).
The Court finds these cases persuasive, such that its analysis in
Evans is equally applicable in the collective-action context.
Thus, the parties may stipulate to dismissal of this action--in
which case, this case will be over--or, if any party wishes to
challenge the reasoning set forth in Evans and this order, it may
do so, Judge Lanza holds.
Accordingly, the Court holds that the parties' joint motion to
approve settlement agreement is denied without prejudice.
Within 14 days of the issuance of this order, the parties will file
one of the following: (1) a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); (2) a renewed motion for approval of their
settlement; or (3) a status report otherwise informing the Court as
to the status of this action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye2brm8k from PacerMonitor.com.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Delicato Sues Over Unprotected Info
------------------------------------------------------------
AMY DELICATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01423-S (N.D. Tex., June 10, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer
systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. is an internet service
provider with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. [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
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Ken Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, Retter Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RETTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01421-B (N.D. Tex., June 10, 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.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC. operates as a
telecommunications company. The Company offers a variety of
communications solutions services through its fiber-optic and
copper networks, including video, high-speed internet, advanced
voice, and frontier secure digital protection [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd.,
Suite 825 Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Moure Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN MOURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01441-X (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2024) arises out of the
Defendant's failures to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and
adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored
for its business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach")
that, upon information and belief, contained personally
identifiable information of Plaintiff and other individuals.
The Data Breach occurred on or around April 14, 2024, and Defendant
began sending notice letters to Class Members on June 6, 2024. The
PII compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal
information of individuals whose Private Information was maintained
by Defendant, including Plaintiff. A wide variety of PII was
implicated in the breach, including, name, contact information,
date of birth, and Social Security numbers, says the suit.
Allegedly, the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII with
which it was hired to protect.
The Defendant offers Internet, television, and other technology
services to its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr., Suite 108-570
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 720-4057
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Mays Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK MAYS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01468-K (N.D. Tex., June 14, 2024)
arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach that resulted in
the theft and exfiltration of hundreds of thousands of Frontier
customers' personally identifying information.
According to the complaint, Frontier failed to protect the
information of over 751,000 Frontier customers who entrusted it
with their PII. Threat actors breached Frontier's computer systems
and data, stole 5GB of customer data, and has threatened to post
the data on the internet unless Frontier pays a ransom by June 14,
2024. Now, the Plaintiff brings this class action to hold Frontier
accountable for its failure to adequately secure and protect its
customers' PII. Moreover, Plaintiff Mays assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Frontier provides services including
broadband internet, a fiber-optic network, cloud-based services,
digital television, and computer technical support to millions of
Americans across 25 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
GARDAWORLD SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cannon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK D. CANNON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GARDAWORLD SECURITY SERVICES MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, INC, d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00830
(E.D. Mo., June 14, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a nonexempt,
hourly-paid security guard employee since June 5, 2024. Allegedly,
the Defendant typically required Plaintiff and its other security
guard employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock"
before and after their scheduled shifts. Moreover, the Defendant
failed to accurately record employee time resulting in Defendant
failing to compensate Plaintiff for all hours he worked, the
Plaintiff says.
Headquartered in Missouri, GardaWorld Security Services Management
Company, Inc. provides security services, integrated risk
management and cash solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street #700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
GEORGE ADAMS: Class Settlement in Cothran Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action
settlement in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT COTHRAN, Plaintiff v.
GEORGE M. ADAMS, JR., SANDRA BROCK, SHAKER BROCK, KELLY A. POUND
and HAROLD IRWIN, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00518-CEH-CPT (M.D.
Fla.).
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of a proposed class action settlement of the
action ("Action") between Named Plaintiff Robert Cothran, on behalf
of a class of participants in the Electric Supply Employee Stock
Ownership Plan ("Plan"), and Defendants George M. Adams Jr., Sandra
Brock, Shaker Brock, Kelly A. Pound, and Harold Irwin, as set forth
in the Settling Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement
("Settlement Agreement").
Based on the its review, the Court finds, on a preliminary basis,
that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and within the range of possible approval, and that the Settlement
Agreement has been negotiated in good faith at arms-length between
experienced attorneys familiar with the legal and factual issues of
this case following substantial discovery.
Accordingly, the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement
Agreement, except that the Court does not approve the proposed
General Release Compensation to named Plaintiff Robert Cothran.
For settlement purposes, the Court preliminarily certifies the
following Settlement Class:
All participants of the ESOP who had an account balance
greater than zero at any time between Jan. 1, 2016, and
April 14, 2021, excluding the Defendants.
Named Plaintiff Robert Cothran is appointed as the Class
Representative, and Engstrom Lee LLC, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., and
Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., are appointed as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.
The Court approves the proposed Notice of Settlement and the method
of giving direct notice to Settlement Class Members by U.S. mail.
The Court finds that the proposed Notice fairly and adequately
provides information to the Settlement Class regarding, among other
things, the nature of the claims asserted in the Action and the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
No later than thirty (30) calendar days following the entry of this
Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Honeywell directs the Settlement
Administrator to distribute the proposed Notice to the Settlement
Class by first class mail, and will include a Rollover Form along
with the Notice. A Settlement Class Member must submit a completed,
satisfactory Rollover Form to the Settlement Administrator no later
than fourteen (14) calendar days before the Fairness Hearing in
order to be considered eligible for a rollover in lieu of a check.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator also will establish a Settlement Website and
toll-free telephone line relating to the Settlement no later than
thirty (30) calendar days following the entry of this Preliminary
Approval Order.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Analytics Consulting LLC is
appointed as the Settlement Administrator and will be required to
perform all the duties of the Settlement Administrator as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement and this Order.
On Sept. 19, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., or at such other date and time
later set by Court Order, the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to
give final consideration to the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Settlement Agreement.
Any Settlement Class Member may comment in support of or in
opposition to the Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that all
comments and objections will only be considered by the Court at the
Fairness Hearing if they have been timely sent to Class Counsel and
the Defendants' Counsel.
Any application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Administrative
Expenses, and General Release Compensation will be filed no later
than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the deadline for
objections.
No later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Fairness
Hearing, Class Counsel will file papers in support of Final
Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel will file any
objections to the Settlement with the motion for Final Approval of
the Settlement.
Any Settlement Class Member, who fails to object in the manner
prescribed herein, will be deemed to have waived such Settlement
Class Member's objections and will forever be barred from making
any such objections in this Action or in any other action or
proceeding.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mnne9a3m from PacerMonitor.com.
GOBRANDS INC: $400K Class Settlement in Beer Suit Has Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants the Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award in the lawsuit entitled
JONATHAN BEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOBRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-07386-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.).
On Oct. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
against Defendant GoBrands, Inc., asserting claims for violation of
California's: (1) Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"); (2) Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); and (3) Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA").
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, an online grocery
shopping and delivery service, violated the ARL, which requires
companies to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures and obtain
"affirmative consent" from consumers to enroll in its automatic
renewal plan. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant offers a
subscription service, the GoPuff Fam Subscription Program ("Fam"),
where consumers pay a monthly charge of $5.95 for grocery delivery.
Fam automatically renews on a monthly basis.
To enroll consumers, the Defendant offers a free 14-day trial
offer, and at the end of the trial period, the consumers are
automatically enrolled in the monthly subscription plan. However,
the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant does not provide clear and
conspicuous disclosures or obtain affirmative consent before
enrolling consumers in the auto-renewal plan.
On May 26, 2023, the parties filed a status report indicating that
they had reached an agreement. The parties have defined the
settlement class as "all California residents who signed up for a
GoPuff 'Fam' free trial and who thereafter were enrolled in the Fam
program and charged at least one monthly subscription fee following
the end of the free trial, during the Class Period." The Class
Period is defined as the period commencing July 23, 2021, and
ending on Feb. 6, 2023.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Defendant will pay a
non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $400,000, which will be
used to pay class members, administration costs, attorney's fees
and costs, and a service award to the Plaintiff.
In addition to monetary relief, the settlement provides for
programmatic relief. According to the parties, after this action
was filed, the Defendant re-designed its Fam disclosures to ensure
that consumers have the requisite ARL notice.
The settlement provides for up to $100,000 in attorney's fees (25%
of the gross settlement fund), costs not to exceed $9,000, and a
service award of $1,500 for Beers. The settlement administrator,
Angeion Group, will be paid no more than $50,000.
The payments to class members will consist of either a Credit
Benefit or a Cash Benefit. Credit Benefit(s) are automatic account
credits issued by GoPuff to each Settlement Class Member unless the
Settlement Class Member files a Cash Benefit Claim. This benefit,
which will not expire, will be applied towards a purchase made
through GoPuff.
Cash Benefit(s) are the form of cash payment issued for a valid
Cash Benefit Claim as determined by the Settlement Administrator
and in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Each class member
will receive a payment (either in the form of a credit or cash)
equal to the subscription fee they were charged for the first paid
month of their GoPuff Fam subscription. The payment amount will
equal $5.95 or $7.99, depending on when a Settlement Class Member
signed up.
If, after payment of administrative costs, attorney's fees and
costs, and the service award to the Plaintiff, there are
insufficient funds to make payments to class members in accordance
with their initial subscription, the payments will be reduced pro
rata.
On Jan. 3, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, appointed Angeion as the settlement administrator, and
directed Angeion to provide notice to the class. Angeion
implemented the notice program approved by the Court. As of May 8,
2024, Angeion had received one request for exclusion, and no
objections.
The Plaintiff now seeks: (1) final approval of the settlement; (2)
attorney's fees and costs; and (3) an incentive payment for the
Plaintiff.
The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and not the product of collusion.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the requested
$100,000 in attorney's fees, which equates to the 25% benchmark,
constitutes a reasonable fee. Class counsel seek $8,839.20 in
costs. The Court finds that the costs incurred by class counsel
over the course of this litigation are reasonable, and therefore,
awards a total of $8,839.20 in costs.
Based on its review of the record, the Court determined that a
service award of $1,500 to the Plaintiff was reasonable. The Court
sees no reason to depart from its previous determination.
Based on the foregoing, the Court orders that the Joint Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted upon the terms
and conditions set forth in this Order, and the Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award is granted upon the
terms and conditions set forth in this Order.
The Court grants final approval of the parties' Class Action
Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement
is fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the product of
arm's-length and informed negotiations, and treats all members of
the class fairly. The parties are ordered to perform their
obligations pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
this Order.
The settlement class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) as defined in the Settlement Agreement and this
Order.
The Court finds that the form, manner, and content of the Class
Notice meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2).
Plaintiff Jonathan Beer will be paid a service payment of $1,500 in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this
Order. Class counsel will be paid $100,000.00 in attorney's fees,
and $8,839.20 in costs in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and this Order. The Settlement Administrator,
Angeion, will be paid its fees in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and this Order.
All class members, who did not validly and timely request
exclusion, have released their claims against any of the released
parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) as set forth in
this Order and the Settlement Agreement.
Except as to any class members, who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth
herein and in the prior orders of the Court.
Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the parties, including class members, for the
purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Order and
Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvchw5rj from PacerMonitor.com.
GRITSTONE BIO: Faces Poslajko Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN POSLAJKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRITSTONE BIO, INC., ANDREW R. ALLEN, and VASSILIKI
ECONOMIDES, Case No. 3:24-cv-03449 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Gritstone securities between March 9, 2023 and
February 29, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In Sept. 2023, Gritstone entered into a contract with the
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ("BARDA") to
run a 10,000 participant, randomized Phase 2b double-blinded study
to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of its COVID-19
vaccine candidate (a samRNA vaccine candidate) with an approved
COVID-19 vaccine (the "Phase 2b CORAL Study" or the "Study").
In a press release announcing the Phase 2b CORAL Study, the Company
stated that the contract "provides strong validation of [its]
innovative vaccine platform in infectious diseases," that execution
of the study would be fully funded by BARDA, and that the Study
would be expected to launch in the first quarter of 2024.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
Company would be unable to launch the Phase 2b CORAL Study in the
timeframe it had represented to investors.
On Feb. 12, 2024, Gritstone issued a press release announcing that
the Company was delaying the launch of the Study until Fall 2024 to
purportedly "allow use of fully GMP-grade raw materials in the
vaccine, which is expected to increase the regulatory utility of
the trial."
Then, on Feb. 29, 2024, Gritstone issued a press release
"announcing an approximately 40% reduction of its workforce",
stating that "the move comes following the recently announced delay
of the proposed CORAL Phase 2b study, which resulted in Gritstone
not receiving external funding it previously anticipated beginning
in 1Q 2024, associated with the initiation of the study."
On this news, Gritstone's stock price fell $0.78 per share, or
27.86%, to close at $2.02 per share on March 1, 2024.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
The Plaintiff acquired Gritstone securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Gritstone, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, engages in
developing vaccine-based immunotherapy candidates against cancer
and infectious diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
jpafiti@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
HAMIDO SEAFOOD: Cruz Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO RAMOS CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HAMIDO SEAFOOD, CORP. and MOGHARED MANSY, Case No.
1:24-cv-04152 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher and cleaner
from June 1, 2018 to December 30, 2023.
Throughout his employment, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
Plaintiff the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in
excess of forty by paying him a weekly salary, as the FLSA and the
NYLL require. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs for his
spread of hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, the Defendants failed
to furnish Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements
on each payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a
wage notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL, says
the suit.
Mr. Mansy was the president, and/or owner, and/or day-to-day
overseer of Hamido Seafood. As such, Mr. Mansy was responsible for
hiring and firing employees, determining their rates and methods of
pay and the hours that employees were required to work.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com
HEART OF HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Averette Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AERON AVERETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEART OF HOSPICE, LLC; and LHC GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00479-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La., June 12,
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 Averette was employed by the Defendants as a patient care
employee.
Heart To Heart Hospice Management LLC provides medical care and
supportive services for patients with life-limiting illnesses. The
Company offers hospice services, patient care and comfort,
medications, physical therapy, and family counseling. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
HIGH HORSE: Faces Ochoa Labor Suit Over Improper Tip Retention
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEENAY OCHOA, ADRIAN ORONA, JUAN VILLAGOMEZ, and all others
similarly situated v. RUBEN ISRAEL AGUILAR, HIGH HORSE INVESTMENT
LLC, and HH ADMINISTRATION LLC, Case No. e 2:24-cv-00597 (D.N.M.,
June 12, 2024) is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and as both a collective and class action pursuant to
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act against the Defendants for its
improper retention of Plaintiffs' tip.
The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants at their "High Horse
Cannabis Co." dispensary locations in New Mexico. They seeks
declaratory judgment and compensation, damages, equitable and other
relief available under the FLSA and NWMWA.
High Horse currently operates at least three retail cannabis
dispensaries in New Mexico."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shane Youtz, Esq.
Stephen Curtice, Esq.
James A. Montalbano, Esq.
Grace Rhodehouse Barberena, Esq.
YOUTZ & VALDEZ PC
900 Gold Ave. SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 244-1200
E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com
stephen@youtzvaldez.com
james@youtzvaldez.com
grace@youtzvaldez.com
- and -
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
mae@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
pmb@mselaborlaw.com
HIRSCHBACH MOTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailey Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MITZYE BAILEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC., and BRIAN
KOHLWES, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02260 (S.D. Tex., June 14,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and other similarly
employees who performed work in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff worked as a driver/spotter and was an hourly-paid,
admittedly non-exempt and overtime eligible worker for Defendants
during the three years prior to the filing of this complaint. The
Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week but was not paid
overtime at a rate of time and one half his regular rate of pay,
including non-discretionary bonuses, for hours worked in excess of
40 per week, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dubuque, IA, Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. provides
refrigerated and short-haul transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
HOLICITY HOLDINGS: $16.5MM Settlement to be Heard on July 30
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JESSE NEWBOLD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRAIG MCCAW, CATHLEEN A. MASSEY,
WAYNE PERRY, RANDY RUSSELL, R.
GERARD SALEMME, DENNIS WEIBLING,
PENDRELL CORPORATION, and X-ICITY
HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a PENDRELL
HOLICITY HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2022-0439-LWW
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
All holders of Holicity Inc. ("Holicity") Class A common stock
(excluding, for the avoidance of doubt, shares of Holicity Class B
common stock that converted into Holicity Class A common stock
solely in connection with the Merger), whether beneficial or of
record, together with the heirs, successors in interest,
transferees, and assignees of all such foregoing holders, as of the
effective time of the acquisition of legacy Astra Space, Inc.
("Legacy Astra") by Holicity on June 30, 2021 (the "Effective
Time") (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used
in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice
or in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and
Release dated April 22, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), which is also
available at www.HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class defined above.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Plaintiff Jesse Newbold
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the other members of the
Settlement Class; and (ii) Defendants Craig McCaw, Cathleen A.
Massey, Wayne Perry, R. Gerard Salemme, Dennis Weibling, and Randy
Russell (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); Pendrell
Corporation ("Pendrell"); and X-icity Holdings Corporation f/k/a
Pendrell Holicity Holdings Corporation ("X-icity," and together
with the Individual Defendants and Pendrell, "Defendants") have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $16,500,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve
all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on July 30, 2024,
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor,
at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle
County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference
(in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i)
determine whether to finally certify the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel—Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP—have adequately represented the Settlement Class, and whether
they should be finally appointed as Class Representative and Class
Counsel, respectively, for the Settlement Class; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to, and in the best interests of,
Plaintiff and the other members of the Settlement Class; (iv)
determine whether the proposed Final Order and Judgment approving
the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and granting
the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (v)
determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net
Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be
approved; (vi) determine whether and in what amount any award of
attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to Plaintiff's
Counsel (the "Fee and Expense Award") should be paid out of the
Settlement Fund, including any incentive award to Plaintiff (the
"Incentive Award") to be paid solely from any Fee and Expense
Award; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's
application for a Fee and Expense Award, including Plaintiff's
application for an Incentive Award to be paid solely from any Fee
and Expense Award (the "Fee and Expense Application"); and (viii)
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date, time, or
format of the hearing or updates regarding remote or in-person
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator by mail at Holicity
Stockholders Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173127,
Milwaukee, WI 53217; by telephone at 877-411-4620; or by email at
info@HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of shares of Holicity Class A common
stock (excluding, for the avoidance of doubt, shares of Holicity
Class B common stock that converted into Holicity Class A common
stock solely in connection with the Merger) held as of the
Effective Time of the Merger on June 30, 2021, excluding those
shares held by Excluded Stockholders and Redeeming Stockholders
("Eligible Shares") and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares
held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail
in the Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim
form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
including Plaintiff's application for an Incentive Award, must be
filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than July
15, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Plaintiff's Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Holicity Stockholders Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173127
Milwaukee, WI 53217
877-411-4620
info@HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com
www.HolicityStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:
Jeroen van Kwawegen
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
800‑380‑8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
OF CHANCERY OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
HONDA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Seek to Strike Bid 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, on July 15, 2024,
will move the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to strike application for leave to file under seal
and all attachments.
The parties met and conferred on June 11, 2024, and Honda does not
oppose this motion. This Motion is based on this Notice, and all
other facts the Court may or should take notice of, all filings,
records, and proceedings in this case, and any oral argument the
Court may entertain
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=eQDWBa 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
HONEYWELL INT'L: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Funkhouser-Ward
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois grants the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit titled AUTUMN FUNKHOUSER-WARD, Plaintiff v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-02344-SMY (S.D. Ill.). (Consolidated with 21-cv-485 [Master
Consolidated Case], 22-cv-1661, 22-cv-2112, and 23-cv-2).
Plaintiff Autumn Funkhouser-Ward filed the lawsuit against
Defendant Honeywell International, Inc., asserting liability for
violations of the Price-Anderson Act and negligence. Honeywell
moves for summary judgment, which Funkhouser-Ward opposes.
Construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Judge
Yandle says the evidence and reasonable inferences establish the
following facts relevant to the pending summary judgment motion:
Funkhouser-Ward lived in Metropolis, Illinois, for approximately 26
years. She has lived in Anna, Illinois, which is approximately an
hour from Metropolis, since 2019.
Ms. Funkhouser-Ward first became aware of the existence of the
Facility in 2001 when she moved to 14 Grace Drive, which is less
than one mile from the Facility. She testified that there was a
release event at the Facility between 2003 and 2006, which lead her
to believe that the Facility's work with uranium and radioactive
hazardous materials was "an actual issue." Her family temporarily
evacuated their home until they were notified it was clear to
return.
A second evacuation event occurred within a month of the first.
After the second evacuation, Funkhouser-Ward read in the newspaper
that people, who lived near or worked at the Facility, reported
seeing particles or other visible material in the sky. She was
concerned about living near the Facility after these events,
particularly due to potential risks that releases from the Facility
could pose to her sons. She was also concerned about the releases
at the Facility because in 2004 or 2005, she found dead birds in
her backyard and had to euthanize her dog after finding the dog
gurgling/foaming at the mouth.
Ms. Funkhouser-Ward was diagnosed with papillary carcinoma, a form
of thyroid cancer, by Dr. Shawn Jones in Paducah, Kentucky, in
March 2014. At the time of her diagnosis, she did not think that
her cancer was related to the Facility, and she did not at that
time conduct any research or receive any information (from her
doctors or otherwise) about the kinds of things that could cause
her cancer.
Ms. Funkhouser-Ward moved to a home outside of Metropolis in 2016.
She testified that the family "moved as soon as we could find a
place" in order to get away from Honeywell because she felt like it
was poisoning her family. Around that time, she learned that the
band director at Massac County High School, who was about her age,
developed a brain tumor. Funkhouser-Ward "definitely" associated
his brain tumor with the Facility because he was "outside all the
time, out on the football field" for band practice.
Sometime in or before 2018, Funkhouser-Ward saw an advertisement
from the Kruger Law Firm in the newspaper regarding the firm's
investigation of potential claims related to the Facility. She
wanted the Kruger Law Firm to investigate the Facility because she
believed the attorneys would help determine whether the Facility
was a potential cause of her cancer. She visited the law firm and
filled out paperwork with general information about herself. Around
a week or two later, the firm called her back to notify her that
they were going to move forward with her case.
Ms. Funkhouser-Ward completed a Metropolis Health Survey in
connection with her potential claims in 2018. The Metropolis Health
Survey stated that plaintiffs' counsel were "concerned about the
possibility that radioactive contamination originating at [the
Facility] may have increased the level of cancer in adults and
genetic effects in children in your area," and asked for
information regarding any cancer diagnosis. In the section of the
Survey regarding her cancer diagnosis, Funkhouser-Ward responded:
"Thyroid Cancer."
The Thompson-Barney Law Firm and the Cooper Law Firm retained Dr.
Phillip Plato as an expert in radiation dosimetry to evaluate
radioisotopes found in the environmental samples collected around
the Facility. In his Declaration, Dr. Plato avers that the
Plaintiff's attorneys began investigating "whether the Metropolis
Plant created a cancer risk for Ms. Funkhouser-Ward" in August 2019
when results of "indoor household dust and outdoor soil sampling
were sent to me." The samples were sent to a radiochemistry
laboratory to determine radioisotope concentrations in early 2020,
and the results were received a few months later.
Ms. Funkhouser-Ward filed the instant lawsuit against Honeywell on
Oct. 10, 2022.
Honeywell moves for summary judgment, arguing that the limitations
period began running no later than upon Funkhouser-Ward's
engagement of counsel in 2018. Illinois imposes a two-year statute
of limitations on personal injury claims.
Honeywell argues that Funkhouser-Ward's initial engagement with the
Kruger Law Firm, and their inquiry as to whether her condition was
wrongfully caused, triggered the two-year statute of limitations.
Funkhouser-Ward counters that neither she, her counsel, nor their
experts could have reasonably or even possibly known of the
probable wrongful cause of her injuries until they could establish,
at a minimum, that Funkhouser-Ward had ever suffered actual
exposure to any level of radiation from the Facility.
For purposes of the discovery rule, Judge Yandle notes that
"wrongfully caused" does not mean knowledge of a specific
defendant's negligent conduct or knowledge of the existence of a
cause of action, citing Castello v. Kalis, 816 N.E.2d 782, 789
(2004). Rather, it refers to when the injured party learns that
her/his injury may stem from another's negligence as opposed to
natural causes. That is enough for the law to expect the injured
party to investigate a potential cause of action.
Contrary to her arguments, Judge Yandle finds that the evidence
indicates that Funkhouser-Ward had reasonable belief that her
condition was wrongfully caused at the time of her initial visit to
the law firm. She testified that by 2016, she believed that the
Facility was poisoning her family and moved her family away from
the Facility as soon as they could find another home.
In 2018, Funkhouser-Ward visited the Kruger Law Firm because she
believed the Facility may have caused her cancer diagnosis and
wanted the law firm to investigate any potential connection with
the Facility. At that point, Judge Yandle says, she was on notice
that her injuries may have been wrongfully caused. In answering
questions on the law firm's health questionnaire, Funkhouser-Ward
indicated that her diagnosis may have been the result of exposure
to radiation.
Judge Yandle holds that this case was not timely filed. Although
the Plaintiff's counsel contends that they did not reasonably
believe the Facility was the probable wrongful cause of the injury
of any plaintiff or potential plaintiff, who had ever consulted
with them until February 2021, by that point the related
class-action lawsuit had been pending for 33 months. Their
arguments are belied by their actions. The undisputed material
facts establish that Funkhouser-Ward's attorneys collected samples
in 2019, received the results from the radiochemistry laboratory in
early 2020, and did not file this lawsuit until October 2022.
Finally, Funkhouser-Ward argues for an extension of the statute of
limitations period due to Honeywell's alleged fraudulent
concealment.
Judge Yandle opines that Funkhouser-Ward has provided no evidence
that Honeywell prevented her from investigating or filing claims
against it. As such, neither theory can save her claim.
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant Honeywell
International Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of
Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 10,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/j9a2prb3 from
PacerMonitor.com.
INMARKET MEDIA: Bid to Consolidate in Kruger Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and for appointment of interim
class counsel in the lawsuits styled AUTRY WILLIS, Plaintiff v.
INMARKET MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00511-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), and KENNETH KRUGER, Plaintiff v. INMARKET MEDIA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00683-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
In these related actions, the Plaintiffs bring data privacy claims
against InMarket Media on behalf of putative nationwide classes and
California subclasses. The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and
for appointment of interim class counsel is now pending before the
Court. After considering the motion and the relevant legal
authority, the Court concludes oral argument is unnecessary, see
Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the June 20, 2024 hearing, and grants in
part and denies in part the motion.
Plaintiffs Autry Willis and Kenneth Kruger filed these putative
class actions within a week of each other. They allege InMarket
Media collected, stored, shared, and/or used their historical and
real-time geolocation data without their informed consent,
including through an InMarket Software Development Kit that was
embedded in third-party applications. The Plaintiffs bring
identical claims under California law and the Kruger action also
pleads a claim under the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2510.
On the heels of the complaints, the Plaintiffs filed the now
pending motion to consolidate the actions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42(a) and motion for appointment of interim class
counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Upon receipt,
the Court related the two actions under Civil Local Rule 3-12 and
continued the hearing on the motion until June 13, 2024, to allow
the Defendant time to appear and respond to the complaint, and
because the Plaintiffs had indicated other duplicative actions were
likely to be filed. The Court subsequently reset this date to June
20, 2024, based on its own unavailability.
The parties, thereafter, filed a stipulation that any response to
the complaints would be due after the Court ruled on the pending
motion.
The Plaintiffs contend consolidation is appropriate because the two
actions assert common claims against the same defendant based on
the same alleged misconduct and seek certification of similar
classes based on allegations of similar harm.
Given the overlapping claims, classes, and defendant, as well as
InMarket Media's non-opposition, the Court concludes consolidate is
appropriate and grants the motion to consolidate.
The Court, however, is not persuaded appointment of interim class
counsel is appropriate at this time. In their motion, the
Plaintiffs indicate appointment is necessary because "other
duplicative actions will likely be filed in this Court and
elsewhere," but it does not appear any such actions have been
filed, at least in this District.
Judge Corley notes that the Plaintiffs' counsel in these actions
appear to be working well together and indeed, as lead counsel in
each seek appointment as co-lead interim counsel, there will be no
difference in the workload among the two whether interim
appointment is granted or not. The Plaintiffs have not shown under
the present circumstances that appointment of interim counsel is
necessary to protect the interests of the class. Accordingly, the
motion for appointment of interim class counsel is denied without
prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the motion to consolidate
is granted and the motion for appointment of interim class counsel
is denied without prejudice. These related actions are consolidated
under the docket number of the first-filed Willis case, No.
3:24-cv-00511-JSC, under the title In re InMarket Media Location
Data Tracking Litigation.
Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Judge Corley directs the
Plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint. The
Defendant's response is due 30 days after filing of the
consolidated complaint.
The Court sets an initial case management conference for Aug. 29,
2024, at 1:30 p.m. via videoconference. A joint case management
conference statement is due Aug. 22, 2024. This Order disposes of
Docket No. 11.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5rwfwu from PacerMonitor.com.
INMARKET MEDIA: Bid to Consolidate in Willis Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and for appointment of interim
class counsel in the lawsuits styled AUTRY WILLIS, Plaintiff v.
INMARKET MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00511-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), and KENNETH KRUGER, Plaintiff v. INMARKET MEDIA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00683-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
In these related actions, the Plaintiffs bring data privacy claims
against InMarket Media on behalf of putative nationwide classes and
California subclasses. The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and
for appointment of interim class counsel is now pending before the
Court. After considering the motion and the relevant legal
authority, the Court concludes oral argument is unnecessary, see
Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the June 20, 2024 hearing, and grants in
part and denies in part the motion.
Plaintiffs Autry Willis and Kenneth Kruger filed these putative
class actions within a week of each other. They allege InMarket
Media collected, stored, shared, and/or used their historical and
real-time geolocation data without their informed consent,
including through an InMarket Software Development Kit that was
embedded in third-party applications. The Plaintiffs bring
identical claims under California law and the Kruger action also
pleads a claim under the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2510.
On the heels of the complaints, the Plaintiffs filed the now
pending motion to consolidate the actions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42(a) and motion for appointment of interim class
counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Upon receipt,
the Court related the two actions under Civil Local Rule 3-12 and
continued the hearing on the motion until June 13, 2024, to allow
the Defendant time to appear and respond to the complaint, and
because the Plaintiffs had indicated other duplicative actions were
likely to be filed. The Court subsequently reset this date to June
20, 2024, based on its own unavailability.
The parties, thereafter, filed a stipulation that any response to
the complaints would be due after the Court ruled on the pending
motion.
The Plaintiffs contend consolidation is appropriate because the two
actions assert common claims against the same defendant based on
the same alleged misconduct and seek certification of similar
classes based on allegations of similar harm.
Given the overlapping claims, classes, and defendant, as well as
InMarket Media's non-opposition, the Court concludes consolidate is
appropriate and grants the motion to consolidate.
The Court, however, is not persuaded appointment of interim class
counsel is appropriate at this time. In their motion, the
Plaintiffs indicate appointment is necessary because "other
duplicative actions will likely be filed in this Court and
elsewhere," but it does not appear any such actions have been
filed, at least in this District.
Judge Corley notes that the Plaintiffs' counsel in these actions
appear to be working well together and indeed, as lead counsel in
each seek appointment as co-lead interim counsel, there will be no
difference in the workload among the two whether interim
appointment is granted or not. The Plaintiffs have not shown under
the present circumstances that appointment of interim counsel is
necessary to protect the interests of the class. Accordingly, the
motion for appointment of interim class counsel is denied without
prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the motion to consolidate
is granted and the motion for appointment of interim class counsel
is denied without prejudice. These related actions are consolidated
under the docket number of the first-filed Willis case, No.
3:24-cv-00511-JSC, under the title In re InMarket Media Location
Data Tracking Litigation.
Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Judge Corley directs the
Plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint. The
Defendant's response is due 30 days after filing of the
consolidated complaint.
The Court sets an initial case management conference for Aug. 29,
2024, at 1:30 p.m. via videoconference. A joint case management
conference statement is due Aug. 22, 2024. This Order disposes of
Docket No. 11.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryfrp6h from PacerMonitor.com.
INTERNATIONAL SHOPPES: Lazar Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER LAZAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. INTERNATIONAL SHOPPES, LLC and DIPLOMATIC DUTY FREE SHOPS OF NEW
YORK, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04170 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2024) is a
class action arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
The Defendants are a "duty free and specialty retail operator in US
based airports."
According to the complaint, the Defendants store a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health
information -- about their current and former employees, vendors,
visitors, diplomatic customers, and foreign military customers. But
the Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach (the "Data Breach"), the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having confirmed with
Defendants that he was exposed. He brings this class action on
behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendants'
misconduct.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: July 26 Talcum Settlement Voting Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Notice
$8 Billion Plan Proposed to Pay Sick Talcum Powder Users
Your rights could be impacted by a proposed bankruptcy if you are
sick now or in the future from ovarian or gynecological cancer.
Vote to accept or reject the Plan by 4:00 p.m. (Central Time) on
July 26, 2024
Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary (together called the
"companies") have agreed to pay approximately $8 billion over 25
years to people who claim talcum powder products made them sick. If
you believe you are sick from using J&J products that contain talc,
such as Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, you may have an
opportunity to vote on a bankruptcy plan that governs how claims
will be paid.
The companies maintain that their products are safe, do not contain
asbestos, and do not cause cancer or other illnesses. Please note,
J&J discontinued Johnson's talc-based Baby Powder in May 2020 and
sold Shower to Shower in 2012 to another company.
What is the Plan?
Under the Plan, a multi-billion-dollar trust will be established to
pay current and future talc claims. If the Plan is approved, you
will not be able to bring a lawsuit against the companies or other
parties for any talc claim. Mesothelioma, lung cancer, and Canadian
claims are not part of the Plan.
The Plan provides a way for ovarian claimants to receive
compensation without going to trial. J&J has won approximately 95%
of ovarian cases tried to date, including every ovarian cancer case
tried over the last six years. In addition, based on the historical
run rate, if the Plan were not approved, it would take decades to
litigate the remaining cases. Therefore, most claimants would never
have "their day in court."
How can I vote on the Plan?
You must cast your vote to accept or reject the Plan by 4:00 p.m.
(Central Time) on July 26, 2024. Information about how to vote is
provided in a solicitation package, which includes details on the
proposed bankruptcy, the Plan, and a ballot.
Already Filed a Talc Claim: You or your attorney will receive a
solicitation package.
Have Not Filed a Talc Claim: Go to www.OfficialTalcClaims.com or
call 1-888-431-4056 to request a solicitation package
to determine whether you can vote on the Plan.
When will the court decide on the Plan?
If the Plan is accepted by at least 75% of voters, a bankruptcy may
be filed under the case name In re: Red River Talc LLC. This will
take place in the Texas bankruptcy court. A hearing to confirm the
Plan will be scheduled and further notifications will be issued if
the court sets a deadline for objections
www.OfficialTalcClaims.com
1-888-431-4056
KEVIN JOHNSON: Class Settlement in Colon Suit Has Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, issued an order adopting a report and
recommendation, and granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement in the lawsuit titled JOHANA COLON, et al., Plaintiffs
v. KEVIN G. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:22-cv-00888-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.).
The matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and
recommendation of Thomas G. Wilson, United States Magistrate Judge,
entered on May 31, 2024. Judge Wilson recommends that the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement be granted.
On June 10, 2024, the parties filed a joint notice of
non-objection. After review of the report and recommendation, the
subject motion, and the attachments thereto, the Court adopts the
report and recommendation, grants the motion and orders as
follows.
The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of possible
approval and that the settlement has been negotiated in good-faith
at arms-length, facilitated by an experienced mediator following
substantial discovery.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), the Court
certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following settlement
class:
All Participants who were issued a distribution from the
Plan, or their Beneficiaries or Alternate Payee, excluding
Leigh Anne Fernandes and Dale Hersey.
Named Plaintiffs Johana Colon, Christine Rundberg, and Anthony
Womack are appointed as the class representatives, and Engstrom Lee
LLC, and Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., are appointed as class
counsel for the settlement class.
The Court finds the plan of allocation proposed by class counsel is
fair, reasonable and adequate as it proposes each class member's
distribution to be equal to the net settlement amount multiplied by
the percentage of all prior distributions received by the class
member during the class period.
The Court finds that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), the proposed
notice of settlement constitutes the best notice practicable under
the circumstances, provides due and sufficient notice of the final
fairness hearing and of the rights of all settlement class members,
and complies fully with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the
Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable law.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Analytics Consulting, LLC, is
appointed as the settlement administrator and will be required to
perform all the duties of the settlement administrator as set forth
in the settlement agreement and this Order.
The Court approves the establishment of the qualified settlement
fund. Analytics Consulting will be the administrator of the
qualified settlement fund and will be responsible for all tax
withholding and reporting related to the qualified settlement fund,
including for determining whether tax-qualified rollover
distributions may be offered to the settlement class members.
No later than thirty (30) calendar days after the entry of this
Order, the settlement administrator will send by first-class mail
the settlement notice to each settlement class member identified by
the settlement administrator based upon the data available from
either the plan's former recordkeeper provided in discovery or
information provided by settlement class members.
In accordance with the settlement agreement, the settlement
administrator also will establish a settlement website and
toll-free telephone line relating to the settlement no later than
thirty (30) calendar days following the entry of this Preliminary
Approval Order.
The Court appoints Fiduciary Counselors, Inc., to perform the
duties of the independent fiduciary under the settlement agreement.
The Court further approves the payment or reimbursement of up to
$25,000 in fees and expenses of the independent fiduciary from the
qualified settlement fund.
A final fairness hearing will be held by the magistrate judge to
determine whether the Court should approve the settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; the Court should enter the final approval
order; and the Court should approve the application for attorney's
fees and costs, and administrative expenses.
Any settlement class member may comment in support of or in
opposition to the settlement agreement. Any party may file a
response to an objection by a class member at least seven (7)
calendar days before the final fairness hearing.
Any settlement class member, who fails to object in the manner
prescribed herein will be deemed to have waived such settlement
class member's objections and will forever be barred from making
any such objections in this action or in any other action or
proceeding.
Any application for attorney's fees and costs, and administrative
expenses, will be filed no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days
prior to the deadline for objections.
No later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to final fairness
hearing, class counsel will file papers in support of final
approval of the settlement agreement. Class counsel will file any
objections to the settlement with the motion for final approval of
the settlement.
Pending final determination of whether the settlement agreement
should be approved, no settlement class member may directly,
through representatives, or in any other capacity, commence any
action or proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any of the
released claims against the Defendants, the released parties,
and/or the plan.
The Court approves the CAFA Notice attached as Exhibit E and orders
that upon mailing of the CAFA Notice, the Defendants will have
fulfilled their obligations under CAFA.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2aydxfsn from PacerMonitor.com.
KEYSTONE SERVICING: Blazovic Sues Over Retention of Residual Equity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HELENA BLAZOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE SERVICING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06893 (D.N.J., June 10, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the United States
Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Prohibition on
Takings without Just Compensation, the New Jersey Constitution's
Prohibition on Takings without Just Compensation and for inverse
condemnation, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.
The case arises from Keystone's retention of the residual equity in
excess of the Plaintiff's unpaid taxes and utility charges when it
foreclosed on the Plaintiff's house in South River, New Jersey, in
violation of the United States Constitution's and New Jersey
Constitution's prohibition on the taking of private property for
public use without just compensation. While the Plaintiff owed
money to the local government, such debt does not give license to
the government and Keystone to unconstitutionally take the equity
she had built up in her house over almost 25 years. The Plaintiff
and the proposed Class desire just compensation for the taking of
their private property and restitution of excessive fines, the suit
says.
Keystone Servicing Company, LLC is a collection agency based in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Cepler, Esq.
Steven R. Schoenfeld, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
Email: ccepler@denleacarton.com
sschoenfeld@denleacarton.com
LEEANN'S LOCKER: Commercial Property Inaccessible, De La Torre Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. LEEANN'S LOCKER, LLC, and EPPI INC
d/b/a PALMETTO BAY CHEVRON, Case No. 1:24-cv-22268 (S.D. Fla., June
12, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by 42
U.S.C. section 12182 et seq., says the suit.
The Defendant owned and operated a commercial gas station at 16767
Old Cutler Rd. Palmetto Bay, Florida.
Both Defendants, Leeann's Locker, Llc And Eppi Inc D/B/A Palmetto
Bay Chevron, own, operate and/or oversee the Commercial Property;
to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to
the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the
public located within the Commercial Property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
LEESBURG MANOR: Blanco et al. Sue Over Excessive Media Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZULMA BLANCO, MARIA ROJAS, LAZARO HERNANDEZ, JOHANA MARTINEZ, and
ARLEN HENRIQUEZ CRUZ, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LEESBURG MANOR OWNER, LLC,
LEESBURG MANOR EAST OWNER, LLC, and WESTMINSTER PILLAR MANAGEMENT
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01045 (E.D. Va., June 14, 2024)
is brought against the Defendants for actual, punitive, and
statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the
Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act, the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act, and the Virginia Fair Housing Law, and for specific
performance and damages for their breach of Plaintiffs' and the
putative class members' lease agreements.
The Plaintiffs' claims stem from Defendants' discriminatory
decision to impose and collect a $90-per-month "Media Service and
Amenity" fee -- or "Media Fee" -- that purportedly covers internet
and cable television for each tenant at the Manor Apartments and
Manor East Apartments in Leesburg, VA. The Defendants implemented
Media Fee even if they're well aware that many tenants paid for
their Internet through subsidized programs for as little as $9.99 a
month. Moreover, these tenants were now forced to give up the
subsidized benefits they were receiving and pay for Internet
through Defendants at a much higher price. The tenants who
complained about the Media Fee are now facing with the ongoing
threat of eviction, says the suit.
Leesburg Manor Owner, LLC owns dwelling units that are advertised,
operated, managed, and leased by Westminster Pillar Management.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
matt@kellyguzzo.com
LG SMART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Camacaro Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
HAROLD R. CAMACARO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG SMART HOME SOLUTIONS INC.; and
LUCIANO GEREZ, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61019-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 12, 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 Camacaro was employed by the Defendants as a construction
employee.
LG Smart Home Solutions Inc. is a smart home solution company.
[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
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Amended Hubiack Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the lawsuit styled THOMAS HUBIACK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS CORP., AJAY KOCHHAR, TIM JOHNSTON,
and DEBORAH SIMPSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09894-JSR
(S.D.N.Y.).
Defendant Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. is a Canadian company that
recycles old batteries and battery manufacturing scrap to produce
more valuable metals and, it hopes, new batteries for electric
cars. Li-Cycle's latter goal was recently dashed after it paused
construction on a purported hub facility, which would have been the
site of its first foray into producing new battery grade material.
After Li-Cycle announced the pause, its investors sued the company
and three of its officers for securities fraud. The amended
complaint largely alleges that the Defendants made false or
materially misleading statements about the timeline and budget for
the hub's construction.
As explained in its Opinion and Order, the Court grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint because it does
not adequately allege an actionable false or misleading statement
and, in any event, fails to allege the requisite strong inference
of scienter.
While, as Hubiack's allegations indicate, this lawsuit is not
without some arguable suggestion of fraud, Judge Rakoff finds the
allegations fail to meet the applicable requirements necessary to
transform speculation into legally cognizable claims. At bottom,
Judge Rakoff says, Hubiack's theory of the case is that the
Defendants committed fraud by intentionally or recklessly
misstating or omitting material information about the cost and
progress of the construction at the Rochester hub facility.
In sum, Judge Rakoff opines, the amended complaint's identified
statements about the progress of the hub's construction are either
too general to be actionable or are not sufficiently shown to have
been false or misleading when they were made.'
Judge Rakoff also finds that the amended complaint fails to state a
securities fraud claim. Even if the amended complaint had
sufficiently pleaded an actionable false or misleading statement,
the amended complaint would still need to be dismissed for the
independent reason that it does not adequately allege scienter,
Judge Rakoff points out.
For the two independently sufficient reasons that the amended
complaint neither alleges an actionable false or misleading
statement nor sufficiently alleges a strong inference of scienter,
the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Hubiack has neither sought leave to amend the complaint
for a second time in the event of dismissal nor remotely suggested
that there are additional facts he could allege to cure any
deficiencies.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the amended complaint with
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close document 48 on the docket
of this case and to enter final judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 10,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u69jkyz from
PacerMonitor.com.
LIVE NATION: Lipeles Alleges Deceptive Madonna Concert Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTEN LIPELES, an individual; KEVIN GAMMON an individual; CLAUDIA
BENITEZ an individual; EDWARD HAKOBJANYAN an individual; and
MARCELA VERONICA NAJERA an individual; on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE,
an individual; LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; a Delaware corporation;
et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04896 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2024) is a
class action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers
who were deceived and lulled into purchasing expensive tickets for
a concert to be performed by one of the premier performers of the
past 40 years.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had advertised, promoted
and covenanted that Madonna Louise Ciccone ("Madonna") would appear
for a series of concerts beginning at 8:30 p.m. Madonna's
Celebration Tour concerts took place at venues throughout the
nation, including 4 venues in California; the Kia Forum in
Inglewood, Acrisure Arena in Palm Springs, Golden Center in
Sacramento and the Chase Center in San Francisco.
Madonna and her promoter Live Nation, purposely and deceptively
withheld informing ticket purchasers in the marketing of the
concerts that:
(1) Madonna would not appear at 8:30 as promised, but would
instead make fans wait until after 10:00 p.m. or later to
start her shows;
(2) Madonna would maintain a hot and uncomfortable temperature
in each of the venues during her performances;
(3) Madonna would lip synch much of her performance; and
(4) topless women would perform on stage simulating sexual acts,
the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendants should have disclosed this information to consumers
before they purchased their tickets. Forcing consumers to wait
hours in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to
pornography without warning is demonstrative of Madonna's flippant
disrespect for her fans. The Defendants' actions with respect to
the concerts at the various arenas constitute not only a breach of
contract with the Plaintiffs and the Class, but also a wanton
exercise in negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence, negligence per se, false
advertising, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, a
public nuisance and unfair competition, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory, declaratory, and
injunctive relief for himself and all members of the class, to
compensate these consumers for their damages and to protect current
and future consumers of the Defendants from being subjected to
similar unlawful actions.
The Defendants include LIVE NATION MTOURS (USA), INC., a Delaware
corporation; FORUM ENTERTAINMENT, LLC DBA KIA FORUM, a Delaware
limited liability company; OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC DBA ACRISURE ARENA,
a Delaware limited liability company; GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, LLC,
DBA GOLDEN1 CENTER, a California limited liability company; CHASE
CENTER, an entity of unknown form; BARCLAY'S CENTER, an entity of
unknown form; CAPITAL ONE ARENA, an entity of unknown form; TD
GARDEN, an entity of unknown form; LITTLE CAESAR’S ARENA, an
entity of unknown form; MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, an entity of unknown
form; WELLS FARGO ARENA, an entity of unknown form; THE UNITED
CENTER, an entity of unknown form; PPG PAINTS ARENA, an entity of
unknown form; ROCKET MORTGAGE FIELDHOUSE, an entity of unknown
form; XCEL ENERGY CENTER, an entity of unknown form; CLIMATE PLEDGE
ARENA, an entity of unknown form; TMOBILE ARENA, an entity of
unknown form; FOOTPRINT CENTER, an entity of unknown form; BALL
ARENA, an entity of unknown form; AMERICAN AIRLINES CENTER, an
entity of unknown form; TOYOTA CENTER, an entity of unknown form;
STATE FARM ARENA, an entity of unknown form; AMALIE ARENA, an
entity of unknown form; KASEYA CENTER, an entity of unknown form;
MOODY CENTER, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive.
Live Nation operates as an entertainment company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
El Segundo, California 90245
Telephone: (310) 322-2211
Facsimile: (310) 322-2252
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Andretta Sues Over Breaches of Privacy Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA ANDRETTA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONG ISLAND PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, PC d/b/a
NEW YORK PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04554-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant has violated the privacy rights of visitors to and users
of its website by using tracking technologies to collect and
divulge their highly sensitive personal information without their
informed consent.
According to the complaint, despite willfully and intentionally
incorporating tracking tools, the Defendant has never disclosed to
Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their sensitive and
confidential communications and private information with Facebook,
Google and/or other third parties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks
to remedy Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings individual and
representative claims for violation of the Electronics
Communication Privacy Act -- unauthorized interception, use and
disclosure; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty/confidentiality; (iii)
unjust enrichment; (iv) negligence; (v) violation of the New York
Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, and (vi) constructive bailment.
Headquartered in New York, Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC
d/b/a New York Plastic Surgical Group, PC is a professional
corporation that provides plastic surgery services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
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: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
david@almeidalawgroup.com
elena@almeidalawgroup.com
MAIN LINE: Bid to Dismiss Smart Suit Granted Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kai N. Scott of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants, without prejudice, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled DAVID SMART, Plaintiff v.
MAIN LINE HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-05239-KNS (E.D.
Pa.).
Plaintiff David Smart brings this proposed class action against
Defendant Main Line Health, Inc., asserting claims for (1)
violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (2)
negligence, and (3) invasion of privacy -- intrusion upon
seclusion. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, which has been fully
briefed, and for which both parties have filed Notices of
Supplemental Authority.
Main Line Health is a non-profit health system based in
Pennsylvania, which maintains a public website,
www.mainlinehealth.org.
The Plaintiff alleges that on this public website, Main Line Health
installed software known as Meta Pixel, which is a product sold by
Meta (formerly known as Facebook). As explained by the Plaintiff, a
Meta Pixel is a snippet of code that a business can insert on the
'back end' of its website to collect data about which pages users
view, which links users click, what content users access, how much
time users spend on each page, and how the website responds to
users' inquiries.
The Meta Pixel then sends this data to Meta, which analyzes the
intercepted data and uses it for its own commercial purposes like
building-out its user profiles and selling targeted advertisements.
Meta also returns the intercepted data and its analysis to the
business, here Main Line Health, for its own commercial purposes,
like understanding how people use its website and determining what
ads its users see.
The Plaintiff alleges that Main Line Health designed Meta Pixels to
capture the "characteristics" of individual patients'
communications with the Main Line Health website (i.e., their IP
addresses, Facebook ID, cookie identifiers, device identifiers and
account numbers) and the "content" of these communications (i.e.,
the buttons, links, pages, and tabs they click and view).
By installing such Metal Pixels on its website, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant began to automatically receive, and
transmit to Meta, extensive individually-identifiable patient
health information from everyone who visited the website, despite
Main Line Health's representations that its website would not
intentionally share information concerning a patient's specific
medical or health conditions with any third party, and that it
would seek patients' written permission prior to using or sharing
their information for marketing purposes or selling their
information.
The Plaintiff alleges that he has been a patient of Main Line
Health and has been a Facebook user since before 2018. He further
alleges he has used the Main Line Health website since 2018 to
engage in communications that included individually-identifiable
patient health information about his past, present, or future
health conditions, including requests for information about
specific Main Line Health providers and locations, and information
about specific health conditions, treatments, and services.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, defined as: "all people who used Main Line
Health's website and had individually-identifiable patient health
information about their past, present, or future health conditions
shared with Meta without notice or consent."
On Dec. 30, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his proposed class action
Complaint against Defendants Main Line Health and Meta Platforms,
Inc., alleging the following four counts: (Count I) violation of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act against both Defendants;
(Count II) violation of the Stored Communications Act against Meta
only; (Count III) breach of contract against Meta only; and (4)
negligence against Main Line Health only.
Thereafter, on Feb. 1, 2023, the Honorable Joel H. Slomsky granted
the parties' Joint Motion to Sever and Transfer Claims Against Meta
Platforms, Inc., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to be consolidated with In re Meta Pixel
Healthcare Litig., No. 22-cv-3580. On Feb. 24, 2023, this matter
was reassigned from the Honorable Joel H. Slomsky to this jurist.
On March 13, 2023, Main Line Health filed a Motion to Dismiss to
which the Plaintiff responded to by filing an Amended Complaint
alleging the following three counts against Main Line Health:
(Count I) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
(Count II) negligence, and (Count III) invasion of privacy --
intrusion upon seclusion.
On April 10, 2023, Main Line Health filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, to which the Plaintiff filed an Opposition. The
Defendant filed a Reply, and the Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply. Since
that period, both parties have filed Notices of Supplemental
Authority, which the Court has also considered.
For reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the Court grants the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Judge Scott
opines that the Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to state
an Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") claim. The
Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support an inference
that the Defendant disclosed its patients' individually
identifiable health information.
Judge Scott also finds that the Plaintiff fails to state a
negligence claim and an intrusion upon seclusion claim. The
Plaintiff's intrusion upon seclusion claim fails to state a claim
for the same reasons his prior two claims failed--i.e., because of
the lack of specific factual allegations and the reliance on
conclusory statements.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss will be granted and the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint will
be dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3swstkbh from PacerMonitor.com.
MAIN LINE: Smart Given 30 Days to File Second Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID SMART, Plaintiff v. MAIN LINE HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-05239-KNS (E.D. Pa.), Judge Kai N.
Scott of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court
rules that the Defendant's Motion is granted and the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff may
file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order. If the Plaintiff fails to do so, his case will be
dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh7mxad from PacerMonitor.com.
MCLAREN BAY: Gloss Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN GLOSS, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MCLAREN BAY REGION and MCLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-11526-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., June 11, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages from McLaren Bay Region under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
McLaren and Bay Region jointly employ Gloss as an Emergency Room
Registered Nurse at McLaren's Bay Region facility. Like the
Putative Class Members, Gloss regularly works more than 40 hours in
a workweek. But Defendants do not pay these employees for all the
hours they work. Instead, the Defendants automatically deduct 30
minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called "meal
breaks." Gloss and the Putative Class Members are thus not paid for
this time. But Defendants fail to provide Gloss and the Putative
Class Members with bona fide meal breaks, says the suit.
The Putative Collective of similarly situated employees is defined
as:
"All hourly, non-exempt employees, who worked for, or on behalf
of, McLaren and Bay Region at the Bay Region facility, who
received an automatic meal period deduction at any time during
the past 3 years."
McLaren Bay Region is a 404-bed acute care hospital located in Bay
City, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
dunlap@mybackwages.com
obeale@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MDL 3083: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Devis Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software
Corporation. The case is captioned as TATIANA BAQUERO DEVIS; KAREN
BOGINSKI; DORIS CADET; DUSTIN CARTER; JOAN DANELLA; MARVIN DOVBERG;
DEANNA DUARTE; SARAH GEILER; MICHELLE GONSALVES; DONALD HELLER;
WENDY HERBERT; MARGARET KAVANAGH; CONRAD LEWIS; TERRILL MENDLER;
MANUEL MENDOZA; RICARDO MORALEZ; HANNAH POLIKOWSKY; MARISOL RHODES;
MAIA SULLIVAN; and YVETTE TILLMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK; DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA;
DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY; DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL
OF TENNESSEE; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL PLANS
ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11541 (D. Mass., June 12,
2024).
The Devis suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL re MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.
Progress Software Corporation develops, markets, and distributes
applications. The Company offers databases, application, messaging
servers, and development tools. [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
Email: 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
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Email: 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
Email: 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
Email: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Andrea Gold, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
-and-
Emily Feder Cooper
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: ecooper@tzlegal.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
MDL 3083: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Romine Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software
Corporation. The case is captioned as SUSAN ROMINE; PAUL BAADE;
GARY BICKELL, TRICIA HERNANDEZ; JESSICA MENDEZ; PAUL PATRICK;
MARGARET PHELAN; VICTOR ROBERT; ANNA SANGL; KENNETH WHITE; and
CHARLESWILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL; FULLSCOPERMS (f/k/a
DISABILITY REINSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.); GENWORTH LIFE
AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY; GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.; THE HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY; PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC (d/b/a PBI RESEARCH
SERVICES); RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; RELIASTAR LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; and TEACHERS' INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11511 (D.
Mass., June 10, 2024).
The Romine suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB re MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION.
PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION develops, markets, and distributes
applications. The Company offers databases, application, messaging
servers, and development tools. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.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
Email: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Andrea R. Gold
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0931
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
- and -
Gary Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPSGROSSMAN, PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: GKlinger@milberg.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Deceptive Ticket Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP U.S. HOLDINGS
INC. and MADAME TUSSAUDS NEW YORK, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-04450-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of New York Arts & Cultural
Affairs Law and New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of improperly
misleading consumers who bought tickets to their entertainment
attraction, Madame Tussauds New York, through their website,
https://www.madametussauds.com/new-york/, as to what the ultimate
price of the ticket would be. When a visitor selected a ticket on
the website, he or she would initially be quoted specific prices
per ticket, but later in the process be hit with an additional
$4.99 processing fee to be paid at checkout. The Defendants' bait
and switch pricing tactic violates the New York Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law and Section 349 of New York's General Business Law,
which require to disclose the total cost of the ticket, inclusive
of all ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase it,
the suit says.
Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings Inc. is an owner and
operator of Madame Tussauds New York entertainment attraction
located in New York, New York.
Madame Tussauds New York, LLC is an owner and operator of Madame
Tussauds New York entertainment attraction located in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Kate McGuire, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-5600
Email: kaufman@whafh.com
guiney@whafh.com
mcguire@whafh.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
Teresita T. Mercado, Esq.
DON BIVENS, PLLC
Scottsdale Quarter
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
Email: don@donbivens.com
teresita@donbivens.com
METRO KNOXVILLE: Sullivan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SULLIVAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled David Sullivan, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Metro Knoxville HMA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00392, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged willful
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
On Feb. 5, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Clifton
L. Corker on May 7, 2024. The complaint was dismissed with
prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk was directed to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned David Sullivan, et al. v. Metro
Knoxville HMA, LLC, Case No. 24-5531, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID SULLIVAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Clint J. Coleman, Esq.
NELSON LAW GROUP
10263 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN 37922
Telephone: (865) 824-8773
Defendant-Appellee METRO KNOXVILLE HMA, LLC is represented by:
John Patrick Rodgers, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 252-4642
MY DAILY CHOICE: Angel Sues Over Unsecured Customers' Private Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE ANGEL, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MY DAILY CHOICE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00254 (D. Nev., June 14, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to safeguard and secure the personally identifiable
information of its past and current customers.
On or about February 15, 2024, the Defendant determined that a
malicious actor had gained access to its third-party hosted system,
where Defendant stores company data. The Defendant represented that
this hacker both accessed and copied the PII of Plaintiff and Class
Members in this data breach, and also attempted to delete at least
some of the stored information. Moreover, the Defendant breached
its non-delegable duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement
and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and
disclosure. Accordingly, Plaintiff Angel asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized
by law.
Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, My Daily Choice, Inc. markets and
sells a wide variety of personal use products including hygiene
products, weight management supplements, skin care products,
clothing, and food and beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. O'Mara, Esq.
THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
311 E. Liberty Street
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 323-1321
Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
Andrew C. White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Ste 900
White Plains, NY 10601
NEBRASKA: Fails to Provide Medicaid Coverage Notice, Filyaw Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
(D. Neb., June 11, 2024) is a class action suit brought the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to challenge the
Defendants' failure to provide adequate notice to enrollees prior
to terminating their Medicaid coverage, as required by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are terminating Medicaid
health care coverage for tens of thousands of Nebraskans without
providing adequate written notice as required by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Defendants issued notice to Plaintiff Gillian Filyaw and have
issued or will issue notice to the proposed class that their
enrollment in Nebraska's Medicaid program will be terminated by the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services on the basis of
their income, but the notice was issued without an adequate reason
for the proposed termination, instead providing only the conclusory
reason that "income exceeds standards."
Federal COVID-19 legislation provided enhanced federal funding to
state Medicaid programs on the condition that states kept most
Medicaid enrollees continuously enrolled in coverage from March 1,
2020 through March 31, 2023. After the federal COVID-19 protections
for Medicaid enrollees ended, Defendants began redetermining
Medicaid eligibility for more than 390,000 Nebraskans.
Since April 2023, more than 22,000 Nebraskans have been issued an
Income Termination Notice proposing to end their Medicaid
enrollment for only the conclusory reason that their "income
exceeds standards."
The Plaintiff seeks a class-wide declaration that Defendants'
Income Termination Notices do not satisfy due process requirements
and are therefore unconstitutional; and (2) a class wide
preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining
Defendants, in their official capacities, from enforcing the
unconstitutional and unlawful termination of Medicaid coverage for
Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, including those
enrollees that have already been issued an Income Termination
Notice, and enrollees that have not yet been issued an Income
Termination Notice.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelsey E. Arends, Esq.
Sarah K. Maresh, Esq.
Robert E. McEwen, Esq.
James A. Goddard, Esq.
CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
P.O. Box 83613
Lincoln, NE 68501-3613
Telephone: (402) 438-8853
Facsimile: (402) 438-0263
E-mail: karends@neappleseed.org
smaresh@neappleseed.org
rmcewen@neappleseed.org
jgoddard@neappleseed.org
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Religious Head Covering Suit for $17.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that New York City agreed to a $17.5
million religious head covering settlement to resolve claims it
unlawfully removed head coverings for post-arrest photographs.
The settlement benefits individuals who were forced to remove a
religious head covering for a post-arrest photograph while in New
York City Police Department custody between March 16, 2014, and
Aug. 23, 2021.
According to the class action lawsuit, the NYPD unlawfully removed
religious head coverings from detained individuals to take
post-arrest photographs. These removals allegedly violated the
First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act and state laws.
The New York Police Department is a multidistrict police department
that operates in the New York City area.
New York City hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$17.5 million to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the New York City religious head covering
settlement, class members can receive $7,824 or more for each
instance of unlawful removal. Payments per instance may be higher
depending on the number of valid claims filed.
Liens for child support obligations and certain liens owed to the
New York City Department of Finance may be deducted from settlement
payments.
The deadline for exclusion and objection in the settlement is Sept.
26, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
29, 2024.
To receive New York City religious head covering settlement
payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 26,
2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who were forced to remove a religious head covering for
a post-arrest photograph while in New York City Police Department
custody between March 16, 2014, and Aug. 23, 2021
Potential Award
$7,824
Proof of Purchase
N/A
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
09/26/2024
Case Name
Clark, et al. v. City of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-02334-AT-KHP,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
10/29/2024
Settlement Website
NYPDUncovered.com
Claims Administrator
NYC Religious Head Covering Settlement
c/o Rust Consulting Inc. - 8609
PO Box 2805
Faribault, MN 55021-8610
(833) 637-4794
Class Counsel
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 5th Ave 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 763-5000
THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT PROJECT
40 Rector St
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 518-7573
Defense Counsel
NYC LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
100 Church St
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 356-1000 [GN]
NOHER INC: Properties Violated ADA, Del La Torre Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. NOHER, INC.; and LA ESPIRITUANA
CAFETERIA CORP d/b/a LA ESPIRITUANA CAFETERIA, Case No.
1:24-cv-22235 (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2024) is a class action for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff says that he visited the commercial property and
retail store of the Defendant, to include visits to the commercial
property and retail store on April 16, 2024, and encountered
multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability
to use and enjoy the commercial property. He often visits the
Commercial property and business located within the commercial
property in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered there, and because it is approximately 33 miles from his
residence and is near other businesses and restaurants he frequents
as a patron.
The Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly situated, have
been denied access to, and have been denied full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities privileges, benefits,
programs and activities offered by the Defendants' building, the
businesses, and facilities; and has otherwise been discriminated
against and damaged by the Defendants because of the Defendants'
ADA violations, says the suit.
Mr. Pardo has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or
otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited
in his major life activities by walking, standing, grabbing,
grasping and/or pinching.
Noher is a real estate company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
NORTHEAST REMSCO: Moran Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. JOHN J. PICONE, INC., NORTHEAST REMSCO CONSTRUCTION,
INC. and WESTERN BAYS CONSTRUCTORS JOINT VENTURE, Case No.
2:24-cv-04095 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2024) seeks to recover from
Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest under the violations of the New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are members of a Joint Venture, Defendant Western
Bays Constructors. Defendants Picone, Northeast Remsco and WBC
provided construction services for the Bay Park Conveyance Project
in the Town of Hempstead, New York and employed Plaintiff and other
similarly situated laborers to perform labor on the Project.
The Plaintiff and putative plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek but were paid less than one and one-half
times their regular rate for those hours worked after 40 hours per
workweek in violation of both the federal and state laws.
The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants pursuant to the
Collective Action provision of the FLSA, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to recover unpaid wages on behalf
of himself and all individuals similarly situated under the FLSA
and the NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, Picone, Northeast Remsco
and WCB, as a laborer on the Project from in or September 2021
until in or about November 2023. He was a non-exempt, hourly-paid
employee wherein his duties included roadwork.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
NVIDIA CORP: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill McColl of Investopedia reports that the U.S. Supreme Court
agreed to hear Nvidia's (NVDA) appeal of a lower-court ruling
allowing a shareholder class-action lawsuit that accuses the
artificial intelligence (AI) chipmaker of securities fraud.
The case was brought by investors from California and was led by
Sweden-based investment manager E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB.
Suit Tied To Nvidia Crypto Miner-Related Revenue
It charges the company, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jensen Huang,
and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Colette Kress of misleading
shareholders about how much of its revenue came from those in the
cryptocurrency industry, alleging that Nvidia understated more than
$1 billion in sales to crypto miners.
The lawsuit was launched in 2018, and a district court judge in San
Francisco tossed out the suit in 2021. However, last August, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, ruling "the complaint
sufficiently alleged Defendants Huang and Kress made materially
false or misleading statements during the Class Period, leading
investors and analysts to believe that NVIDIA's crypto-related
revenues were much smaller than they actually were."
When reached by Investopedia on Monday, Nvidia declined to comment
on the Supreme Court decision to hear the case.
Shares of Nvidia were up slightly at $132.11 as of 1 p.m. ET after
hitting an all-time high $133.73 earlier in the session. They are
up more than 160% year-to-date. [GN]
OKLAHOMA: AG Negotiates Settlement in Inmates Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A report notes that Attorney General Gentner Drummond said a
brokered settlement his office has reached with plaintiffs'
attorneys on a class-action federal lawsuit will deliver
long-delayed justice for crime victims and save the state untold
millions of dollars by ensuring due process for criminal defendants
who have been deemed "not competent" to stand trial.
Filed in March of last year, Briggs v. Slatton-Hodges alleges the
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
(ODMHSAS) has violated due process rights of some pretrial
defendants by failing to provide timely court-ordered competency
restoration services. Some inmates deemed incompetent to stand
trial have escaped accountability in county jails for more than a
year, resulting in delayed justice for the victims of crime.
The proposed consent decree, filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, outlines a strategic plan for
justice to be administered in a timely fashion by improving
ODMHSAS' restoration services.
"Under this proposal, victims and their families will not have to
endure interminable delays for their cases to be resolved by the
courts," Drummond said. "This plan will strengthen the justice
system and correct a process that has been fraught with problems.
In so doing, this consent decree saves tens of millions of taxpayer
dollars by avoiding the costs and risks of protracted litigation."
The agreement also addresses concerns voiced by the Governor in his
veto message of legislation last year that sought to change aspects
of the competency restoration system.
"We must do a better job addressing rampant mental health issues
plaguing our society," Gov. Stitt in his June 2023 veto of Senate
Bill 552. "This includes taking a hard look at the methods and
structures being used to restore to competency those criminal
defendants who may be afflicted by mental health disorders."
Drummond said he is hopeful Gov. Stitt and legislative leaders will
approve the plan.
"If this lawsuit proceeds, there is no doubt the State would be
facing significant litigation risk that could cost taxpayers
dearly," he said. "This settlement, the result of months of
extensive negotiations, will initiate important improvements and
fix a broken system that has been a travesty of justice."
[GN]Attorney General Gentner Drummond said a brokered settlement
his office has reached with plaintiffs' attorneys on a class-action
federal lawsuit will deliver long-delayed justice for crime victims
and save the state untold millions of dollars by ensuring due
process for criminal defendants who have been deemed "not
competent" to stand trial.
"We must do a better job addressing rampant mental health issues
plaguing our society," Gov. Stitt in his June 2023 veto of Senate
Bill 552. "This includes taking a hard look at the methods and
structures being used to restore to competency those criminal
defendants who may be afflicted by mental health disorders."
Drummond said he is hopeful Gov. Stitt and legislative leaders will
approve the plan.
"If this lawsuit proceeds, there is no doubt the State would be
facing significant litigation risk that could cost taxpayers
dearly," he said. "This settlement, the result of months of
extensive negotiations, will initiate important improvements and
fix a broken system that has been a travesty of justice." [GN]
OLIVE & COCOA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tucker Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. OLIVE & COCOA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04453 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.oliveandcocoa.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
May 28, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the Mini Uncle Sam from the
Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services
offered to the public and made available to the public.
Specifically, the Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was
not able to add the item and/or items to the cart due to barriers
on Defendant's Website. 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, says the suit.
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.
Olive & Cocoa specializes in unique, luxury gift crates and fresh
cut floral arrangements for any occasion.[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
OLO INC: $2.98MM Awarded to Class Counsel in Steamship Trade Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE -
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION PENSION FUND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLO
INC., NOAH GLASS, and PETER BENEVIDES, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-08228-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York awards
attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,250,000 and $731,204 in
expenses.
The matter is before the Court on Class Representative and Class
Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Payment of
Litigation Expenses, and Award to Class Representative for Its
Costs and Expenses. Due and adequate notice has been given to the
Class as required by the Court's Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement and Providing for Notice, dated Feb. 20, 2024.
Judge Rakoff notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and
Release (the "Stipulation"), dated Jan. 16, 2024, and all
capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, will have the same
meanings as in the Stipulation.
The Court finds that notice of the Fees, Expenses, and Award
Application was directed to Class Members in a reasonable manner
and complies with Rule 23(h)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, due process, and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Judge Rakoff also finds that Class Members have been given the
opportunity to object to the Fees, Expenses, and Award Application
in compliance with Rule 23(h)(2) and no Class Member has objected
to Class Representative and Class Counsel's request.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Fees, Expenses, and Award
Application. Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount
of 25% of the Settlement Fund, or $2,250,000 and $731,204.77 in
reimbursement for its litigation expenses, plus interest earned at
the same rate and for the same period as earned by the Settlement
Fund. The Court finds these sums to be fair and reasonable. These
fees and expenses will be paid to Class Counsel from the Settlement
Fund.
In making this award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has
considered and found that, among other things, the Settlement has
created a fund of $9,000,000 in cash that has been paid into an
escrow account for the benefit of the Class pursuant to the terms
of the Stipulation, and Class Members who submit acceptable Proof
of Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred
because of the efforts of Class Counsel.
Class Representative has also requested reimbursement of its costs
and expenses incurred directly related to their representation of
the Class in this Action. Class Representative Steamship Trade
Association of Baltimore - International Longshoremen's Association
Pension Fund is awarded its costs and expense in the amount of
$50,000, which represents its reasonable costs and expenses
directly related to its representation of the Class.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding this Fees, Expenses, and Award Application will in no way
disturb or affect the finality of the Final Order and Judgment
Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement entered with
respect to the Settlement.
Jurisdiction is retained over the parties and the Class Members for
all matters relating to this Action, including the administration,
interpretation, effectuation, or enforcement of the Stipulation and
this Order.
In the event that the Settlement is terminated, or the Effective
Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, this Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation
and will be vacated in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/527pcmdf from PacerMonitor.com.
OLO INC: $9-Mil. Settlement in Steamship Trade Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Order and Judgment granting
final approval of the $9 million class action settlement in the
lawsuit styled STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE -
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION PENSION FUND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLO
INC., NOAH GLASS, and PETER BENEVIDES, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-08228-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court is advised that the Settling Parties, through their
counsel, have agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to
the Class and a hearing, to settle this Action upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
and Release dated Jan. 16, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), which was
filed with the Court.
The Settlement has created a fund of $9,000,000 in cash that has
been paid into an escrow account for the benefit of the Class
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and Class Members who
submit acceptable Proof of Claim Forms will benefit from the
Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of Class Counsel.
On Feb. 20, 2024, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice (the "Preliminary
Approval Order"), which preliminarily approved the Settlement and
approved the form and manner of notice to the Class of the
Settlement.
Judge Rakoff finds that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation
is fair, reasonable and adequate, and that Class Representative and
Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests
of the Class Members in connection with the Settlement.
The Court reaffirms its determination in its orders dated Dec. 1
and 18, 2023, granting (and affirming) class certification and
appointing Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore - International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund as Class Representative and
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court also reaffirms its determination in the Preliminary
Approval Order that the Settlement Class will be composed of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Olo's Class A common stock between March 17, 2021, and Aug. 11,
2022, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, excluding any of the
Defendants, Olo's officers and directors, members of their
immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns, and any entity in which they have or had a controlling
interest.
Upon the Effective Date, except with respect to individual claims
by persons, who have validly and timely requested exclusion from
the Class as listed in Exhibit A, all of the claims asserted in the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal
Securities Laws, dated Aug. 9, 2023 ("Complaint"), or the Action
against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice, without costs
as to the Settling Parties, except as awarded under the Settlement
Fund and approved by the Court.
Upon the Effective Date, all Released Parties are released in
accordance with the Stipulation. As defined in the Stipulation,
each of the Releasing Parties are deemed to have fully, finally,
and forever waived, released, relinquished, and discharged each and
every one of the Released Claims, including Unknown Claims, against
the Released Parties, whether or not the Class Member executes and
delivers the Proof of Claim.
Except, however, the Settlement will not release any claims in the
action captioned Floyd v. Glass, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03770
(S.D.N.Y.), Floyd v. Glass, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0560 (Del. Ch.),
Balleh v. Glass, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1165 (Del. Ch.), and Giuda
v. Glass, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0025 (Del. Ch.).
All Class Members, who have failed to properly submit Requests for
Exclusion (requests to opt out) from the Class are bound by the
terms and conditions of the Stipulation and this Final Order and
Judgment. The Requests for Exclusion by the persons or entities in
Exhibit A to this Final Order and Judgment are accepted by the
Court.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) implementation of
the Settlement; (ii) the allowance, disallowance, or adjustment of
any Settlement Class Member's claim on equitable grounds and any
award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) disposition of
the Settlement Fund; (iv) any applications for attorneys' fees,
costs, interest, and payment of expenses in the Action; (v) all
Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering
the Settlement and this Final Order and Judgment; and (vi) other
matters related or ancillary to the foregoing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment dated June
11, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ch5yacz5 from
PacerMonitor.com.
OLO INC: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Steamship Trade Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York approves Plan of Allocation in the lawsuit
titled STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE - INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLO INC., NOAH
GLASS, and PETER BENEVIDES, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08228-JSR
(S.D.N.Y.).
Before the Court is the motion of Class Representative Steamship
Trade for final approval of the proposed class action Settlement
and approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation for proceeds of the
Settlement.
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice was directed to Eligible Persons, who are Class
Members who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising
them of the Plan of Allocation and their right to object thereto,
and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Eligible Persons,
who are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of
Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation.
Judge Rakoff notes that this Order operates by reference to the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and
Release (the "Stipulation"), dated Jan. 16, 2024, and all
capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein will have the same
meanings as those set forth in the Stipulation.
The Settlement has created a fund of $9,000,000 in cash that has
been paid into an escrow account for the benefit of the Class
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and Class Members who
submit acceptable Proof of Claim Forms will benefit from the
Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of Class Counsel.
The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, set
forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, provides a fair, reasonable, and equitable basis upon which
to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among eligible
Class Members.
The Court finds that the Plan of Allocation is, in all respects,
fair and reasonable to the Class, and the Court approves the Plan
of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfdkn77 from PacerMonitor.com.
PACIFIC RIM LAND: Cruz et al. Allege WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN DELA CRUZ JR., MARTIN DELA CRUZ, and CHRISTOPHER LEEDELRIO,
on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PACIFIC RIM LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00009 (D.N. Mar. Is., June 14, 2024) alleges violations
of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, a law
that protects workers from mass layoffs without adequate notice.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as construction-related
workers in Garapan, Saipan. Due to unresolved payment issues with
Imperial Pacific International, the Plaintiffs and more than 180
construction-related employees were laid off by Defendant without
giving adequate notice in violation of the WARN Act, says the
suit.
Pacific Rim Land Development, LLC. Is engaged in the business of
general construction and real estate development. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cong Nic, Esq.
BANES HOREY BERMAN & MILLER, LLC
First Floor, Macaranas Building
4165 Beach Road, Garapan
P.O. Box 501969
Saipan, MP 96950
Telephone: (670) 234-5684
Facsimile: (670)234-5683
E-mail: dnie@pacificlawyers.law
PARTY CITY: Marquez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marisol Marquez, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Party City Holdco, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-04808 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 2024) contends that the
Defendant collected the Plaintiff's and the Class Members biometric
identifiers and created voice templates of the Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' voices, in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff claims that Defendant had no written policy, made
available to either Party City employees or the public,
establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the voiceprints when the initial purpose for collecting
or obtaining the voiceprints has been satisfied or within 3 years
of the individual's last interaction with Defendant, whichever
occurs first.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to permanently destroy the
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' voiceprints and instead retained
Plaintiff’s and the Class Members' voiceprints. As such, the
Defendant's retention of the Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
biometric information was unlawful and in violation of 740 ILCS
section 14/15(a). Voiceprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee that cannot be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised. The Defendant's unlawful
collection, obtainment, storage, and use of its users' biometric
data exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks, the
suit asserts.
The Plaintiff was employed at Party City's Naperville, Illinois
distribution warehouse location from Aug. 26, 2018 to June 20,
2019.
Party City is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor of party
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street,
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022.
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
PEGASYSTEMS INC: $35MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 19
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Pegasystems Inc. Securities Settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 1:22-cv-11220-WGY
In re PEGASYSTEMS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF PEGASYSTEMS INC. ("PEGA") BETWEEN JUNE 16, 2020
AND MAY 9, 2022, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS
MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
September 19, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable William G.
Young at the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, MA 02210, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $35
million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to pay
Lead Plaintiffs for their costs and expenses in representing the
Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what
amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to change
the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the
Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise
allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or
videoconference, without further written notice to the Settlement
Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the
Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement Class
Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important
that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website,
www.PegasystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to
attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement
Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing
or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the
hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the
Settlement Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access
information will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.PegasystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED PEGA COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
JUNE 16, 2020 AND MAY 9, 2022, INCLUSIVE, AND EXPERIENCED LOSS,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than
October 7, 2024) or electronically (no later than October 7, 2024).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 7, 2024 will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any
of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this
Litigation. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pega common
stock during the period between June 16, 2020 and May 9, 2022,
inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class,
you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be
accessed online at www.PegasystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:
Pegasystems Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY AUGUST
29, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED
33% OF THE $35 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED
$450,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE PAYMENT(S) TO
LEAD PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $20,000
IN THE AGGREGATE IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND
SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 29, 2024, IN
THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: MAY 15, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
PLAYBILL ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tucker Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. PLAYBILL ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, Case No.
1:24-cv-04454 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
website, https://www.playbillstore.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
May 28, 2024, in an attempt to purchase the Lion King The Broadway
Musical -- Rhinestud T-Shirt from the Defendant, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public. Specifically, the Plaintiff was
unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item and/or
items to the cart due to barriers on Defendant's Website, says the
suit.
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. Tucker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS
screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet.
Playbill offers gifts, home decor, accessories and other products
available online.[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
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Henson Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
REDA HOME: Clark Suit Seeks HR Directors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RICK REDA and REDA HOME BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00707 (M.D. Tenn., June 10, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Ms. Clark worked for the Defendants as a Human Resources Director
from approximately October 2023 until February 2024.
Reda Home Builders, Inc. is a home-building company located in
Clarksville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
P.O. Box 159033
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
Email: mel@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Li Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------
EUGENE LI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBLOX CORP.; DAVID BASZUCKI; MANUEL
BRONSTEIN; MICHAEL GUTHRIE; and CHRISTINA WOOTTON, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-03484-MMC (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2024) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Roblox securities between November 15, 2023 and
May 8, 2024 inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a
course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Roblox's
common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period
purchasers of Roblox's common stock by materially misleading the
investing public.
Investors placed weight on the guide-down, as illustrated by the
one-day drop in share price after the earnings call. Roblox shares
closed on May 8, 2024 at $39.03 per share. However, Roblox shares
closed on May 9, 2024 at $30.42 per share, a 22 percent decline,
says the suit.
ROBLOX CORPORATION provides entertainment products and services.
The Company designs and develops a wide range of online games such
as internet three-dimensional and tutorial games for kids, teens,
and adults. Roblox serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Email: aapton@zlk.com
S1 SECURITY: Rosello Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
GLENN D. ROSELLO and other similarly situated individuals v. S1
SECURITY GROUP INC, and ROLANDO E. PALMA, individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-22272 (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2024) is an action to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant is a Florida corporation having its main place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for
Defendant.
The individual Defendant Palma was and is now the owner/president
and manager of S1 Security Group.
The Corporate Defendant provides security services to businesses,
residential communities, construction sites, retailers, and related
security services such as executive bodyguard protection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
Florida Bar No.: 0024031
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Violates Homeless People's Rights, Hope Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE FOR THE HOMELESS LAKESIDE, INC., a California Nonprofit
Corporation; BRIAN ALBONE; MICHAEL BISHOP; DANIEL CAPPASOLA; JAMES
DATTOLICO; CHARITY DAVIS; JENNIFER GASKA; CHRISTY GILLETTE; STEVEN
LEGGOTT; TODD LENT; AMANDA LUTHER; HAROLD LUTHER; JOHN "AUGIE"
MARTINEZ; JILL MCCOY; BRITTANY STEBBINS; AUSTIN WHALEY; DAVID
WILLIAMS; individually on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; CITY OF
LAKESIDE; CITY OF SANTEE; CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION; CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01009-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
June 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fourth, Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution Under Color of Authority, the Americans
With Disabilities Act, and the Constitution and Laws of the State
of California.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged ongoing policies and
practices of joining together to regularly and repeatedly chase
homeless people away, by raiding their sleeping sites and taking
and destroying their property, in a coordinated effort to make it
impossible for homeless people to live and exist, while
simultaneously refusing to provide any other places for these
people to move to. The Defendants allegedly conduct these raids
without proper or adequate notice and in a manner designed to
prevent people from retaining or reclaiming their personal
property.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals ask the Court to
Order these Defendants to take the only correct, legal, ethical,
and just actions (1) to cease taking and/or destroying their
property without providing any proper and reasonable method for
these unhoused citizens to retain and/or retrieve it; (2) to create
sufficient, adequate, and accessible safe places for all their
unhoused citizens to sleep, to be, and to store their possessions;
(3) to stop raiding, sweeping, chasing, threatening, arresting, and
criminalizing unhoused citizens unless and until such safe places
first exist, accessible and available for all of these people
without hassle or delay; and (4) to stop endangering the health and
safety of homeless citizens, and properly comply with their
obligations under federal and state law.
Hope For The Homeless Lakeside, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation in
California.
County of San Diego is a public entity in California.
City of Lakeside is an unincorporated community in the East County
region of San Diego County, California.
City of Santee is a duly organized city located in the East County
of San Diego, California.
California Department of Transportation is a public entity and an
executive department of the State of California.
California Highway Patrol is a state patrol agency and public
entity of the State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Scott Dreher, Esq.
DREHER LAW FIRM
350 West Ash, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-8828
Email: scott@dreherlawfirm.com
- and -
Blanche Elizabeth Amelia Maine, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BLANCHE E. MAINE
13465 Camino Canada, #106-428
El Cajon, CA 92021
Telephone: (619) 750-9691
Email: blanche.maine@gmail.com
- and -
Matthew R. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
6790 Embarcadero Lane, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Telephone: (619) 261-1150
Email: Matt@mrmlawfirm.com
SAS INSTITUTE: Faces Suit Over Room Rental Price Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SHATTUCK v. SAS INSTITUTE, INC., IDEAS, INC., CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC, WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., HILTON
WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS US, INC.,
OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORP., HYATT HOTEL CORPORATION, Case No.
3:24-cv-03424-TSH (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2024) is a class action
brought by Steven Shattuck and a class of all persons similarly
situated, against the Defendants for damages and injunctive relief
for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The Hotel Defendants, rather than compete on price, allegedly
agreed, conspired, and/or combined to fix, raise, and stabilize
hotel room rental prices nationally and in the Relevant Sub-markets
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Hotels effected
their conspiracy by, among other actions, sharing a pricing
algorithm developed by the RMS Defendants. To effectuate the
conspiracy, each Hotel Defendant agreed to provide IDeaS with a
continuous stream of its non-public, competitively sensitive price
and occupancy information in or near real time, knowing that each
of the other Hotels is doing the same. This collusive pooling of
detailed confidential information affords IDeaS a clear, continuous
and comprehensive understanding of competitive conditions in the
Relevant Sub-markets, says the suit.
This collected knowledge includes non-public information such as
the price paid by guests for rooms, the number of available rooms
of each type, whether any consumers attempted to book a room that
was no longer available, and room rates not disclosed to the
public. IDeaS feeds this confidential information into its pricing
algorithm to generate supra-competitive pricing recommendations for
each Hotel Defendant, which the Hotels then nearly always implement
without any adjustment.
Each Hotel knows the others are also charging guests the same
supra-competitive pricing because IDeaS tells them so, and because
every business knows that the only way it can consistently raise
prices above a competitive level is that its horizontal competitors
are also raising their prices above the competitive level. By
collectively sharing their sensitive confidential pricing and
occupancy information with IDeaS to generate supra-competitive
prices, the Hotel Defendants are able to achieve the same prices
they would have agreed to had they secretly met in a back room and
directly exchanged their information, added the suit.
Plaintiff Steven Shattuck is a resident of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Mr. Shattuck has rented hotel rooms from at least Hyatt Hotels in
at least one of the Relevant Sub-markets during the Class Period.
He paid supra-competitive prices for these room rentals as a result
of the antitrust violations alleged here.
The Hotel Defendants, among the largest hotel operators in the
United States, are horizontal competitors in the rental of hotel
guest rooms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Appeals FLSA Suit Ruling to 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION has filed an appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Trever Guilbeau, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00142, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
filed against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Schlumberger Technology
Corporation, Case No. 24-50446, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 4, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents TREVER GUILBEAU, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq.
WAGE & HOUR FIRM, L.L.P.
5050 Quorum Drive
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
(979) 220-2824
Defendant-Petitioner SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION is
represented by:
Robert Peter Lombardi, Esq.
Samuel Zurik, III, Esq.
KULLMAN FIRM
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 596-4127
(504) 596-4191
SHAKE SHACK: Violates Delaware General Corp. Law, Garfield Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GARFIELD, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of SHAKE SHACK, INC. v. SHAKE SHACK INC.,
Case No. 2024-0642 (Del. Ch., June 12, 2024) asserts a claim
against the Company for declaratory relief concerning the Company's
violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the Company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and the
Company's Second Amended and Restated By-Laws.
The Company is a holding company that conducts its business through
SSE Holdings, LLC, which operates the Shake Shack restaurant chain.
In connection with the Company's initial public offering in 2015
(the "IPO"), the Company entered into a stockholders with its
pre-IPO owners. Since then, however, the Stockholders Agreement has
been amended to eliminate all but a few of the Pre-IPO LLC Members
as parties. The key remaining parties are affiliates of Shake
Shack's founder, Daniel Meyer.
One of the most basic tenets of Delaware law, codified in Section
141(a) of the DGCL, is that, unless otherwise stated in a company's
certificate of incorporation, the board of directors has the
ultimate responsibility for managing the business and affairs of a
corporation. The Charter contains no provision purporting to limit
the authority of the Board to manage the Company fully.
The Challenged Provisions all violate Section 141(a) and, in
certain instances, other provisions of the DGCL, the Charter, and
the Bylaws. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration invalidating the
Challenged Provisions, says the suit.
Plaintiff Robert Garfield has continuously owned shares of the
Company’s Class A common stock since 2015.
Shake Shack is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York City. Shake Shack is a holding company, and
its principal asset is its membership interest in SSE Holdings of
which Shake Shack is the sole managing member. Shake Shack operates
and controls all of SSE Holdings' business and affairs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0336
- and -
Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Stephen C. Childs, Esq.
Omer Kremer, Esq.
PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 725-100
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Court Tosses Potvin Complaint w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Potvin v. SharkNinja
Operating LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-12809 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 20,
2023), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order dismissing
the complaint without hearing.
The dismissal is without prejudice to the plaintiff, within 30 days
of the date of this order, filing a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.
The proposed amended complaint must state with particularity the
grounds for this court's federal jurisdiction and the grounds for
class certification of what is alleged to be a discrete incident.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability.
SharkNinja is a global product design and technology company.[CC]
SHENANDOAH HOLDINGS: Commercial Property Inaccessible, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. SHENANDOAH HOLDINGS, LLC, and
ORBAN HOSPITALITY LLC DBA RODBENDERS RAW BAR & GRILL, Case No.
1:24-cv-22263 (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2024) is brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals, seeking injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate
any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the
wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or
otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited
in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to
walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching.
The Defendant owned and operated a commercial restaurant at 20400
Old Cutler Road, Cutler Bay, Florida. The Plaintiff, found the
commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property and restaurant to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage
and use of the premises, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
SHOES FOR CREWS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Declerk Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICAH DECLERK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOES FOR CREWS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:24-cv-80732-RLR (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
SHOES FOR CREWS, LLC designs, manufactures, and distributes
slip-resistant work shoes. The Company provides athletic, casual,
steel toe, and wide shoes, as well as accessories including socks,
shoe polishes, and sizing tools for men and women. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
Christopher Berman, Esq.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
cberman@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
SIRIUS XM: Faces Scott Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Scott, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00737-LCB (N.D. Ala., June
6, 2024) is a class action against Sirius under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates 47
U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by using or causing to be used an
artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency
calls it places or causes to be placed to telephone numbers
assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express
consent.
The Plaintiff contends that it did not give the Defendant prior
express consent to place calls, in connection with which an
artificial or prerecorded voice was used, to her number.
Sirius is an American broadcasting corporation headquartered in
Midtown Manhattan, New York City, that provides satellite radio and
online radio services operating in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Stan Herring, Esq.
John Watts, Esq.
WATTS & HERRING, LLC
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 879-2447
E-mail: stan@wattsherring.com
- and -
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
SN SERVICING: Gregg Files Appeal in FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------
SYLVESTER GREGG filed a petition in the lawsuit Sylvester Gregg, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SN Servicing Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 707588/2023,
in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second
Department.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of New York consumers against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and New
York General Business Law by sending collection letters with false,
deceptive, and misleading statements regarding the status of
purported debt obligations with respect to the lapse of the
applicable statutes of limitations, compliance with debt collection
procedures required by New York State law, and the collectability
and status of consumer debts discharged under the Bankruptcy Code.
The appellate case is captioned Sylvester Gregg vs. SN Servicing
Corporation, et al., Case No. 24-01769, in the Second Judicial
Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on June 3, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner SYLVESTER GREGG, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
80 Broad Street Blvd., Suite 3103
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 500-6114
SONDER HOLDINGS: Faces Park Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAD PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SONDER HOLDINGS INC., FRANCIS DAVIDSON, SANJAY BANKER,
CHRIS BERRY and DOMINIQUE BOURGAULT, Case No. 2:24-cv-04798 (C.D.
Cal., June 7, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sonder securities
between May 11, 2022, and March 15, 2024, pursuing claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Sonder is a hospitality services business which operates and
manages properties comprised of apartments and hotel rooms in North
America, Europe, and the Middle East. The Company leases properties
and makes them available to book either directly, through the
Sonder app, website, and sales personnel, or through indirect
channels, such as Airbnb, Expedia, and Booking.com.
As of Sept. 30, 2023, the Company purported to lease all of its
property and have approximately 11,800 units available for guests
to book at over 250 properties.
On March 15, 2024, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
it had identified an "accounting error" related to the Company's
valuation of certain assets and related items, and as a result the
Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022
and throughout fiscal year 2023 could no longer be relied upon.
The Company stated the valuation of certain right-of-use ("ROU")
lease assets and related items had not considered relevant
impairment indications and related valuation information required
by Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") No. 842, and related
standards. The Company further explained that, though it had
recorded one impairment charge once in the third quarter of 2023,
no impairment charges were recorded in the other interim financial
statements in 2023 or in the 2022 financial statements. The Company
disclosed, as a result, it would have to restate certain finances
and such restatements would increase the Company's overall net loss
and loss per share in the impacted periods.
The Company additionally disclosed that the Company anticipated a
review would reveal one or more additional material weaknesses in
the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, in
addition to the Company's previously identified and reported
material weaknesses.
The Company further disclosed that, as a result, it would not
timely file its Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2023.
Finally, the Company disclosed the restatement and related items
could have an adverse effect upon the Company's debt, as the
Company would now have to seek waivers of noncompliance under the
terms of its debt resulting from the accounting errors.
On this news, Sonder's stock price fell $2.10 per share, or 38.2%,
to close at $3.40 per share on March 18, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume, says the suit.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly 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, the Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements or failed to disclose to investors:
(1) Sonder was not recognizing ROU assets and lease liabilities
on its balance sheet in accordance with ASC 842; and
(2) Sonder's financial statements contained material errors in
the valuation and impairment of operating lease ROU assets.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
SPICY PIZZA: Alonso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Javier Alonso, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SPICY PIZZA CORP. d/b/a SPICY PIZZA and ERNESTINA
HERRERA, individually, Case 1:24-cv-04194 (E.D.N.Y., June 12,
2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiff was not required to clock in or clock out in the
course of his employment. The Plaintiff was paid $1,000 per week.
The Plaintiff's salary was not inclusive of overtime pay. Rather,
the Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours he worked each
week. The Plaintiff did not receive any paystubs when he was paid.
The Plaintiff was paid in cash, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 2022 through
March 5, 2024.
Spicy Pizza is engaged in the food service industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Ross Sack, Esq.
595 Stewart Ave, Suite 510
Garden City, NY 11530
Email: andrew@andrewsacklaw.com
- and -
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, New York 10007
Phone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
SPRINGER NATURE: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Lee Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., Case No. e 1:24-cv-04493 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 12, 2024) arises from the Defendant's practice of knowingly
disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., personally
identifiable information identifying prerecorded audio visual
material Plaintiff and similarly situated subscribers request or
obtain from Defendant's website, https://www.scientificamerican.com
et. al.
The Plaintiff brings this consumer privacy class action to protect
the privacy rights granted him under the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act, which the Defendant violates by knowingly
disclosing its subscribers' PII to Meta -- specifically, Defendant
knowingly disclosed its subscribers' identities alongside
information identifying the prerecorded audio visual materials they
requested or obtained from the Website.
Mr. Lee lives and is domiciled in St. Petersburg, Florida and
subscribes to Defendant's Website. He requests or obtains
prerecorded audio visual material from the Website using his
Internet-connected device and web-browsing software installed on
that device.
Springer owns and operates the Website, through which it collects
the PII of its subscribers and knowingly discloses that PII to
third parties including Meta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Jackson, Esq.
James Allen Carney, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: sjackson@cbplaw.com
acarney@cbplaw.com
STOP & SHOP: Argento Sues Over Misleading Labeling of Brand Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ARGENTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 712197/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June
11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Stop & Shop
brand eggs. The Defendant sells eggs with an image of a pastoral
setting and described as fresh, in stylized, large font, causing
purchasers to instinctively join the image of the farm with the
term "fresh," and believed that the hens producing the eggs do so
in an environment similar to what is depicted, or at least in a
cage-free setting. However, contrary to the impressions of
purchasers, the hens supplying these eggs live short, brutal lives,
on wire mesh floors, in battery cages, unable to spread their
wings. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers paid the product at a
premium price, says the suit.
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC is a regional chain of
supermarkets, with its principal place of business in
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES PC
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
STRAUCH MANAGEMENT: Newman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strauch Management,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Devante Xavier Newman,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Strauch Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 24CV008370 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Strauch Management, LLC -- https://strauchco.com/ -- provide fuel,
convenience and car wash services to our community with superior
customer service.[BN]
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: August 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 22-cv-00105-SI
In re Talis Biomedical Corporation Securities
Litigation
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
To: All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock issued by Talis pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's February 11, 2021 initial public offering between
February 11, 2021 and August 11, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby.
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 Northern District of California that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class as defined above.
The Action alleges that Defendants Talis Biomedical Corporation
("Talis") and certain of its current and former officers and
directors ("Defendants") made false and misleading statements and
material omissions concerning Talis One in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933. Defendants deny all of these allegations
and deny any wrongdoing or violation of law. Please note: at this
time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. Additional information about the Action and access to
important documents, including, but not limited to, a long-form
Notice of Pendency of Class Action that more fully sets forth your
rights in this Action, the operative pleadings, and the Court Order
certifying the above- referenced Class, is available at
www.TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Notice
Administrator at:
Talis Biomedical Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box 173064
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-331-0411
info@TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries may also be made to the following representatives of
Class Counsel:
Evan A. Kubota
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022
1-888-879-9418
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a member of the
Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Talis common stock. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(3), if you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself
from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this
Action, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action; however, you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion by no
later than August 20, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the long-form Notice available at
www.TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Further information regarding this Notice may be obtained by
visiting the case website above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Judge Susan Illston
United States District Judge United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
TARO PHARMA: $36MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 23
------------------------------------------------------------
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
TESLA INC: Doss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesla, Inc. The case
is styled as Kenneth Doss, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Tesla, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 24CV079309 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
June 11, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Tesla, Inc. -- https://www.tesla.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in
Austin, Texas.[BN]
THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Cousino Sues Over Worker Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA COUSINO, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. THARALDSON HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02138-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., June 14, 2024) arises out
Defendant's failure to accommodate Plaintiff in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and misclassification of its
assistant general managers as employees that are exempt from
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
As a result of their misclassification as exempt employees,
Defendant's AGMs, including Plaintiff, were and are unlawfully
deprived of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
40 per week. Among other things, the Defendant refused Plaintiff's
reasonable accommodation request without further explanation and
refused to engage in any interactive ADA process regarding
Plaintiff's accommodation request. Instead, the Defendant placed
Plaintiff on an involuntary unpaid leave of absence, the suit
says.
Headquartered in Decatur, IL, Tharaldson Hospitality Management is
a for-profit company that operates a large chain of hotels across
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
340 Beakes St, STE 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (844) 487-9489
E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dickey-Johnson and Chapman Sue Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHASTINE DICKEY-JOHNSON, and SERENA CHAPMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02623 (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2024) arises from
Defendants' failure to properlysecure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its customers, including, but not
limited to: full names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers
and credit card details.
On May 20, 2024, Live Nation identified unauthorized activity
within a third-party cloud database environment containing personal
data. On May 27, 2024, Live Nation discovered that the personal
details of about 560 million Ticketmaster customers -- including
Plaintiffs and Class Members -- was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals
demanding a ransom payment of $500,000.00 to prevent the data from
being resold on the dark web. As a result of the data breach, the
Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered injuries including, but not
limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their PII; (iii)
lost or diminished value of PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity
costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the data breach; (v) loss of benefit of the
bargain; and lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to address
Defendants’ inadequate safeguarding of Class Members’ PII that
it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their
information had been disclosed to an unauthorized third party and
precisely what information was accessed.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, Ticketmaster, LLC is a ticket
sales and distribution company. In February 2009, Ticketmaster
entered into an agreement to merge with event promoter Live Nation
to form Live Nation Entertainment, Incorporated. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
TICKETMASTER: Blake Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Blake and Lamibia Dunham, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE
NATION, ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04973 (C.D. Cal.,
June 13, 2024), is brought against Defendants for their failure to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information ("PII") of its customers, including, but not limited
to: full names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and
credit card details.
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personal
information--which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual
understanding that Defendants would protect it against unauthorized
disclosure--was compromised in a data breach (hereafter referred to
as the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach included personal details of
about 560 million Ticketmaster customers The PII compromised in the
Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals who target PII for
its value to identity thieves.
The invasion of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' privacy suffered
in this Data Breach constitutes an injury in fact. Additionally,
the Plaintiffs and Class Members are at an increased risk of future
harm, including identity theft, fraud, spam, phishing, or other
impersonation attacks. The Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable data
protection procedures, including vendor management, necessary to
protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of
unauthorized disclosure.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have
been exposed to a substantial risk of fraud and identity theft.
Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft.
Plaintiffs and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs,
for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit
reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity
theft. Plaintiffs and Class Members may also incur out of pocket
costs, for purchasing products to protect themselves from spam
emails, phone calls, and text messages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current and former customers of Ticketmaster and
have used, or created accounts on, ticketmaster.com.
Ticketmaster, LLC is one of the largest ticket sales and
distribution companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Seth Little, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
seth.little@poulinwilley.com
- and -
John C. Bohren, Esq.
BOHREN LAW
8560 West Sunset Boulevard, 4th Floor
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Phone: (619) 433-2803
Fax: (800) 867-6779
U-DRIVE ACCEPTANCE: Court Grants Lloyd's Bid for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit captioned
THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO
CERTIFICATE NO. SUAWSD50147-2001, Plaintiff v. U-DRIVE ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, INC. and DEBRA SUE HAMMONS, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00099-JMB (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Those Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Subscribing to Certificate No.
SUAWSD50147-2001's Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Defendant
Debra Sue Hammons responded, and the Plaintiff replied.
Plaintiff Lloyds filed the lawsuit on Jan. 27, 2023, seeking a
declaration of its obligation to defend and/or indemnify U-Drive
Acceptance Corporation in a class action claim filed by Debra Sue
Hammons. In an underlying lawsuit filed on Aug. 18, 2019, U-Drive
sued Hammons in state court alleging breach of an auto loan
agreement. In a counterclaim filed on Sept. 16, 2020, Hammons
alleged a consumer class action claim as to U-Drive's enforcement
and collection practices related to those auto loans. U-Drive
allegedly provided notice to Lloyds about Hammons' counterclaim on
Dec. 7, 2020.
Lloyds allegedly agreed to defend U-Drive under a reservation of
rights policy. Attached to the Complaint are U-Drive's state court
petition, Hammons' counterclaim, and the relevant insurance
policy.
The evidence consists of the insurance policy at issue and state
court filings, the authenticity of which Hammons does not dispute,
and which speak for themselves. In outlining its statement of
facts, Lloyds cites to its unverified complaint, which is, of
course, not evidence.
Accordingly, Judge Bodenhausen notes, any statement of fact that is
unsupported by evidence will be disregarded, including Lloyds'
statement of facts 25-28, which purport to recount communication
between Lloyds and U-Drive but which are otherwise unsupported by
the record.
Lloyds issued a Management Liability Insurance Policy to U-Drive
with an effective date of Jan. 29, 2020, to Jan. 29, 2021. The
policy provides that Lloyds "shall have the right and duty to
defend any CLAIM against the INSURED to which this insurance
applies, even if any of the allegations of the CLAIM are
groundless, false or fraudulent." The policy contains various
exclusions; of relevance is the "RETROACTIVE DATE EXCLUSION."
The "Retroactive Date" is listed as Jan. 29, 2020. Another relevant
exclusion involves "MULTIPLE INSUREDS, CLAIMS OR CLAIMANTS."
In the Aug. 18, 2019 state court petition filed by U-Drive, it
alleged that Hammons breached a Jan. 20, 2017 auto loan contract
and that it incurred $4,251.90 in damages. In her Sept. 18, 2020
answer, Hammons admitted to executing the contract but denied that
she was in default or that she owed any damages
In her consumer class action counterclaim, Hammons generally
alleges that U-Drive did not conform to the Uniform Commercial Code
by "sending deficient statutorily-mandated post-repossession,
pre-disposition notices ('presale notice')" and that subsequent
post-sale notices and attempts to collect interest on alleged
defaults did not comport with Missouri law.
Attached to the counterclaim are a presale notice dated March 30,
2017, and a notice of sale of collateral dated May 16, 2017, both
addressed to Hammons. The class Hammons seeks to represent is
defined as follows:
The Class comprises all persons ("Class") within the
applicable statute of limitations:
a. who are named as borrowers or buyers on a loan or financing
agreement with Plaintiff, assigned to Plaintiff or owned by
Plaintiff;
b. whose loan or financing agreement was secured by
collateral;
c. who was mailed a presale notice that stated both (1) "We
will sell the Vehicle at a public sale" and (2) "We will
sell the Vehicle at a private sale"; and
d. whose collateral was disposed.
The Missouri Subclass comprises all persons within the applicable
("Missouri Subclass"):
a. who obtained a Missouri Certificate of Title for a motor
vehicle identifying Plaintiff as the lienholder, or who are
named as borrowers or buyers with a Missouri address on a
loan or financing agreement with Plaintiff, assigned to
Plaintiff or owned by Plaintiff;
b. whose loan or financing agreement was secured by a motor
vehicle or other collateral;
c. who was mailed a presale notice that stated both (1) "We
will sell the Vehicle at a public sale" and (2) "We will
sell the Vehicle at a private sale"; and
d. whose collateral was disposed.
For relief, the alleged classes seek statutory damages, actual
damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive
and declaratory relief.
Judge Bodenhausen notes that the insurance policy issued by the
Plaintiff is a claims-based policy. It broadly provides that Lloyds
will defend U-drive on any claim filed against it subject to
certain exceptions. One such exception is for claims based on
wrongful acts committed prior to Jan. 20, 2020.
The Plaintiff, thus, argues that Hammons' counterclaim, based on
pre- and post-sale notices issued in 2017 (the wrongful acts), is
subject to the exclusion and it is not required to defend. In
response Hammons' argues that because she is asserting a class
action claim, some offending pre- and/or post-sale notices could
possibly have been issued after Jan. 20, 2020. Therefore, because
there is a possibility that some members of the class were
subjected to wrongful acts after the retroactive date, Lloyds has a
duty to defend.
To counter this argument and suggest that there is no possibility
of coverage, Lloyds notes the second relevant exclusion, which
treats multiple claims arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence as one claim whose relevant wrongful act date is the
date of the first such act -- again 2017.
The Court finds the Plaintiff's arguments convincing. Judge
Bodenhausen holds that the policy is unambiguous and excludes
Hammons' claims from coverage.
In this case, Judge Bodenhausen opines, the very nature of Hammons'
class action claim belies the argument that each class member's
claim should be treated as a separate, distinct, and stand-alone
claim. The legal vehicle through which Hammons asserted her counter
claim, by definition, requires common questions of law and fact and
the typicality of Hammons' claims vis-a-vis other class plaintiffs.
As such, each of the class claimants are alleging claims that have
a "common nexus" of "fact, circumstance, situation, event, or
transaction" -- namely the deficient pre- and post-sale notices.
There is no controlling precedent governing the issues in this
case, Judge Bodenhausen says. However, courts construing similar
language and similar (but not identical) circumstances find that
coverage does not apply when interrelated claims are made and a
policy treats such claims as filed on the date of the first
instance of such claims.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Hammons counterclaim alleges
a "common nexus" of "fact, circumstance, situation, event or
transaction or series of facts, circumstances, situations, events,
or transactions" as those terms are commonly understood. These
interrelated wrongful acts form a single claim and were based on a
wrongful act first made in 2017, prior to the retroactive date of
Jan. 29, 2020. As such, Judge Bodenhausen holds, the claim is not
subject to coverage under the relevant policy and the Plaintiff
owes no duty to defend U-Drive under the terms of the policy with
respect to Hammons' counterclaim.
In suggesting the opposite conclusion, Hammons relies on Nationwide
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harris Med. Assocs., LLC, 973 F.Supp.2d 1045 (E.D.
Mo. 2013). That case is easily distinguishable; the policy at issue
did not have an interrelated wrongful act clause, Judge Bodenhausen
holds. Another case relied on by Hammons, Park W. Galleries, Inc.
v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6095482 (E.D. Mich. 2013), is
similarly distinguishable, Judge Bodenhausen adds.
Hammons then argues that the policy language is ambiguous but does
not identify any ambiguity. Finally, Hammons argues that some acts,
like credit reporting, may have occurred during the policy period.
However, that argument ignores the related nature of all the claims
made in Hammons' counterclaim, Judge Bodenhausen points out.
Hammons' remaining arguments are either unsupported by case
authority (even the case authority cited), are based on decisions
that did not involve similar policy language or the issues raised
in this case, or which completely ignore the policy exclusions at
issue.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff owes no duty to defend under the
relevant insurance policy. In light of this conclusion, the
Plaintiff further owes no duty to indemnify. The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendants and to terminate this matter, accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 10,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s38uvj5 from
PacerMonitor.com.
U.S. XPRESS: Rogers Sues Over Improper Employment Hiring Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. XPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-2-12928-6 KNT (Wash. Sup., King Cty., June 10, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant is engaging in a systematic scheme of failing to
include the wage scale, salary range, and a general description of
all benefits and other compensation to be offered in job openings.
U.S. XPRESS, INC. provides transportation services. The Company
offers contract carriage, dry van, warehousing, cargo handling,
distribution, logistics, brokerage, and transportation management
services. U.S. Xpress serve the automotive, consumer products,
floor coverings, food, beverage and grocery, manufacturing, and
retail industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
Brian Denlinger, Esq.
Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205
Tacoma, Washington 98406
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
bd@ackermanntilajef.com
ak@ackermanntilajef.com
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE: Yamada Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maiki Yamada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation; CRUM & FORSTER HOLDING CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; COVER GENIUS INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC (DBA
RENTALCOVER.COM), a Delaware limited liability company; DARCY
RITTINGER, an individual; WESLEY JOHNSON, an individual; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11632 was removed from the
Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in and for the State of
California, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 11, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-04926.
The Complaint asserts six "causes of action" against Defendants:
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, bad faith denial
of an insurance claim, violations of California Business and
Professions Code and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellyn S. Garofalo, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2913
Phone: (310) 843-6300
Facsimile: (310) 843-6301
Email: egarofalo@carltonfields.com
UNITED STATES: W.D. Washington Dismisses Feds for Freedom v. DoD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, grants motions to dismiss in the
lawsuits titled FEDS FOR FREEDOM, ELIZABETH SOLIDAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs 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, Defendants. JEFFRY LEBRET, Plaintiff v. LLOYD J AUSTIN,
III, Secretary of Defense, VICE ADMIRAL GILBERT R. CISNEROS, Jr.,
Department of Defense Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE UNITED STATES NAVY, VICE
ADMIRAL WILLIAM J. GALINIS, Commander Naval Sea command Systems,
NAVAL SEA COMMAND SYSTEMS, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-05490-DGE-RJB (W.D. Wash.), consolidated with Case No.
3:23-cv-05961-DGE (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on the "Individual Federal
Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Individual-Capacity Claims" brought by Defendants U.S. Secretary of
the Department of Defense Lloyd J. Austin, III, Vice Admiral
Gilbert R. Cisneros, Jr., U.S. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del
Toro, Vice Admiral William J. Galinis, and Captain James Mosman
(collectively "Individual Defendants") and "Official Capacity
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" brought by the United States
Department of Defense, United States Navy, Naval Sea Systems
Command (collectively "DoD"), and the Individual Defendants.
These consolidated cases arise from health and safety measures,
including a vaccine mandate with medical and religious exemptions,
that were implemented to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs are Feds for Freedom (formerly Feds for Medical
Freedom) and 61 individually named people, who are/were DoD
civilian employees, who purport to have held religious beliefs that
prevented them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. While the cases
were filed as putative class actions, no class has been certified.
Feds for Freedom, Elizabeth Soliday, and fifty-nine DoD employees
filed this case (Feds for Freedom, et al. v. Austin, et al., U.S.
Dist. Court for the West. Dist. of Washington case 23-5490) on May
25, 2023. Plaintiff Jeffry LeBret separately filed a putative class
action on Oct. 24, 2023. These two cases were consolidated on Feb.
12, 2024, to proceed under this case (23-5490). The Plaintiffs,
then, for both consolidated cases, are Feds for Freedom, Mrs.
Soliday, Mr. LeBret, and the other 59 named Plaintiffs.
In their first claim, the Plaintiffs maintain that the Individual
Defendants, in their individual capacities, violated the DoD
employee Plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act ("RFRA"). In their second claim (which contains three
subclaims), the Plaintiffs assert that DoD and Defendant Austin, in
his official capacity, violated the DoD employee Plaintiffs' rights
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Because official-capacity suits "represent only another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an
agent," the official capacity Title VII claims against Defendant
Austin duplicate the Title VII claims against DoD, Judge Bryan
opines. The Title VII claims asserted against Defendant Austin, in
his official capacity, are duplicative. To avoid redundancy, those
claims should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Title VII
claims will be construed as against DoD.
The Individual Defendants now move to dismiss the RFRA claim, which
is asserted against them in their individual capacities only. DoD
moves to dismiss the Title VII claims asserted against it. For the
reasons provided in this Order, Judge Bryan holds that their
motions should be granted, and all claims against all Defendants
should be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Judge Bryan notes that the issues raised regarding jurisdiction
are: subject matter jurisdiction over the RFRA claim, personal
jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants, and Feds for Freedom's
standing to bring suit.
The Court holds that it does not have jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' RFRA claims, and that it does not have general
jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants. The Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that the Individual Defendants' affiliations
with Washington State are so continuous and systematic as to render
them at home in Washington. The Plaintiffs have also, among other
things, failed to carry their burden to show that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants in their
individual capacities.
Feds for Freedom has not addressed the standing argument and it
should be dismissed as a Plaintiff, Judge Bryan holds. It has
failed to demonstrate that it has standing to sue in its own right:
it has not established that the Defendants' actions resulted in a
(a) frustration of its organizational mission or (b) diversion of
its resources. Hence, Feds for Freedom does not have standing to
sue.
Judge Bryan finds that the Individual Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs' RFRA claim. Judge Bryan
opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to point to any grounds from
which to conclude that the Individual Defendants violated their
statutory rights under RFRA that were clearly established when
viewed in the specific context of the case.
The Plaintiffs also fail to plead sufficient facts to establish a
prima facie case, Judge Bryan holds. Even if Plaintiff LeBret had
established that he had religious beliefs that conflicted with
COVID-19 testing, he still did not make out a prima facie case.
Plaintiff LeBret did not plausibly allege that he informed DoD of
his religious aversion to testing, as required by the second prima
facie element.
The Plaintiffs make no showing that an adverse employment action
was taken against them, Judge Bryan notes. Even if the Plaintiffs
had successfully pleaded a prima facia failure to accommodate case,
Judge Bryan finds the Defendants have shown that it reasonably
accommodated the Plaintiffs' religious beliefs by allowing them to
avoid the vaccine and follow the guidelines for all unvaccinated
employees.
The Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint, Amended Complaint and Second
Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was one of the
operative complaints for purposes of this motion. They also
attempted to plead the same claims in the consolidated LeBret case.
The LeBret Complaint was the other operative complaint.
Even though they made four separate attempts to plead claims for
relief, the Plaintiffs have failed to do so each time, Judge Bryan
notes. Clearly, an additional attempt would be futile, Judge Bryan
points out. Hence, leave to amend should be denied.
Accordingly, the Court rules 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.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4xbfr58v from PacerMonitor.com.
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Faces Anderson Suit Over Abrupt Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE ANDERSON; and IAN CALLAGHAN-KENNA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02586 (E.D.
Pa., June 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were given no prior
warning of the decision of the Defendant to close, which was
apparently made in a short amount of time by the most senior
leadership of the Defendant, and without input from students,
faculty, or other stakeholders.
The closure of the Defendant's University leaves students with
great uncertainty about the future of their education and careers
as well as severe financial hardship from having spent effort,
time, and money to attend the University and to live in the
Philadelphia area while attending the University and having to
continue paying for living expenses while not earning their degree,
says the suit.
University of the Arts (UArts) was a private arts university in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its campus made up part of the Avenue
of the Arts cultural district in Center City, Philadelphia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Juliette T. Mogenson
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
jmt@sstriallawyers.com
USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses Tarkett Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH TARKETT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01724-H-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff leased a vehicle from BMW Financial Services ("BMW").
Under the lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay BMW an
initial payment of $20,500, plus $548.25 per month for 36 months,
for a total of $40,038.75, in exchange for the right to possess and
drive the vehicle for three years. As required by the lease
agreement, the Plaintiff purchased an automobile insurance policy
from the Defendant that provided physical damage and collision
coverage for the vehicle. The insurance policy was effective at the
time the Plaintiff leased the vehicle in 2021, and he most recently
renewed the policy for the period of Oct. 27, 2022, to April 27,
2023.
On Jan. 26, 2023, the Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident
in San Diego, California. The Defendant accepted coverage for the
accident and declared the leased vehicle to be a total loss. The
Defendant, then, determined that it owed $59,834.90 for the totaled
vehicle. The Plaintiff does not dispute the amount owed by the
Defendant for the totaled vehicle. Rather, the Plaintiff disputes
who was entitled to payment under the insurance policy--the
Plaintiff or BMW.
The Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the traffic accident, he
still owed $37,595.06 to BMW under the lease agreement. Thus, he
contends that only $37,595.06 should have been paid to BMW, and the
remainder should have been paid to him. Instead, the Defendant paid
$58,834.90 to BMW, which it contends was demanded by BMW. The
remaining $1,000 was paid to the Plaintiff directly. The Plaintiff
alleges that he has suffered an injury in fact and has lost money
as a result of the Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
conduct.
On Sept. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendant. On Nov. 6, 2023, the Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. On Nov. 27,
2023, in lieu of filing an opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging
claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) declaratory relief.
On Dec. 11, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). On Jan. 22,
2024, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. On Jan. 29, 2024, the Defendant
filed a reply. On March 28, 2024, the Court, pursuant to its
discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), submitted the motion on the
parties' papers.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC with prejudice.
Specifically, the Defendant argues that: (1) it did not breach the
insurance policy by paying BMW for the totaled vehicle; (2) the
Plaintiff cannot pursue equitable remedies because he has failed to
plead facts establishing that his legal remedies are inadequate;
(3) the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive
relief; (4) he fails to plead any claim for relief under the
fraudulent prong of the UCL; and (5) his breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and declaratory relief
claims are entirely duplicative of his breach of contract claim.
Judge Huff finds that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a
claim for breach of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss his first cause of action
for breach of contract. The Plaintiff has also failed to state a
claim for equitable relief and lacks standing to pursue injunctive
relief under the UCL. As a result, the Court grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss his second cause of action for violations of
California's UCL.
The Plaintiff's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing claim is duplicative of his breach of contract claim
and must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of action
for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Plaintiff also seeks a judicial determination of his rights and
duties, and the rights and duties of absent Class Members, and a
declaration as to whether the Defendant's insurance benefit payout
practice is illegal or a breach of contract.
Here, Judge Huff notes, the declaratory relief the Plaintiff seeks
is entirely commensurate with the relief sought through his breach
of contract claim. Thus, the Plaintiff's declaratory relief claim
is duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fourth cause of
action for declaratory relief.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's first amended complaint with
leave to amend. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days from the date of this order to cure the
deficiencies in his first amended complaint if he can do so.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6tc5ff from PacerMonitor.com.
USAA GENERAL: Maryland Court Narrows Claims in Black Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
Amended Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit entitled WALTER BLACK, III,
Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01581-PJM (D. Md.).
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by Walter Black
against Defendants United Services Automobile Association ("USAA")
and its subsidiaries: Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance
Company ("Garrison"); USAA General Indemnity Company ("USAA GIC");
and USAA Casualty Insurance Company("USAA CIC").
As of 1978 and since then, Black has had an automobile insurance
policy with USAA underwritten by USAA CIC. Between August 2013 and
March 2014, USAA charged Black three ten-dollar late charge fees
for untimely payment of his monthly premiums.
As it turned out, however, USAA lacked authority to charge the late
fees because it had not, as required by State insurance
administration regulations, received approval to do so from the
Maryland Insurance Administration ("MIA") and the Maryland
Insurance Commissioner ("MIC"). Accordingly, following an
investigation by the MIC in July 2020, USAA entered into a Consent
Order agreeing to reimburse its approximately 130,000 policy
holders a total in excess of $8.1 million for inappropriately
assessed late charges.
Mr. Black, as one of the policy holders, received a credit to his
account in the amount of thirty dollars, representing the three
late charges that had been assessed to him. What Black did not
receive (nor apparently did any other policy holder receive), was
the interest the Defendants had earned over the years on the
wrongly assessed late charges. That is what Black seeks in this
lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated -- the
interest on the improperly retained late charges, estimated to be
in excess of seven million dollars.
Mr. Black's lawsuit proceeds in three counts: Count I -- Money Had
and Received; Count II -- Breach of Contract; and Count III --
Unjust Enrichment.
The Defendants, in their Amended Motion to Dismiss, argue: (1) Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction in the
Maryland Insurance Administration ("MIA"); (2) Failure to State a
Claim; and (3) Statute of Limitations.
In the present case, Judge Messitte notes, there is absolutely no
indication that the Maryland Legislature ever intended the MIA to
have exclusive jurisdiction over the specific issue of entitlement
to interest on late charges improperly retained, even if they were
retained in good faith and without fraud or malice.
The Defendants next argue that Black's claims for Money Had and
Received and Unjust Enrichment are subsumed in his Breach of
Contract claim and go on to say that he has no Breach of Contract
claim.
This is a curious argument, according to Judge Messitte. A party
can always plead causes of action in the alternative. What a party
may be precluded from doing is recovering on certain causes of
action on a cumulative basis. Clearly, Black (and his class, if,
certified) would only be entitled to one recovery in this case, not
two or three.
The Defendants further argue that Black has failed to plead facts
that they knew of or appreciated any benefit allegedly conferred on
him and that it would be "inequitable" for them not to pay interest
on disputed late fees.
This argument cannot be taken seriously, Judge Messitte says. The
pleaded facts clearly suggest that the Defendants knew full well
that they had the use of the late fees, and, that most certainly
they understood the time-value of the fees, which is to say the
interest-bearing potential of the fees. Beyond that, Judge Messitte
points out, the Defendants have pointed to no reason, equitable or
otherwise, why they should still be able to keep the fruits of the
improperly retained fees.
Judge Messitte opines that Black's claims in Count I for Money Had
and Received, and Count III for Unjust Enrichment, i.e., both
quasi-contractual in nature, already suffice to say cover the case.
But since Black has not clearly stated a claim of breach of
contract in Count II of the Complaint, the Defendants' Amended
Motion to Dismiss will be granted as to that Count.
The Defendants' final argument in support of dismissal is that
Black's claim is time-barred, apparent, they say, from the face of
the Complaint. They cite Maryland's three-year statute of
limitations, running from the time that the cause or causes of
action accrued. Black insists that he filed his claims within the
statute of limitations. He claims that the Defendants wrongful acts
only accrued in March 2020 when they refunded the improperly
collected late fees, but failed to pay the interest earned on the
money they improperly retained for years.
That would mean Black's lawsuit, initiated some 15 months
thereafter, was timely filed, Judge Messitte holds. Accordingly,
the Defendants' statute of limitations argument fails.
For these reasons, Judge Messitte rules as follows: the Defendants'
Amended Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Count II (Breach of
Contract) and denied as to Counts I (Money Had and Received) and
III (Unjust Enrichment).
The Court says it is now ready to entertain a Motion to Certify an
appropriate class or classes.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 11, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/27pt4sc2 from PacerMonitor.com.
VENICE HMA: Class Settlement in Tetreault Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the lawsuit captioned INGRID TETREAULT, DEBRA
CATLETTE, and CALLIE WHITE, on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. VENICE HMA, LLC and
VENICE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:22-cv-01989-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla.).
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court has
considered the Motion, the proposed Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"), the proposed
Notices of Settlement, and the declarations submitted in support of
the Motion.
Being fully advised in the premises of the proposed Class Action
Settlement Agreement, the Court now finds and grants the Motion for
Preliminary Approval.
The original Complaint in this lawsuit was filed on Aug. 29, 2022.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleged that the Defendant violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") by
terminating the Named Plaintiffs with no advance notice in
violation of the WARN Act. The Defendants deny the allegations.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and the terms set
forth in the Settlement Agreement, subject to further consideration
at the Final Approval Hearing after members of the Settlement Class
have had an opportunity to consider the Settlement Agreement and to
object to the Settlement.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies
the following Settlement Class, which is:
All persons employed by Defendants who worked at ShorePoint
Health Venice, who were laid off or terminated without cause
on their part on or about Aug. 29, 2022, or within 30 days
of that date, as part of, or as the reasonably expected
consequence of, a mass layoff and/or plant closure as
defined by the WARN Act, who do not timely opt-out of the
class, but excluding individuals who were PRN employees or
were employed at the nearby ShorePoint Health Venice
HealthPark.
The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets the criteria for
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The
class consists of approximately 435 persons. The Court further
finds that, for settlement purposes, the Settlement Class meets the
criteria for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J. Hill, and Amanda E. Heystek from Wenzel
Fenton Cabassa, P.A., are appointed as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class. Named Plaintiffs, Ingrid Tetreault, Debra
Catlette, and Callie White, are appointed Class Representatives for
the Settlement Class.
The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the terms of the
Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court further
finds that the Settlement is the result of arm's-length
negotiations conducted initially with the assistance of a class
action mediator.
The Court, therefore, grants preliminary approval of the
Settlement. More specifically, the Court finds and concludes that
the Notices of Settlement, both the Short Form postcard notice
(which will be mailed to Settlement Class Members) and the Long
Form Notice (which will be mailed to Settlement Class Members),
attached as Exhibit C and Exhibit D to the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, respectively, and the
procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement for providing
notice to the Settlement Class satisfy the notice requirements of
Rule 23, adequately advise Settlement Class Members of their rights
under the Settlement Agreement and meet the requirements of due
process.
Any Settlement Class Member, who wishes to object to the
Settlement, must submit a written statement of objection to the
Administrator, postmarked no later than 60 days after the Class
Notice Date.
The form of notice under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA") submitted as Exhibit E to the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement complies with the requirements
of CAFA and will, upon mailing, discharge the Defendants'
obligations pursuant to CAFA.
The Final Approval Motion will be filed no later than fourteen (14)
days prior to the date of the Final Approval Hearing, and in the
Final Approval Motion Class Counsel will address any timely
submitted objections to the Settlement.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
will be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the
objection deadline for Class Members.
The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on Sept. 19,
2024, at 10:00 a.m., which is not less than one hundred (100) days
from the date the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5h8ate8p from PacerMonitor.com.
VITALS CONSUMER: Sweeton Allowed to File Corrected Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SWEETON v. Vitals Consumer
Services, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00088 (W.D. Mo., Filed Feb. 8,
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 the
proposed Amended Motion for Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Vitals provides healthcare medical information solutions.[CC]
WALGREEN CO: Barreca Sues Over Mislabeled Personal Care Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDI BARRECA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 516222/2024 (New York Sup. Ct.,
June 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has committed tortious
acts within New York State through the distribution and sale of the
personal care product, which is misleading to consumers in this
State.
According to the complaint, the labeling of the Product violated
the GBL because the representations, omissions, packaging, and/or
labeling, Sensitive Skin Formula Facial Cleanser, described as
"Non-comedogenic," and having "No dyes," along with being "free
from" ten other distinct types of ingredients, when this was false,
because instead of added dyes, or "liquid containing coloring
matter, for imparting a particular hue," it included pigments, or
"dry insoluble substance[s], usually pulverized, which when
suspended in a liquid vehicle becomes a paint, ink, etc.," was
contrary to statutes and/or regulations below, which adopted the
FFDCA and accompanying regulations, to prohibit consumer deception
by companies in the labeling of personal care and/or cosmetic
products.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class:
"All persons in New York who purchased the Product in New York
during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action
alleged, expecting "No dyes" in the context of a facial
cleanser for sensitive skin meant no added coloring."
Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendant, Defendant's board
members, executive-level officers, members, and attorneys, and
immediate family members of any of the foregoing persons, (b)
governmental entities, (c) the Court, the Court's immediate
family, and Court staff and (d) any person that timely and
properly excludes himself or herself from the Class.
The Plaintiff purchased, applied, used, and/or consumed the
Product, in reliance on the packaging, labeling, representations,
and/or omissions identified here, in Kings County.
Walgreens operates more than 80 full service pharmacies under the
Walgreens and/or Duane Reade banners in New York.
While Walgreens sells leading national brands of products, it also
sells many products under one of its private label brands,
Walgreens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
jchung_77@msn.com
WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Hearings Continued to July 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination
Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 17,
2022), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order continuing the
hearings on class certification, the motion to disqualify, and the
motion for sanctions, to July 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Housing/Accommodations.
Wells Fargo is a diversified, community-based financial services
company.[CC]
WORLDPAC INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Anaya Extended to Oct. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge David Carter
entered an order granting stipulation the following changes to the
class certification and pretrial and trail deadlines in this
matter:
Event Current Date New Date
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Aug. 1, 2024 Oct. 7,
2024
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline for Defendants to File Aug. 30, 2024 Nov. 4,
2025
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Sept. 13, 2024 Nov. 18,
2024
Reply to Defendants' Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification
Hearing for Class Certification Sept. 30, 2024 Dec. 2, 2024
Fact Discovery Cut-Off Nov. 20, 2024 Jan. 21,
2025
Motion Cut-Off Jan. 15, 2025 March 24,
2025
Final Pretrial Conference Feb. 10, 2025 Apr. 14,
2025
Trial March 4, 2025 Apr. 29,
2025
Worldpac distributes motor vehicle equipment and aftermarket
replacement automotive parts.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w03AvE at no extra
charge.[CC]
WP COMPANY: N.D. California Grants Bid to Dismiss Hirlinger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit titled JOSEPH HIRLINGER, et al., Plaintiffs v.
WP COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05963-AMO (N.D. Cal.).
The case concerns allegations of false advertising. Before the
Court is Defendant WP Company LLC's motion to transfer venue or, in
the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint. The matter is fully
briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument.
Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearing set for June 27, 2024.
Having read the parties' papers and considered their arguments and
the relevant legal authority, the Court grants the motion to
dismiss and does not reach the motion to transfer.
Plaintiffs Joseph Hirlinger and Guy Ball are residents of
California. Defendant WP Company LLC ("TWP") is a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. TWP sells
digital subscriptions to the newspaper it publishes, The Washington
Post. TWP advertises its subscriptions with strikethrough prices
(e.g., "$120") alongside substantially lower prices.
For example, when Hirlinger purchased an annual All-Access Digital
Subscription at the price of $40 for one year, adjacent to the $40
price, the advertisement displayed a higher price in strikethrough
typeface: ($100). Similarly, when Ball purchased an annual
All-Access Digital Subscription at the price of $40 for one year,
the advertisement displayed a higher price in strikethrough
typeface: ($120).
WP never or almost never actually advertised any of its digital
subscriptions at the strikethrough price shown in the
advertisement, which improperly induced them to purchase
subscriptions that they otherwise would not have and to pay more
for those subscriptions than they otherwise would have. TWP
includes language explaining its introductory discount on the
Checkout Page -- e.g., "$40 for one year, then $120 every year
thereafter."
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the California
Superior Court for the County of San Francisco on Oct. 6, 2023, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The Defendant
removed the case to this Court on Nov. 17, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint enumerates the following causes of
action: Violations of False and Misleading Advertising Law ("FAL");
(2) violations of Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) violations of
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (4) violations of the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA").
TWP filed the instant motion to transfer, or in the alternative, to
dismiss, on Dec. 22, 2023, and simultaneously filed a request for
judicial notice.
TWP requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following:
(1) a publicly available webpage on TWP's website pursuant to Rule
201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: TWP's Terms of Sale for
Digital Products ("Terms of Sale") at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/information/2022/06/17/terms-sale-digital-products/;
and (2) a copy of the webpage presented to a consumer purchasing an
annual digital subscription from TWP (the "Checkout Page"). The
Plaintiffs oppose TWP's request.
Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that the Terms of Sale and Checkout
Page are judicially noticeable because they are "capable of
accurate and ready determination," their contents are "easily
verifiable," and they can be accessed by anyone who attempts to
purchase to a TWP annual digital subscription.
The Court finds that the exhibits TWP submitted are appropriate for
judicial notice because they are easily verifiable, publicly
available websites that provide necessary context for the
screenshots in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, and the websites are
directly relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims of consumer deception.
The Court, therefore, overrules the Plaintiffs' objections and
grants TWP's request for judicial notice. Because it finds the two
exhibits the proper subjects of judicial notice, the Court does not
reach the related issue of whether it may consider the same
documents incorporated into the Complaint by reference.
TWP moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state
a claim.
Because the Plaintiffs' claims sound in fraud, Judge
Martinez-Olguin points out that their Complaint must also meet the
heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b), citing Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th
Cir. 2009).
The Court finds the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for false or
misleading advertising under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. Therefore, the
Court grants TWP's motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs'
California state law claims with leave to amend.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs fail to identify any
misleading statement because TWP's advertisement clearly and
unambiguously refers to the future renewal price for the
subscription, not a false comparison price. The Plaintiffs point to
no additional facts or grounds to find that their allegations state
a claim for CPPA violations.
Therefore, for the same reasons they fail to state a claim for
violation of the FAL, UCL and CLRA violations, they also fail to
state a claim of the CPPA. The Court, accordingly, dismisses the
Plaintiffs' CPPA claim with leave to amend.
For these reasons, the Court grants TWP's request for judicial
notice and grants TWP's motion to dismiss. Though the Court does
not reach TWP's motion to transfer this case to the District of
Columbia in this Order, TWP may renew the motion upon the
Plaintiffs' demonstrated ability to state a claim. The Plaintiffs
may file an amended complaint within 21 days from the date of this
order. No additional parties or claims may be added without leave
of court or stipulation of the Defendant.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 10, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mjkpa4 from PacerMonitor.com.
X-MODE SOCIAL: Egan and Egan Allege Sale of Sensitive Personal Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA EGAN and JOSEPH EGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. X-MODE SOCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01052 (E.D. Va., June 15, 2024)
challenges X-Mode's unlawful practice of selling highly sensitive
personal data of Plaintiffs and Class members.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants has been unjustly enriched
and has violated Plaintiffs' privacy rights, state consumer
protection and privacy statutes, and Section 5 of the FTC Act by
selling this data without consent. The Plaintiffs claim that
Defendant purchased their geolocation data from third party phone
applications and then sold the location data to other third parties
for a profit, without obtaining their consent to do so.
Based in Virginia, X-Mode Social, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
engaged in the collection of smartphone-location datasets. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Erlich, Esq.
THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC
1550 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700
Arlington, VA 22209
Telephone: (703) 791-9087
Facsimile: (703) 722-8114
E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Over Fix Rental Pricing Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON SHEWMAKER and JAMAAR FAISON, individually and as a
representative on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00085-CDL (M.D.
Ga., June 7, 2024) alleges that Defendants conspired to fix rental
pricing in the multifamily market, including, but not limited to,
fixing advertised list prices, fixing end lease prices, and fixing
market conditions to eliminate concessions and specials by using
Defendant Yardi’s algorithmic software pricing to systematize
rents within the multifamily market.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendants for
unlawfully conspiring to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain
nationwide multifamily rental prices at artificially high levels
and exerting control over the multifamily rental market, for
unlawfully agreeing to exchange competitively sensitive data in
violation of the Sherman Act.
The information-exchange agreement has had the effect of
(1) reducing and suppressing competition among Defendants in the
nationwide multifamily market, and
(2) inflating the prices of leases during the Class Period.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
the members of the Class have been harmed by being forced to pay
inflated prices for leases.
Further, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiffs and members of the Class
have been injured in their business or property and will continue
to be injured in their business and property by paying more for
leases than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the
conspiracy, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Madison Shewmaker was and has been a resident and citizen
of the State of Georgia, residing within Muscogee County, Georgia.
Plaintiff Shewmaker rents multifamily residential units in
properties managed by Landlord Defendant Ram Partners, LLC.
Plaintiff Jamaar Faison was and has been a resident and citizen of
the State of Georgia, residing within Muscogee County, Georgia.
Plaintiff Faison rents multifamily residential units in properties
managed by Landlord Defendant Ram Partners, LLC.
The Defendants incclude YARDI SYSTEMS, INC.; ALCO MANAGEMENT, INC.;
ARDMORE RESIDENTIAL, INC.; BALACIANO GROUP; BALKE BROWN
TRANSWESTERN, INC.; BANYAN REALTY PARTNERS LLC;BEZTAK MANAGEMENT
COMPANY; BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.C.; CALIBRATE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC; DALTON MANAGEMENT, INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.;
GRUBB PROPERTIES, LLC; HNN ASSOCIATES, LLC; KRE GROUP, INC.;
LEFEVER MATTSON; LUMACORP, INC.; MANCO ABBOTT, INC.; MCWHINNEY
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC; MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC.; PRG
REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC.; R.D. MERRILL REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,
LLC; RAM PARTNERS, LLC; SINGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD; SUMMIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; CREEKWOOD PROPERTY CORPORATION; TOWNE
PROPERTIES ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LTD.; TRIBRIDGE RESIDENTIAL,
LLC; WESTDALE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LTD (L.P.); FEDERAL MGMT, LLC; &
Yardi is a privately owned California corporation headquartered in
Santa Barbera, California, and doing business in over 40 offices
throughout North America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Australia,
employing over 9,000 people.
Yardi is a software vendor who licenses and supplies property
management applications and services for use within the real estate
industry, including the RENTmaximizer/Revenue IQ revenue management
software described in this Complaint.
Alco is a Tennessee corporation headquartered in Memphis,
Tennessee. The company is a multifamily property manager and owner
of more than 6,000 rental units throughout 9 states.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
Paul W. Evans, Esq.
Lauren E. Miles, Esq.
Alison D. Hawthorne, Esq.
Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
Jessica M. Haynes, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com
Alison.Hawthorne@beasleyallen.com
Lauren.Miles@beasleyallen.com
Paul.Evans@beasleyallen.com
Rebecca.Gilliland@beasleyallen.com
Jessica.Haynes@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Michael W. Slocumb, Esq.
Charles W. Beene, Esq.
SLOCUMB LAW FIRM, LLC
1967 East Samford Avenue
Auburn, AL 36830
E-mail: cbeene@slocumblaw.com
mike@slocumblaw.com
ZELA INTERNATIONAL: Competello Sues Over Blind's Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZELA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, d/b/a MODE
COSMETICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04421 (S.D.N.Y., June 10,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City
Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York State Civil Rights, 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.modecosmetics.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: pages with quality issues, broken links, and
redundant and empty links that contain no text, 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.
Zela International, LLC, doing business as Mode Cosmetics, is a
company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
ZOCDOC INC: Smith Files Appeal
------------------------------
ROLLAND SMITH filed a petition in the lawsuit Rolland Smith, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ZocDoc Inc. and related other affiliated entities, Defendant, Case
No. 158451/2021, in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division,
First Department.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.
The appellate case is captioned Rolland Smith, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
ZocDoc, Inc., and related other affiliated entities vs. ZocDoc
Inc., and related or affiliated entities, Case No. 24-00222, in the
First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on
June 3, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner ROLLAND SMITH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joam Alisme, Esq.
ALISME LAW LLC
15 Metrotech Center, 7th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (917) 970-1212
Email: info@alismelaw.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 ***