/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 2, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 132 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mason Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Miner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Neely Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Nelezen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Newman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Nibbe Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: O'Quinn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Olhausen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Osowski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Owens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Politte Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams A&A SERVICES: Fails to Properly Secure Clients' Info, Sayers Claims ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising ACCIDENT LLC: Terrell Sues Over Alleged Unwanted Robotexts ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bids to Compel Victim Contact Information AFFINITY INSURANCE: Case Management Conference Continued to July 30 ALEXANDER INC: Montero Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Claims ALFORD HOLLOWAY: Bid to Dismiss Turner Suit Denied W/o Prejudice ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Reconsider Court Order Tossed APPLE INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule in Turner Suit ARGENT TRUST: Court Allows Robertson to File Amended Complaint ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gregg Alleges ATRIUM HEALTH: Bid to Proceed Pseudonymously in J.R. Suit Denied AVADIM HEALTH: Sanchez Seeks Initial Certification of Class BAIN CAPITAL: Settlement Gets Initial OK in Jones Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Amended to July 26 BCE-MACH III: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 13, 2025 BCG EQUITIES: Louis Sues over Debt Collection Practices BELLRING BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in Krystofiak Consumer Suit BISHOP CIDER: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Sub-Minimum Wage & Tips BLEACHER REPORT: Final Hearing for Class Settlement Set Aug. 8 BOTTOMS UP: Court Enters Default Judgment in Prasch Class Suit BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Parks' Misleading Reservation Fees BSH HOME: $2-Mil. Class Settlement in Peterson Suit Has Final Nod BSH HOME: $712K in Attys. Fees and Costs Awarded in Peterson Suit BULBAP1 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angel Alleges CABS HOME: Higgins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages Under FLSA CARVANA LLC: Furlong Seeks to Certify Class CDK GLOBAL: Counsel Probes on Possible Cyberattack Class Suit CEDAR FAIR: Loses Bid to Certify Questions in Walker Class Suit CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Bid for Lead Roles in Finkelstein Due Aug. 12 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid for Class Cert. Due Sept. 13 CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Hamilton Bailey Appointed as Lead Plaintif CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Khalsa Securities Suit in New Jersey CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mediation in Gonzalez Suit Ongoing CHRISTIE'S INC: Court Mulls Consolidating Maroulis & Colley Suits CHRISTIE'S INC: Court to Consolidate Colley Suit With Maroulis Suit CHRISTIE'S INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gaifullin Says CINCINNATI LUBES: Williams Seeks Collective Action Certification CLEAN HARBORS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by July 8 CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Class Cert Hearing Adjourned to Sept. 4 COLONIAL LIFE: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 11 CONSOLIDATED SCAFFOLDING: Underpays Scaffolders, Silva Suit Alleges COTIVITI INC: Pre-Discovery Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd CURRENEX INC: Court Denies SS Global's Bid to Dismiss Edmar Suit DAK RESOURCES: July 25 Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Vigil Suit DAYTON CORRECTIONAL: Terry Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners DILIGENT CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Petillo Gets Final Nod EAGLE NATIONWIDE: Bid to Substitute Class Representative OK'd EF INSTITUTE: Court Directs Parties to Confer Joint Statement EIDP INC: Banks Seeks Extension of Discovery Cut-off Deadline EPOCH EVERLASTING: Can File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Class Cert EQUAL EXCHANGE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 25 ERIC CARMEL: Class Cert. Discovery in Pagan Suit Due Oct. 29 ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Amended Class Cert Bid ERTC EXPRESS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ETZ HAYIM: Settlement in Cimino Suit Gets Initial OK EVOLV TECH: OPPRS Seeks Leave to File Memo Response EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 13 EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal FIGURE LENDING: Webb Loses Bid for Special Admission in Ward Suit FLORIDA HEALTH: Dipierro Suit Remanded to Hillsborough Cir. Court FORD MOTOR: Bid to Seal Granted in Part w/o Prejudice FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graves Alleges FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Hargrove Sues Over Alleged Data Breach FUTUREFUEL CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Information GEORGIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 12 GFA ALABAMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Alleges GIANT COMPANY: Holbert Seeks Leave to File Class Status Bid GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks to File Support for Class Cert Bid GLOBAL ORANGE: Faces Bower Suit Over ADA Violations GOLDMAN SACHS: Sjunde AP-Fonden Seeks Leave to File Surreply GTS LIVING: Sharpe Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Court Dismisses "Right to Repair" Class Action HARTFORD HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Healthcare Monopoly HEADLESS WIDOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hussein Alleges HEIDI WASHINGTON: Court Narrows Claims in Williams Suit HEIDI WASHINGTON: Williams Bid for Class Certification Tossed HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Completion of Discovery Due August 15 HOLIDAY INN: Class Discovery Deadline Extended in Lingard Suit HOSPITAL SISTERS: Parties Seek Amendment of Pretrial Conference HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Adavenaixx Gets Initial Nod HUNGARY: U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Holocaust Victims Class Suit I.C. SYSTEM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 8 ILLINOIS TOOL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 27, 2025 INARI MEDICAL: Hartmann Sues Over Drop in Share Price INSOMNIA COOKIES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response INTERNATIONAL STAR: Sanchez Bid for Default Judgment Partly OK'd J. DAVID TAX: Bids to Certify/Decertify Classes Due Nov. 1 J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: Must Serve Expert Report in Taylor by Nov. 28 JAMES DAVIS: Soliz Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action JKS VENTURES: Court OK's Entry of Proposed Consent Decree JP WHITE: Seeks to File Brief Sur-Reply in Opposition to Class Cert KAISER FOUNDATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Madrigal Says KANG LU USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mazariegos Alleges KAY IVEY: Court Tosses Kinetic Justice's Provisional Class Cert Bid KNIGHT HAWK: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Dye Suit LAZ KARP: Mason Sues Over Data Privacy Violations LEPRINO FOODS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Johnson Conditional Class Cert Bid Nixed LIBERTY MEDIA: Objection to Bids to Dismiss Diep Suit Due July 5 LIBERTY ONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graulau Alleges LINCARE INC: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response LONG BEACH, CA: Parties in Guma Suit Must File Joint Status Report LUXURBAN HOTELS: Court Appoints Marchetta Group as Lead Plaintiff MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice MARATHON PETROLEUM: Sept. 4 Class Cert Filing Sought in Johnson MARIO'S AIR: Court Narrows Claims in Germain Suit MARTINEZ REFINING: J. Piscitelli Dismissed as Named Plaintiff MERCER UNIVERSITY: Koerner's Bid to Stay/Continue Hearing Denied META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Alhindi Sues Over Data Privacy Violations MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response MICHAELS STORES: Seeks Partial Denial of Vigil Class Cert Bid MINKA LIGHTING: Class Settlement in Medoff Gets Final Approval MOWI ASA: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Salmon Price Fixing NASHVILE BOOTING: Class Action Settlement in Ladd Wins Initial Nod NATIONAL MENTOR: Court Allows Hagans to File Amended Complaint NEW HAMPSHIRE: G.K. Allowed to Supplement Reports of 4 Experts NEW HAMPSHIRE: GK Can File Supplement on Expert Declarations NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Hall-Landers Seeks to Certify Undergrads Class NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to July 8 NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose One-Step Notice OKLAHOMA: Parties Seek Initial OK of Proposed Consent Decree OLO INC: S.D. New York Amends Final Order in Steamship Trade Suit ONIX GROUP: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod OUTOKUMPO STAINLESS: Callier Bid to Compel Discovery Partly Granted PANORAMA EYE: Faces Jones Class Lawsuit Over Data Breach PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Court Restricts Public Access to Green's Docs PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Green Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees PINNACLE CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arroyo Alleges PRIMMER PIPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30, 2025 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 24, 2025 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Volino's Bid for Deal Approval Due July 1 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Stays Watson Suit PURPLE INNOVATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 30, 2025 QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: Class Settlement in Dunne Gets Initial Nod QUEBEC MARITIMES: Court Rejects Appeal to End Hazing Class Suit R&G BRENNER: Court Recommends Certifying Income Tax Preparer Class RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Class RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Grady Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses RED TIGER: Court Tosses Ni Bid to Certify Class REGAL CAPITAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Murray Due July 24 RELIANT LIFE: Reed Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses REMAC LLP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says RENT THE RUNWAY: Bid to Dismiss Sharma Suit Remains Pending ROBESON HEALTH: E.D. North Carolina Refuses to Toss McKenzie Suit ROSINA FOOD: Demosthene Seeks Conditional Status of Action SALVATION ARMY: Tassinari Seeks to File Class Cert Declaration SANDUSKY, OH: Seeks to Strike Affidavit of Counsel SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Status Schedule SCOUT ENERGY: Court Vacates Class Cert Deadline in Copper-Clark SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Extend Class Discovery Deadline SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 20 SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jacobs Says SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jacobs Says SOMCHAI & COMPANY: Yang Must Submit Supplemental Briefing SOUTHSIDE PIZZA: Pretrial Sched & Trial Order Entered in Williamson SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement in Chen Gets Initial Nod SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Chen Suit STAR TRIBUNE: Class Settlement in Feldman Gets Final Nod STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Bid for Conditional Status Tossed STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: Court Stays Discovery for Class Cert Bid STURM & RUGER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Extended to Nov. 10 SUN BEHAVIORAL: Jennings Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SWIFT PORK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Vail Extended to Sept. 6 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification TARGET CORP: Sadler Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Workers TARGET CORPORATION: Tivin Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing TD BANK: Court Recommends Certification of Classes in Nelipa TD BANK: Faces Manougian Class Suit Over Item Returned Fees TD BANK: Seeks Redactions to May 29, 2024 R&R Filed Under Seal TECO ENERGY: Bid to Substitute Exhibit OK'd in Roche Class Suit TEKSYSTEMS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids Moved to August 29 TELLURIDE RESORT: Alvarez Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Reply TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Sets Phase I Discovery in Edgar Suit TIKTOK INC: Griffith Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses TIKTOK INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Documents Under Seal TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd UNITED STATES: $15-M Deal in Discrimination Suit Granted Final OK UNITED WHOLESALE: Files Motion to Dismiss Borrower Class Action UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alabama Says UPSTART HOLDINGS: July 11 Class Cert Hearing Vacated VICTORIA GOLD: Kalloghlian Probes Potential Investor Class Action WALT DISNEY: Can Withhold Documents in Pay Equity Class Action WALT DISNEY: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Class Suit WHITE ROCK MEDICAL: Employees Sue Over Unpaid Insurance Premiums WYNN LAS VEGAS: Court Approves Settlement in Little FLSA Suit [*] NY Sees Rise in Hidden Fees Class Suit on Online Purchases [*] Rising Fraudulent Claims Heighten Settlement Risk [*] Tennessee Provides Law for Cybersecurity Class Action ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mason Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Mason v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03627-RMG (D.S.C., June 21, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 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. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with leukemia cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. 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 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 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: Miner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Miner, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; 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-03486-RMG (D.S.C., June 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the 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 regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 3M COMPANY: Neely Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Micah Neely, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02773-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Nelezen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Nelezen, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02768-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Newman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ James Newman, Sr., on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02767-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Nibbe Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Nibbe, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02777-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: O'Quinn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffery O'Quinn, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02771-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Olhausen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Olhausen, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02769-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and Prostate Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Osowski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Peter Osowski, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02772-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Owens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Owens, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02775-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Peterson, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02790-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Politte Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Benny Politte, on behalf of himself v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); 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.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:24-cv-02789-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 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. 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 collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and 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, 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. 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 Defendant's AFFF or TOG 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 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 exposed to AFFF and/or TOG during his firefighting career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com A&A SERVICES: Fails to Properly Secure Clients' Info, Sayers Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE SAYERS, 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-00228-RFR-MDN (D. Neb., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its computer systems following a data breach on or about October 8, 2023. 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. A&A Services, LLC, doing business as Sav-Rx, is a medication benefits management services provider. [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 - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising -------------------------------------------------------------- A report says lawsuit is filed contending that certain statements Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott") made on the labels of certain PediaSure Grow & Gain and PediaSure Sidekicks products ("PediaSure Products") are allegedly false or misleading because they convey that the PediaSure Products are healthy, nutritious, and balanced, when they allegedly contain excessive amounts of added sugar. The Plaintiffs also allege that Abbott omitted material information by not disclosing the effects on children's health of consuming the added sugar found in the PediaSure Products. This case does not cover physical harm that may have been caused to your child from consuming PediaSure products, nor are Plaintiffs seeking any monetary compensation for any such physical harm. Abbott maintains that its labeling statements are true, that the amount of sugar is disclosed on every PediaSure package, that the PediaSure Products provide nutritional benefits for children, particularly children who are behind in growth, and that, in any event, consumers purchase PediaSure for multiple, highly individualized reasons having nothing to do with PediaSure's labels, including because a healthcare professional recommended PediaSure. The Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Abbott are correct. The lawsuit is proceeding as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased certain PediaSure Products in person at a retail location in California at specified time periods since March 2015. There is no money available to members of the class now and no guarantee that class members will ever be entitled to money due to this lawsuit. However, your legal rights will be affected if you are a member of one or more subclasses and do not exclude yourself. Who is included? The Court has certified two subclasses that could potentially recover money for their purchases of PediaSure, as part of this class action lawsuit ("Monetary Subclasses"). You are a member of a Monetary Subclass ("Subclass Member") if you bought one of the PediaSure Products covered by a subclass in a retail store in California for household use, and not for resale or distribution, during certain date ranges. If you purchased a PediaSure Product on the internet (including via a computer, cellular phone, tablet, or other device), but never purchased a PediaSure Product in person at a retail location, you are not a Subclass Member. You also are not a Subclass Member if you purchased a PediaSure Product due to a doctor's prescription. For a complete list of the PediaSure Products and date ranges for purchases covered by the Monetary Subclasses, please visit www.PediaSureClassActionLawsuit.com or call 1-888-920-8364. What are your options? If you do nothing, you will remain a Subclass Member. If you stay in the Subclass and Plaintiffs obtain benefits for that Subclass in the class action, either as a result of a trial or a settlement, additional notice will be distributed about how to obtain those benefits. You also will be bound by the Court's orders, including any judgment against Plaintiffs and in favor of Abbott, and will lose any right you may have to sue Abbott over the claims in this case in the future. If you ask to be excluded, you will not be a Subclass Member, will not be bound by what the Court decides, and will keep any right you might have to sue Abbott separately. If you exclude yourself, you cannot share in any money that may be awarded to the Subclass(es). You cannot exclude yourself from the injunctive relief sought in this case. If you want to stay in the Subclass, you do not have to do anything now. If you want to exclude yourself from the Subclass, you must complete, sign, and submit an exclusion request form or send a letter asking to be excluded. Instructions for making this request can be found at www.PediaSureClassActionLawsuit.com. Exclusion requests must be made or postmarked by September 3, 2024. If you do not request exclusion, you or your own lawyer may (but do not have to) participate or speak in this lawsuit. Detailed information is available at www.PediaSureClassActionLawsuit.com and toll-free at 1-888-920-8364. [GN] ACCIDENT LLC: Terrell Sues Over Alleged Unwanted Robotexts ---------------------------------------------------------- TCPAWorld reports that a Florida resident named Michelle Terrell Lane has filed a class action lawsuit against lead generator Accident, LLC alleging receipt of unwanted robotexts. The texts were allegedly sent as part of a lawyer referral services. Lane contends she received unwanted texts despite the fact that her phone number has been on the national DNC list since May of 2021. She alleges she did not request the texts and was not in the market for an attorney. Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes. One for FTSA violations and one for DNC. The class definitions are: Florida Telephone Solicitation Act Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the U.S., who, (1) received a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) to a number on Florida's no sales solicitation calls list (3) since July 1, 2021. National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Defendant, (3) within a 12-month period, (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. Class action TCPA lawsuits against tort and personal injury law firms -- as well as the lead generators that assist them -- have been going through the roof lately. As plaintiff side law firms look to obtain leads they often turn to companies that are making calls and texts to engage consumers with potential claims. Plaintiff's lawyers suing other Plaintiff's lawyers. Legal canabilism. I find it fascinating that some plaintiff's side law firms have no problem suing other plaintiff-side law firms. But maybe that's just me. We'll continue to keep an eye on these interesting claims. [GN] ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bids to Compel Victim Contact Information ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 24, 2024, Kilpatrick announced two important milestones in the Jerry W. Ray v. AdaptHealth Corp. class action lawsuit, which alleges that AdaptHealth, acting through its "Family of Companies," engaged in improper billing and debt collection activities against sick, elderly, or otherwise vulnerable North Carolina residents. Recently, Kilpatrick attorneys filed a Motion to Compel AdaptHealth to provide names and contact information for the approximately 350,000 North Carolina consumers who were billed during the class period of April 3, 2019, through the present. After multiple requests, AdaptHealth -- which has recently been hit with other lawsuits alleging systematic wrongful billing -- has steadfastly refused to provide information on potential victims of its billing practices despite testifying through representatives that this information could be produced. Kilpatrick has also launched a new website to alert and educate potential class members about the case and learn about the billing problems they may have experienced. The website features a compelling video of Mr. Ray recounting his distressing experience of AdaptHealth relentlessly pursuing him with improper debt collection tactics after sending him dozens of wrongful bills and threatening legal action against him for medical equipment he had already returned. Website visitors will find a form to fill out if they believe they have fallen prey to AdaptHealth's improper billing or debt collection practices. In addition, the website houses key court filings, FAQs, and other important information about the case. "We hope that the announcement reaches all North Carolina consumers who have been harmed by AdaptHealth's alleged billing and collection practices," said Kilpatrick Partner Chad Hansen. "No one should have to go through the ordeal that Jerry experienced for over a year and a half. The entire Kilpatrick team is proud to be a part of this case and we look forward to continuing representing Jerry and those who come forward with similar stories." Please visit ncadapthealthlawsuit.com to stay up-to-speed on news coverage and updates about the case. About Kilpatrick Kilpatrick is trusted counsel to the world's most innovative companies. With recognized strength in the technology sector and a full range of service offerings, we deliver practical, business-centric solutions built upon strong and enduring connections. To serve our ground-breaking clients, we strive to be at the forefront of client service, a leader in DE&I, and on the cutting edge of law and technology. Kilpatrick has offices in the eight of the 10 largest metro areas in the U.S. Overall, the firm has 18 U.S. offices and 22 offices worldwide. [GN] AFFINITY INSURANCE: Case Management Conference Continued to July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Affinity Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-06347 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 8, 2023), Hon. Judge entered an order continuing case management conference scheduled for June 25, 2024, to July 30, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Affinity is the subsidiary of Aon that specializes in developing, marketing and administering customized insurance programs for professional associations like AIChE.[CC] ALEXANDER INC: Montero Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN ROMERO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by J A ALEXANDER, INC WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC. MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, v. J A ALEXANDER, INC., WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individuallyCase No. 2:23-cv-21679-SRC-JRA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) claims as a collective action and authorizing notice to prospective FLSA collective action members. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WY9Crd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com ALFORD HOLLOWAY: Bid to Dismiss Turner Suit Denied W/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Bramlette of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division, denies without prejudice the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed the lawsuit titled ANDREA TURNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF v. ALFORD, HOLLOWAY, & SMITH, PLLC, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:23-cv-00074-DCB-BWR (S.D. Miss.). Before the Court are two motions that were filed by Defendant ALFORD, HOLLOWAY, & SMITH, PLLC, the sole remaining defendant in this lawsuit: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (h)(3); and (2) a motion to strike the Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and litigation expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, this matter arose from a data breach that occurred at the Defendant's place of business, an accounting firm in McComb, Mississippi. Plaintiff Andrea Turner seeks to certify a class of persons compromised, or potentially compromised, by the data breach. The Plaintiff alleges that, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), her case qualifies as a class action lawsuit over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Having reviewed and considered the parties' submissions and applicable law, the Court finds that, at this time, both motions should be denied without prejudice. Subject to the parties' completion of the limited jurisdictional discovery ordered here, the Defendant will have the option to re-urge its motions, if the Defendant desires to do so. The Defendant asserts, without challenge from the Plaintiff in her briefing, that it is making a "factual-attack" on the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction in its Rule 12(b)(1) motion and that the Court may, therefore, consider facts outside the complaint in its ruling. The Defendant cites in support the Fifth Circuit's decision in Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412-13 (5th Cir. 1981). It is the Court's view that both sides have made some valid points, but more facts are needed before making a jurisdictional decision that could end this case. The Court notes that the Plaintiff criticizes the method that the Defendant has used to determine the class members' citizenship, but the Court has not been presented with practical and available alternative options that could be used to prove citizenship with a reasonable certainty. Recognizing that the Defendant asserts its Rule 12(b)(1) motion makes a factual-attack on the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, which, argues the Defendant, entitles the Court to consider facts outside the complaint in its ruling, the Court believes the better course at this initial stage of the litigation is to afford the parties an opportunity to conduct limited discovery regarding the facts related to CAFA's home state exception. Based on the parties' submissions to date, the Court finds that jurisdictional discovery of not more than sixty days that is narrowly tailored to the factual question of citizenship would assist the Court in determining whether two-thirds or more of the members of the sole proposed class are citizens of the State of Mississippi. The parties' jurisdictional discovery should address the concerns raised in this memorandum opinion and in relevant case precedent. At the end of the parties' jurisdictional discovery, the Defendant will be permitted to re-urge its motion to dismiss, if it chooses to do so. Also before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees and Litigation Expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Court finds that it would be precipitous to make a ruling on fees and litigation expenses prior to issuing a final decision on the Court's jurisdiction to hear this case. In addition, after the Defendant filed its motion to strike, the Plaintiff filed its Amended Class Action Complaint. The parties acknowledge that the subsequent filing of an amended complaint ordinarily renders as moot a pending motion that is directed to the original complaint. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is denied without prejudice, with leave to re-file after limited jurisdictional discovery is completed. Commencing on the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the parties are permitted to conduct the limited jurisdictional discovery described herein for a period of not more than sixty (60) days from the date of this Opinion . Judge Bramlette also rules that the Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Request For Attorney's Fees And Litigation Expenses is denied without prejudice as moot, with leave to re-file if the Court rules that it has subject-matter jurisdiction of this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 13, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yv26uprr from PacerMonitor.com. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' application for leave to file under seal the following documents submitted in support of their Motion for Class Certification: -- the Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification, and -- Exhibits 9-14, 19-26, 28-30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 44, 71-73, 82-85, 89, 93, 94, and 96 to the Declaration of Charles J. Crueger submitted in support of the same. This Application is made pursuant to C.D. Cal. L.R. 79-5.2.2(b) and the corresponding rules for "Documents Designated by Another as Confidential Pursuant to a Protective Order." The request is tailored, by way of redaction, to seal only those portions of the documents containing material which Defendant has designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order governing confidential information in this case. This Application will be based on this Notice of Application, the accompanying Application, the redacted documents proposed to be filed under seal, the concurrently filed confidential declaration of Gabriel S. Barenfeld in support of the Application that attaches the unredacted documents proposed to be filed under seal, and on the entire record in the action, as well as on any oral argument that the Court may permit. This is a putative class action lawsuit seeking the reimbursement of business expenses, pursuant to section 2802 of the California Labor Code, that Allstate has improperly shifted to its captive sales force whom it calls its "Exclusive Agents." On July 18, 2023, the parties submitted a stipulated Protective Order to govern the exchange of confidential information in this case. On July 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Spaeth modified and then entered the parties' Protective Order. Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsFS3k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (844) 622-6469 Facsimile: (213) 622-6019 E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 626-9760 E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com - and - Charles J. Crueger, Esq. Erin K. Dickinson, Esq. Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq. James Tilton, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3868 E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com ekd@cruegerdickinson.com bak@cruegerdickinson.com jlt@cruegerdickinson.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Reconsider Court Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE, GIANNA VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER, MICHAEL THOMAS REID, ALLIE STEWART, ANGELA CLARK, JOSEPH REALDINE, RICKY AMARO, ABIGAIL BAKER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, EMILY COUNTS, DEBBIE TINGLE, NANCI-TAYLOR MADDUX, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, MARILYN BAKER, WYATT COOPER, ELLEN MAHER, SARAH GRANT and GARY ACCORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Garaufis entered an order denying Amex's motion for reconsideration of the court's decision to exclude part of the testimony of its expert, Dr. Eric Gaier. In its motion for reconsideration, Amex does not point to any specific testimony of Dr. Gaier's concerning large merchants the court overlooked. That could be because Dr. Gaier had little to say about large merchants. One thing that Dr. Gaier did say about large merchants was that they individually negotiate with Amex in the same way that Qualifying Merchants do. If the mechanism by which Qualifying Merchants and large non-Qualifying Merchants reduce their discount fees is the same, then that undercuts Dr. Gaier's opinion that "Dr. Lamb acknowledges that Amex's NDPs would be rescinded for all merchants but ignores the impact of Amex's NDPs on merchants other than Qualifying Merchants." According to Dr. Lamb's damages methodology, merchants that have a credible threat to steer are able to negotiate with Amex to lower the discount rate and incur savings. Dr. Lamb opined that his damages model applies equally to Qualifying Merchants and non-Qualifying Merchants.8 If anything, Dr. Gaier's statement here about large non-Qualifying Merchants seems to corroborate Dr. Lamb's opinion that the mechanism through which merchants would reduce discount fees is not limited to Qualifying Merchants. Dr. Gaier's testimony that Plaintiffs acknowledged or conceded that Qualifying Merchants are distinct from other non-Qualifying Merchants is unsupported. He did not provide analysis to show that Qualifying Merchants have different profit margins than non-Qualifying Merchants9 or otherwise indicate that the Qualifying Merchants are unique. Amex has not demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted. On Jan. 9, 2024, this court issued a Memorandum and Order that certified ten classes of debit cardholders, denied Defendants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company's motion to exclude expert testimony, and granted in part Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony. American Express is an American bank holding company and multinational financial services corporation that specializes in payment cards. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I6fT9I at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule in Turner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davil entered an order modifying briefing schedule and to continue case deadlines: July 12, 2024 Deadline for Apple to file omnibus opposition to Plaintiff's Motions. Apple's omnibus opposition to the Motions shall not exceed the 25-page limit of Civil L.R. 7-3(a) Aug 1, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply or replies in support of the Motions not to exceed 15 pages. The class certification briefing schedule is continued until resolution of the Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court will nonetheless keep the Dec. 12, 2024 hearing on class certification on calendar in the event a briefing schedule with this date appears feasible. Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=owOWqJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq. Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: PPreovolos@mofo.com AAmezcua@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com ARGENT TRUST: Court Allows Robertson to File Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants the Plaintiff's motions to temporarily lift stay and to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned Shana Robertson, Plaintiff v. Argent Trust Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01711-DWL (D. Ariz.). In this putative class action, filed in October 2021, Plaintiff Shana Robertson alleges that Argent Trust Company violated several provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") when administering an employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP"). The Plaintiff also asserts various ERISA claims against four individual defendants. In December 2021, the Defendants moved to compel arbitration. In July 2022, after full briefing, the Court granted the Defendants' motion. Additionally, even though the Plaintiff argued that the action should be dismissed, rather than stayed, if the motion were granted, the Court concluded that because the Defendants had requested a stay during arbitration, it was compelled under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") to grant that stay request. Accordingly, the Court ordered that this action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding. The parties are ordered to file a joint notice every six months concerning the status of the arbitration proceeding (with the first report due six months from the issuance of this order) and to file a joint notice within 10 days of when the arbitration proceeding concludes. In January 2023, the parties filed separate status reports, which collectively stated that the arbitration proceedings had commenced and that certain preliminary motions had been filed. In July 2023, the parties filed a joint status report, which stated that the arbitration panel had resolved the preliminary motions and that the arbitration hearing was scheduled to begin on April 15, 2024. In January 2024, the parties filed another joint status report, which again stated that that the arbitration hearing was scheduled to begin on April 15, 2024. Judge Lanza notes these developments provide the backdrop for the pair of motions now before the Court. On June 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to temporarily lift the stay and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. In a nutshell, the Plaintiff contends that she discovered, during the course of the arbitration proceedings, the existence of eight additional defendants that she wishes to sue; that because her claims against those putative defendants are governed by a statute of repose, they must be asserted by June 14, 2024, or they will be time-barred; and that although her initial plan was to wait until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings to amend her complaint, unexpected delays in the arbitration process (the arbitration hearing is now scheduled to resume in December 2024) have rendered that plan untenable, such that she must seek relief from the stay now. Upon reviewing the Plaintiff's filings, the Court ordered an expedited response. On June 11, 2024, the Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motions. First, the Defendants argue that the July 2022 order only authorized the filing of status reports during the stay and thus precluded, at least implicitly, the sort of affirmative relief the Plaintiff is seeking here. Second, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff engaged in unreasonable delay and exhibited a lack of diligence by waiting until the eve of the expiration of the statute of repose to seek relief, as she possessed the information necessary to support the proposed amendment nearly a year ago. Third, the Defendants argue that amendment would be futile for three independent reasons: (1) the Court has already held that all of the claims asserted in this case are subject to mandatory arbitration, so adding claims against new defendants in this proceeding will not have any impact on the arbitration proceedings; (2) all of the proposed new defendants are trusts, which lack the capacity to sue or be sued; and (3) any claim against the proposed new defendants would fail as a matter of law because the Plaintiff does not allege that any of them are fiduciaries of the ESOP, which is a required element for liability. Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff's motions should be granted. As for the Defendants' first argument, Judge Lanza opines other courts have granted requests to lift the stay under analogous (if not identical) circumstances and the Court is unaware of any statutory or legal impediment to doing so, citing Willick v. Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates, LLP, 2018 WL 6443081 (C.D. Cal. 2018). As for the Defendants' second argument, the Court shares their frustration with the late timing of the Plaintiff's motions, which caused the Defendants to rush to prepare an expedited response and was also disruptive from a docket-management perspective. Nevertheless, because the Court never issued a scheduling order setting a deadline for amending the pleadings--and, thus, the amendment request here does not come after any court-imposed deadline--the request is governed solely by Rule 15, which advises the Court that leave to amend will be freely given when justice so requires. Frustrating as it may be, Judge Lanza points out that the Plaintiff's delay in raising the amendment request will not produce an undue delay in the litigation because this action has been stayed for two years and will resume being stayed once the amended complaint is filed. This leaves the Defendants' futility arguments. Although it is true, as noted, that futility is a permissible basis for denying an amendment request under Rule 15, the Court (like many other courts) ordinarily prefers to defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed. That approach makes particular sense here for two reasons, Judge Lanza says. First, due to the truncated briefing schedule (which, to be fair, was caused by the late timing of the Plaintiff's motions), the Plaintiff has not yet had a chance to respond to the Defendants' futility arguments. It is always better to decide complicated legal issues on a fully developed record, Judge Lanza holds. Second, the Plaintiff is not seeking to add any new claims against the Defendants named in the complaint--rather, she seeks to add new defendants. Judge Lanza explains that it is debatable whether the existing Defendants even have standing to raise futility arguments in this scenario. Accordingly, the Court rules that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to temporarily lift the stay is granted; 2. The Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint is granted; and 3. The Plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was due on June 14, 2024. Following the filing of the FAC, this action will be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding. The parties are ordered to file a joint notice every six months concerning the status of the arbitration proceeding (with the first report due six months from the issuance of this order) and to file a joint notice within 10 days of when the arbitration proceeding concludes. The Defendants need not answer the FAC until the stay is lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 13, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/p7sfrmzr from PacerMonitor.com. ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gregg Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN GREGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00837 (E.D. Mo., June 17, 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. Ascension Health operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides physician practice management, venture capital investing, biomedical engineering, clinical care, risk management, palliative care, spiritual, and information services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 3889A Humphrey Street Saint Louis, MO 63116 Telephone: (314) 662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (631) 612-3905 Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com ATRIUM HEALTH: Bid to Proceed Pseudonymously in J.R. Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled J.R. and J.S., Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. ATRIUM HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-CV-00382-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge Susan C. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave for Plaintiffs J.R. and J.S. to Proceed Pseudonymously. The lawsuit alleges that Defendant Atrium Health disregarded the privacy rights of its patients by installing tracking technologies on its Web Properties to collect personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") from patients and subsequently divulged this information to social media platforms without the consent of patients. The Plaintiffs now seek to proceed in this litigation under pseudonyms. Understandably, Judge Rodriguez says, the Plaintiffs' chief concern appears to be protection of individuals' medical information and conditions. However, Judge Rodriguez opines, there are mechanisms to address such concerns including the complete or partial sealing of documents under Local Rule 6.1 and protective orders that control the use and dissemination of such information. Although the Plaintiffs seem to be concerned with the burden of filing documents under seal or effectiveness of a protective order, the Court is not persuaded that the extraordinary relief of allowing the litigants to proceed under pseudonyms is necessary. The Court observes that litigants routinely navigate the protection of sensitive medical information whether in employment cases, social security cases, or cases like the present one. In fact, there have been two strikingly similar class action lawsuits out of the Middle District of North Carolina alleging Defendant healthcare providers divulged patient PII to social media companies. Judge Rodriguez notes that the plaintiffs in those actions did not proceed under a pseudonym. As a result, the Court is hard-pressed to find that this case presents different concerns that warrant proceeding pseudonymously. Perhaps the Plaintiffs would agree to the release of names in certain instances, but the Court concludes the better option is to utilize the mechanisms specifically meant for this situation--sealing of publicly filed documents, whether in whole or partial sealing with redactions, and protective orders--that address the Plaintiffs' concerns but still ensure openness in judicial proceedings. Accordingly, having considered the factors set forth by the Fourth Circuit, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave for Plaintiffs J.R. and J.S. to Proceed Pseudonymously. The Court encourages the Plaintiffs to work with the Defendant in this case to submit a proposed protective order for the Court's further review. Within 21 days of this Order, the Plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint that conforms with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/485kbzb4 from PacerMonitor.com. AVADIM HEALTH: Sanchez Seeks Initial Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUZ SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v AVADIM HEALTH INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10272-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order allocating proceeds of the allowed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of the Defendant as follows: 1. Preliminarily certifying the Class, appointment of Sanchez as lead plaintiff, and appointment of Sheehan & Associates, P.C. as Counsel to the Class; 2. Preliminarily approving the allocation of Recovery as follows: i. a $5,000 service award to Sanchez; ii. a one-third (33 1/3%) fee award, $12,846.21, to Sheehan & Associates, P.C.; iii. a fifteen percent (15%) fee award, $5,781.37, to Sanchez's and Counsel's bankruptcy adviser, Dundon Advisers LLC; iv. reimbursement of $402.00 in Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses to date; v. costs of notice plan, which are unknown presently, but which may be modified considering the relatively small amount for distribution; and vi. the balance to Xavier Mission Inc., as a cy pres award, on account of the Net Fund’s undistributably small amount; and 3. Preliminarily approving dismissal with prejudice of this District Court case after final approval and distribution of the Recovery. The Defendant operates as a health and wellness company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9HIIvs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com BAIN CAPITAL: Settlement Gets Initial OK in Jones Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. Bain Capital Private Equity, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892 (W.D. Tenn., Filed Dec. 10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order granting indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement, provisional certification of proposed settlement classes, approval of notice plan and approval of the proposed schedule for completing the settlement process and scheduling a final approval hearing. The following motions are denied without prejudice: -- Motion to Certify Class, -- Motion for Summary Judgment, and -- Motions for Leave to File Late Produced Document in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Amended to July 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and granting joint request for amendment to scheduling order: Event Current New Date Deadline Fact Witness Depositions Cutoff June 26, 2024 July 3, 2024 Discovery Cut-Off July 3, 2024 (No change) Last Day to File Discovery July 8, 2024 (No change) Motions (except as necessary to complete Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or address privileged documents) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and June 26, 2024 July 12, 2024 related individual deposition of same witness – Held By Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures July 3, 2024 July 26, 2024 Defendants' Rebuttal Expert July 3, 2024 Aug. 16, 2024 Disclosures Motion for Class Certification Aug. 5, 2024 (No change) Opposition to Motion for Class - Aug. 26, 2024 Certification Reply in Support of Motion - Sept. 9, 2024 for Class Certification Hearing on Motion for Class - Sept. 23, 2024 Certification (subject to the Court's availability) All other deadlines remain in place. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bu8AN4 at no extra charge.[CC] BCE-MACH III: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 13, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAGACITY, INC., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-MACH III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Jackson entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Mediation Deadline: Oct. 22, 2024 2. Documents previously produced by Dec. 16, 2025 parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to: 3. Class Certification Motion filed with Jan. 13, 2025 all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: 4. Class Certification Response filed March 17, 2025, with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: 5. Class Certification Reply filed with April 15, 2025 any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: 6. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: April 15, 2025 7. Evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's May 6, 2025, Motion for Class Certification: at 9:30 a.m. BCE-Mach owns and operates pipelines and terminal facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4B0vE at no extra charge.[CC] BCG EQUITIES: Louis Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------- FRANDLEY LOUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BCG EQUITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61084-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 20, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. BCG Equities, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Wisconsin and conducts some of its business in Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Matthew Bavaro, Esq. LOAN LAWYERS 3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Telephone: (954) 523-4357 Email: Matthew@Fight13.com BELLRING BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in Krystofiak Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled PATRICIA KRYSTOFIAK, et al., Plaintiffs v. BELLRING BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02819-AGT (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, asserting consumer protection, warranty, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims against the Defendants, alleging that their labeling is deceptive because there is lead found in certain protein powders and shakes. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs Patricia Krystofiak, Luis Carreno, and Jonathan Zimmerman brought this lawsuit against Defendant BellRing Brands, Inc. and Premier Nutrition Company, LLC, alleging claims under California and New York consumer protection laws, claims for breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' "Premier Protein Shakes and Premier Protein Plant Powders (together, the 'Premier Protein Products' or 'Products') contain high levels of lead." There are at least 18 flavors of the Premier Protein shakes, in both 11 and 11.5 ounce sizes, that are packaged either individually or in cases of 4, 8, 12, 15, or 18 bottles. There are two flavors of the Premier Protein powder, chocolate and vanilla. Plaintiff Krystofiak alleges that she regularly purchased the Premier Protein Shakes, in various flavors, online through Walmart.com, relying on the claims of "High Protein" and "Immune Health Support." Plaintiff Carreno alleges that he regularly purchased the Premier Protein Plant Powder, in the chocolate flavor, from Walmart in Chula Vista, California, and from GNC locations throughout San Diego County, based on the "High Protein" and "Plant Protein" claims. Plaintiff Zimmerman allege that he regularly purchased the Premier Protein Shakes, in various flavors, from BJ's wholesale in Westbury, New York. In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants raise issues of standing, preemption, and Proposition 65 ("Prop 65") requirements, in addition to challenging the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' allegations under California and New York law. The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion, with leave to amend. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs fail to allege an injury in fact. The Plaintiffs assert an overpayment theory of injury, alleging that Premier Protein Products were worth less than what the Plaintiffs paid for them and that the Plaintiffs lost money as a result of the Defendants' omissions and unfair practices. The Court finds that an overpayment theory is viable. While the Court finds that the overpayment theory is a viable basis for the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court evaluates Plaintiffs' standing to pursue claims regarding the full suite of Premier Protein Products. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the suite of Premier Protein Products includes, during the class period, at least 18 flavors of Premier Protein shakes and two flavors of Premier Protein Plant Powders. The Plaintiffs provide test results for four flavors of shakes and two flavors of powders. The Court finds that the allegations fail to establish standing for Krystofiak and Zimmerman because it is not clear which products they actually purchased. Additionally, the lead levels of the untested products cannot confer standing here. The Plaintiffs have standing to pursue claims regarding unpurchased products if the Plaintiffs can establish substantial similarity between the purchased and unpurchased products. Here, Judge Tse opines, the FDA has not issued guidance on protein products, and there is some factual dispute as to application of FDA guidance for other products to the products at issue here. The Court will not resolve these issues at the pleading stage. The Court holds that the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing by Plaintiffs Krystofiak and Zimmerman is granted with leave to amend. The Defendants' motion is denied as to Plaintiff Carreno and for both flavors of protein powder. Judge Tse also rules, among other things, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend, as to Rule 9(b) heightened pleading requirements for Plaintiffs Krystofiak and Zimmerman. The Defendants' motion is denied as to Rule 9(b) for plaintiff Carreno. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as to Plaintiff Carreno regarding Article III standing and Rule 9(b) requirements, and grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs Krystofiak and Zimmerman for lack of Article III standing and failure to satisfy Rule 9(b) requirements, with leave to amend. The Court denies the motion as to Prop 65 requirements and the consent judgment. The Court grants the Defendants' motion as to express preemption based on the "High Protein" representation. The Court denies the motion as to express preemption for the "healthy snack" representation. The Court denies the motion as to implied preemption and FDA primary jurisdiction. The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims under California and New York law, express and implied warranty claims, negligent misrepresentation claim, intentional misrepresentation claim, and claims for unjust enrichment and equitable relief, for the reasons discussed, with leave to amend. The Court grants the Defendants' request for judicial notice. The amended complaint is due by July 5, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3xryzp from PacerMonitor.com. BISHOP CIDER: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Sub-Minimum Wage & Tips --------------------------------------------------------------- IDA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. BISHOP CIDER COMPANY LLC, and JOEL MALONE, Case No. 3:24-cv-01554-D (N.D., Tex., June 21, 2024) alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all minimum wages owed while working for the Defendant paid on a hybrid sub-minimum wage and tips basis under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by: a. Failing to provide adequate notice of their payment of sub- minimum wages to servers, bartenders, and other properly tipped employees (collectively, "tipped employees); and b. Requiring tipped employees to spend more than 20% of their time and continuous periods of time exceeding 30 minutes at work engaged in non-tipped side work related to the tipped profession. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately October 2023 to May 2024. The putative Collective Action Members are all current or former employees of Defendants who are/were paid on a hybrid of a sub-minimum wage hourly pay and tips from the period three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of its resolution. Bishop Cider is an adult beverage company. [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 BLEACHER REPORT: Final Hearing for Class Settlement Set Aug. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- James Powel of USA TODAY reports that the window to file a claim against Bleacher Report in a class action settlement is open and the clock is ticking to get in on the payout. The lawsuit, originally filed in January 2023, alleged that the sports news shared user information with Facebook without consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Bleacher Report agreed to a $4.8 million payout to customers with accounts between January 25, 2021 and May 21, 2024 without admitting to wrongdoing. The agreement has been preliminarily approved by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County but must still go in front of the bench for final approval on August 8. Here's how you can join the Bleacher Report class action lawsuit. When must a Bleacher Report Customer submit a claim? In order to be included in the settlement an affected Bleacher Report customer must submit a claim by August 23. Claimants will receive an equal share of the payout. Customers can submit a claim through the settlement website. Can a customer object to the settlement? A customer can object to or remove themselves from the settlement. Both actions must be taken by July 9. In order to object to the settlement a class member must file a brief with the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County and send a copy to the class counsel before July 9. If a customer removes themselves from the settlement or does not file a claim before the deadline, they will receive nothing from the payout. [GN] BOTTOMS UP: Court Enters Default Judgment in Prasch Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland enters default judgment against the Defendants in the lawsuit styled JACLYN PRASCH, Plaintiff v. BOTTOMS UP GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00634-LKG (D. Md.). The putative class action lawsuit involves claims for unpaid wages brought by Plaintiff Jaclyn Prasch, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, against Defendants Bottoms Up Gentlemen's Club, LLC, and Chez Joey, LLC, arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). Plaintiff Jaclyn Prasch is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland. She worked as an exotic dancer at Defendant Bottoms Up from March 2021 to October 2021. She also worked as an exotic dancer at Defendant Chez Joey between October 2021 and January 2023. Defendant Bottoms Up Gentlemen's Club, LLC, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Maryland, with its principal place of business located in Baltimore City, Maryland. Defendant Chez Joey, LLC, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Maryland, with its principal place of business located in Baltimore City, Maryland. The Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on March 8, 2023. The Defendants have not answered, or otherwise responded to, the complaint. And so, the Clerk of the Court entered an Order of Default in the Plaintiff's favor on Aug. 21, 2023. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff asserts claims to recover unpaid wages against the Defendants, arising under the FLSA, MWHL and MWPCL. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully denied her full and timely payment of minimum wage compensation, and retained all earned wages, tips and gratuities, during her employment with the Defendants as an exotic dancer, in violation of the FLSA, MWHL and MWPCL. As relief, she seeks to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On Nov. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Judge Griggsby says no hearing is necessary to resolve the motion. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court: (1) grants the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment; and (2) enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for: (a) unpaid wages in the amount of $86,932.23; (b) statutory liquidated damages in the amount of $86,932.23, pursuant to the FLSA and MWHL; (c) attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,472.50; and (d) costs in the amount of $731.60. Judge Griggsby finds that the Plaintiff (a) has shown that the Defendants were her joint employer; (b) is entitled to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages; (c) is entitled to a default judgment; and (d) is entitled to recover her reasonable attorneys' fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 13, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bn9kd8a from PacerMonitor.com. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Parks' Misleading Reservation Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Lazaruk, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that the B.C. government is using "false and misleading" drip pricing by charging campers an add-on $6 a night as a "reservation fee" to book online, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit. The fee contravenes the federal competition law because it isn't included in the original price, but is added instead on the checkout page, according to the lawsuit. It seeks a refund for anyone who's paid the fee. The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court says it doesn't know how long the reservation fee has been charged. The representative plaintiff, B.C. resident Danny Kindred, bought a camping reservation for three nights at Bear Creek Park through camping.bcparks.ca on Jan. 1, it said. He was charged $6 a night for a reservation fee that "was not disclosed until the end of the purchasing process," said the claim. Instead of $35 a night, he paid $41 a night, which came to $123.90 with tax. The claim alleges "misconduct" by B.C. Parks because it "clearly expressed that the booking services were available at the first price" of $35 a night. Then it "also represented and clearly expressed that the booking services were available at the second price." "The booking services were not available at the first price due to the addition of the reservation fee, which constitutes a fixed obligatory charge and/or fee imposed by B.C. Parks," it said. The claim notes that B.C. Parks under the first price states that "additional fees or discounts may apply" but that doesn't change that the reservation fee amounts to "two different prices for the booking services." It says that is called "double ticketing" and is prohibited under the federal Competition Act. The plaintiff and class members are entitled to pay only the first price, it said. None of the allegations have been proven in court. On June 23, 2022, when a ban on the practice was passed into law, the federal government also increased fines for offences, of up to $750,000 (and $1 million for each subsequent violation), plus three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive concept for individuals. And for corporations, up to $10 million (and $15 million for each subsequent violation), plus three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct or three per cent of the corporation's annual worldwide gross revenues. The Competition Bureau said the most common offenders are companies in the travel industry. That includes airlines that add baggage and seat selection fees, hotels that add resort fees at the last minute, Airbnb listings that have hidden cleaning and service fees and taxes, event ticketing that adds service, processing, delivery and instant download fees, and new car dealers that add documentation, floor plan, preparation, advertising, destination, delivery or processing fees. Businesses that the Competition Bureau has taken action on are car rental companies, including Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada, which was fined $1 million for what the bureau deemed misleading advertising when prices were not available to Canadian consumers, and laid a total of $5.25 million in fines against Avis, Budget, Hertz, Dollar Thrifty and Discount car rental companies. Also found to have violated the act were FlightHub, fined $5 million in part for hidden fees, Ticketmaster, StubHub, TicketNetwork, Airbnb and Cineplex, which is also the subject of a proposed class action lawsuit, the bureau said. [GN] BSH HOME: $2-Mil. Class Settlement in Peterson Suit Has Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington enters final approval of the $2 million class action settlement in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH PETERSON, AMANDA CARLTON, REBECCA HIRSCH, MICHELE O'DELL, and PRASANNA RAMAKRISHNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00543-RAJ (W.D. Wash.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Jan. 25, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement between Plaintiffs Elizabeth Peterson, Amanda Carlton, Rebecca Hirsch, Michele O'Dell, and Prasanna Ramakrishnan ("Plaintiffs" or "Class Representatives") and Defendant BSH Home Appliances Corporation ("Bosch" or "Defendant"). On June 13, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether the Settlement should be fully approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the Defendant have entered into a class action Settlement Agreement to settle, fully and finally, all of the claims that have been or could have been brought in the two putative class action Lawsuits brought against Bosch relating to certain microwave/oven combination products. Specifically, Bosch microwave and/or oven combination products with model numbers HBL5751UC, HBL8751UC, HMC80151UC, HMC80251UC, and HMNC87151UC (the "Class Products" or "Microwave/Ovens") are equipped with vacuum fluorescent display ("VFD") control panels ("Control Panels") which fade, dim, become unreadable, and/or fail altogether as a result of a defect in the design and/or manufacture of the Class Products ("Display Failure"). According to the Plaintiffs, extensive expert investigation conducted on their behalf revealed that the Microwave/Ovens suffer from a uniform defect which causes the Display Failure and exists at the point of sale such that the Microwave/Ovens cannot be used for their intended purpose of safely and properly preparing meals at home. Thus, due to improper regulation of the current related to the VFD, the displays of the Control Panels burn out in an accelerated manner, leading to the display fading beyond any use (the "Defect"). Each Microwave/Oven contained the Defect at the point of sale to the Plaintiffs and utilized defective and outdated technology, which rendered the Microwave/Ovens unfit for their ordinary purpose for which they are used and posed an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers and their property and were subject to premature failure. The Court finds the Settlement is the product of hard-fought litigation and arm's-length negotiations, as well as substantial investigation and litigation over the course of four years. When the Court granted preliminary approval, the Court preliminary certified the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only: all persons in the United States and its territories who either (a) purchased a new Class Product, or (b) acquired a new Class Product as part of the purchase or remodel of a home, or (c) received as a gift, from a donor meeting those requirements, a new Class Product not used by the donor or by anyone else after the donor purchased the Class Product and before the donor gave the Class Product to the Settlement Class Member, during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class were: (i) officers, directors, and employees of Bosch or its parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (ii) insurers of Settlement Class Members, (iii) subrogees or all entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of a Class Product purchaser, a Class Product owner, or a Settlement Class Member, (iv) persons who acquired an other-than-new Class Product, (v) issuers or providers of extended warranties or service contracts for Class Products, and (vi) persons who timely and validly exercise their right to be removed from the Settlement class. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily found that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were satisfied. Since the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the deadline for opt-outs and objections have passed. Upon review of the declarations of the notice and claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc. ("CPT") and Settlement Class Counsel, no opt-outs or objections were made by Settlement Class Members. Additionally, no material changes have occurred since that Order that would alter this ruling. The Court now finally approves certification of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement provides for the establishment of a Settlement Fund up to $2,000,000 for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs for the repair or replacement for a Display Failure, Notice and Administration, Class Representative Awards of $2,500, and Attorneys' Fees and reimbursement of Costs of $725,000, subject to Court approval. Settlement Class Members fall into two distinct tiers with significant options for relief. Any Settlement Class Member, who provides sufficient documentary Proof of Ownership and Proof of Display Failure are entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs and/or an Extended Service Plan for repair of the Microwave/Ovens, as follows following: Tier 1: a. Reimbursement of sufficiently documented out-of-pocket costs up to $400 with proof that such out of pocket costs related to the Past Display Failure (a display failure that occurred prior to the Notice Date); and b. An extended service plan benefit of three (3) years from the date of purchase, wherein Bosch will replace any VFD control panel that experiences a Display Failure. Tier 2: Class Members with a Future Display Failure (a display failure that occurs after the Notice Date) are entitled to an extended service plan benefit of three (3) years from the date of purchase, wherein Bosch will replace any VFD control panel that experiences a Display Failure. The Extended Service Plan for Tier 1(b) and Tier 2 Settlement Class Members may be provided by Bosch through its existing warranty process, which will include either replacement of the VFD control panel by Bosch or the cash value of the replacement parts and labor, not to exceed $250. To be eligible for compensation for a Future Display Failure, a Settlement Class Member must submit a claim within 90 days of the Display Failure. Additionally, the Settlement includes a benefit for consumers with expired extended service plans. For purchases where the extended service plan benefit has expired prior to or on the Effective Date, the Class Member would be entitled to 120 days from the Effective Date to submit an Extended Service Claim. Judge Jones finds that the Settlement satisfies the Rule 23(e)(2) requirements. Judge Jones also finds the reaction of the class members to the Settlement weighs in favor of final approval. Not a single Settlement Class Member, through the claims process or otherwise, has objected or opted out as of April 25, 2024, the deadline for doing so. The lack of objections and opt-outs demonstrates the positive reaction of Settlement Class Members to the Settlement, Judge Jones points out. For these reasons, the Court certifies the proposed Settlement Class and grants the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b), and that the Parties' Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 13, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3y6tt6v6 from PacerMonitor.com. BSH HOME: $712K in Attys. Fees and Costs Awarded in Peterson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ELIZABETH PETERSON, AMANDA CARLTON, REBECCA HIRSCH, MICHELE O'DELL, and PRASANNA RAMAKRISHNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00543-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington approves the requested award of $32,272.30 in costs and $680,227.70 in attorneys' fees. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards for Representative Plaintiffs. On June 13, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether Settlement Class Counsel's request for fees was reasonable, and whether to award Settlement Class Counsel's costs, as well as the requested Service Awards to Settlement Class Representatives. Judge Jones notes that this Order incorporates by reference all background and defined terms in the Plaintiffs' Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Settlement Class Counsel has not been paid for their extensive efforts or reimbursed for litigation costs and expenses incurred. The Plaintiffs have requested $725,000 for attorneys' fees and costs, and service awards for Settlement Class Representative Plaintiffs. After deducting litigation costs of $32,272.30, and Service Awards of $2,500 for each Settlement Class Representative (for a total of $12,500), Settlement Class Counsel sought approval of $680,727.70 in fees. As detailed in the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards to Representative Plaintiffs, and in the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, this represents 34.01% of the $2,000,000 value of the Settlement, and a 1.04% lodestar multiplier. Given the facts of this case, the Court concludes that under either a percentage-of-the-recovery analysis, or the lodestar analysis, the requested fee award is reasonable and should be approved. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion is granted and the requested award of $32,272.30 in costs and $680,227.70 in attorneys' fees is approved, the Court rules. The Court awards Service Awards to Representative Plaintiffs. The Settlement Agreement provides $2,500 to each Class Representative as a Service Award for their dedication to this litigation. The Plaintiffs devoted time in the oversight of, and participation in, the litigation on behalf of the Class. The Court finds that these awards are reasonable and should be approved, as the amounts are well within the range of awards customarily approved by Courts in the Ninth Circuit. The requested service awards for Representative Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,500 are approved. For these reasons above, the Court finds that the requested service awards for Settlement Class Representatives are appropriate, and that the requested award of attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable based on both a percentage-of-the-fund and lodestar basis. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 13, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2y9m5fmz from PacerMonitor.com. BULBAP1 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angel Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- RUBEN ARELLANO ANGEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULBAP1, INC. (D/B/A BULBAP GRILL); and YONG CHOI A.K.A. JEFF, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04341 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Angel was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker. Bulbap1, Inc. owns, operates, or controls Korean food restaurant, located at 646 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11222, under the name "Bulbap Grill". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CABS HOME: Higgins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFORD HIGGINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CABS HOME ATTENDANT SERVICES, INC., Case No. e 1:24-cv-04439 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2024) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and attorneys' fees against CABS for unpaid and late paid and/or deducted minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant full-time from March 2017 until present. The Plaintiff spent most of his work time on his feet, walking, standing, cleaning, handling and carrying files, papers, medical equipment, tools, materials and supplies. CABS is a provider of home healthcare services in and around the City of New York and its metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 CARVANA LLC: Furlong Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH FURLONG, et al., individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-05400-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Nationwide Title Class and Pennsylvania Title Class pursuant to Fed. R. 4 Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), or in the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. 23(a), (b)(3), and (c)(4)(5). The proposed Nationwide Title Class is defined to include: "All persons in the United States who entered into contracts with CARVANA to purchase vehicles since Nov. 5, 2019, and CARVANA agreed to provide car registration services with non-temporary and permanent vehicle registrations in the state of their residence." The proposed Pennsylvania Title Class is defined to include: "All persons from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are members of the Nationwide Class. Excluded as members of the proposed Nationwide Title Class and proposed Pennsylvania Title Class are any employees or independent contractors of Carvana and their relatives and any employee of this Court. Also, excluded as members of the Pennsylvania Title Class are any persons who purchased their vehicles exclusively for business purposes." Excluded as members of the proposed Nationwide Title Class and proposed Pennsylvania Title Class are any employees or independent contractors of Carvana and their relatives and any employee of this Court. Also, excluded as members of the Pennsylvania Title Class are any persons who purchased their vehicles exclusively for business purposes. The proposed classes meet all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.P. 23 necessary to certify classes that will allow nationwide consumers and Pennsylvania citizens to recover their actual out of pocket and statutory damages allowed under the common law and the Unfair Trade Practice Consumer Protection Law. Under Counts I and II of his First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff has asserted, on his individual behalf and on behalf of similar persons, that informal and verified discovery confirms Carvana has breached its contractual promises with hundreds of customers nationwide by not providing timely registration of their vehicles purchased from Carvana as it promised to do in relation to the Nationwide Title Class and violated its duties under the Unfair Trade Practice Consumer Protection Law in relation to the Pennsylvania Title Class. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jqLG8J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. 1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (212) 351-0200 E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com - and - Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC 1220 Blair Mill Road, Suite 1105 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 448-1304 E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com - and – Brent S. Snyder, Esq. 2125 Middlebrook Pike Knoxville, TN 37921 Phone: (865) 264-3328 E-mail: brentsnyder77@gmail.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (954) 763-8668 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com CDK GLOBAL: Counsel Probes on Possible Cyberattack Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the CDK Global cyberattack. CDK Global, which provides a software-as-a-service platform to thousands of car dealerships across the country, was hit by a massive cyberattack in June 2024, causing significant disruption within the auto industry. The incident, which is believed to have started on the evening of June 18, prompted CDK Global to shut down its systems, leaving clients unable to operate normally. Dealerships reported difficulty ordering parts, extending financing and selling vehicles, forcing some to resort to pen and paper or send employees home. BleepingComputer.com reports that CDK Global experienced an additional breach on Wednesday, June 19 as the company attempted to restore its systems. A June 22 memo sent to clients by CDK Global and obtained by CBS MoneyWatch calls the incident a "cyber ransom event," and multiple sources reportedly told BleepingComputer.com that the BlackSuit ransomware gang is behind the attack. In its memo, CDK Global reportedly cautioned car dealerships to be on the lookout for phishing attacks or scammers posing as CDK trying to obtain unauthorized system access. The CDK cyberattack and its resulting disruption may cause dealerships to suffer significant financial losses. Indeed, multiple CDK clients, including AutoNation, Group 1 Automotive, Lithia Motors, Sonic Automotive and Penske Automotive Group, reported the incident and its potential effect on business to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reports indicate that some Stellantis, BMW and Ford dealerships are also affected by the CDK Global cyberattack. It's possible the invoice you received states "CDK," indicating it was made using the company's software. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. Who Is ClassAction.org? ClassAction.org is a group of online professionals who are committed to exposing corporate wrongdoing and giving consumers the tools they need to fight back. We've been reporting on the legal space for nearly a decade and have built relationships with class action and mass tort attorneys across the country. [GN] CEDAR FAIR: Loses Bid to Certify Questions in Walker Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Moneva Walker, et al., Plaintiffs v. Cedar Fair, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio), Judge James G. Carr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, denies the Defendants' motion to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court. The lawsuit is a putative class action arising out of the wholly cancelled or otherwise abbreviated 2020 season at Defendants Cedar Fair, L.P. and Cedar Fair Management, Inc.'s various amusement parks. The Plaintiffs, the putative class members, were among the 2020 season passholders at the Defendants' 13 amusement parks. They seek compensation for themselves and other similarly situated persons for the partial and/or complete closure, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, of amusement parks. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Defendants filed a reply. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Carr notes that he has set forth the background facts underlying this case in multiple Opinions and Orders and, adopts the background set forth in his recent Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Order"). In the Order, Judge Carr determined that the Plaintiffs satisfied the "prior notice" requirement under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA") codified in OHIO REV. CODE ANN Section 1345.09(B). The Defendants disagree with this ruling and ask that Judge Carr certifies a question to the Ohio Supreme Court to ask it whether the ruling was the correct interpretation of the CSPA. Judge Carr finds that the Defendants' motion rehashes many of the points that they already presented in their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Judge Carr says he thoroughly explained his reasons for rejecting the Defendants' arguments on these same points in the Order. He will not repeat those reasons here again, except to say that the Defendants have not presented any new or different facts or law that would persuade him to re-evaluate whether his decision was well-founded. This case has been pending since September 2020; it is nearly four years old, Judge Carr notes. The Plaintiffs first raised a CSPA claim in their Second Amended Complaint, filed on March 17, 2021. At that time, Judge Carr had already stayed portions of this case pending the outcome of the Ohio Court of Appeals' review of the Erie County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas decision in Valentine v. Cedar Fair Amusement Co. Only now, eighteen more months after the Ohio Supreme Court reached its final decision in Valentine, do the Defendants seek advice from the Ohio Supreme Court on this issue, Judge Carr points out. It would seem from the timing and content of this motion that it is a thinly veiled attempt to have Judge Carr reconsider his rulings in the Order, which he declines to do. In sum, Judge Carr finds the Defendants have not met their burden to show that he should certify this question to the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Carr denies the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4wfzz2 from PacerMonitor.com. CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Bid for Lead Roles in Finkelstein Due Aug. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sets Aug. 12, 2024, as the deadline for members of the purported class to move to serve as lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DAVID FINKELSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDREW FOX, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04056-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). On May 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased Charge Enterprises, Inc. securities between Dec. 15, 2023, and Feb. 28, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. As explained in the Court's May 30, 2024 Order, Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that within twenty days of the filing of the complaint, the Plaintiff will cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period. The PSLRA also provides that not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. In addition, the Act requires that not later than 90 days after the date on which notice is published, the Court will consider any motion made by a purported class member in response to the notice, and will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. In the event that more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes or for trial, the Court will not appoint a lead plaintiff until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered. The Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that the required notice was published on June 11, 2024. Judge Furman holds that members of the purported class, therefore, have until Aug. 12, 2024, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by Aug. 26, 2024. Finally, Judge Furman orders that a conference will be held on Sept. 5, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. If an amended complaint or a related case is filed prior to appointment of a lead plaintiff, the Plaintiff's counsel will, within one week, submit a letter to the Court identifying any differences between the allegations in the new complaint(s) and the allegations in the original complaint (including any differences in the claims asserted and the relevant class periods) and showing cause why the Court should not order republication of notice under the PSLRA and set a new deadline for the filing of motions for appointment. The Named Plaintiffs are ordered to promptly serve a copy of this Order on each of the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mt5jerkc from PacerMonitor.com. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid for Class Cert. Due Sept. 13 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing and hearing dates: Event Deadline/Date Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 13, 2024 Opposition Brief: Oct. 11, 2024 Reply Brief: Nov. 1, 2024 Hearing on Class Certification Motion: Nov. 12, 2024 at 1:30pm The COURT further ORDERS the Parties to submit a revised proposed case schedule within seven days of the Court’s order on class certification. IT IS SO ORDERED. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bP7J2A at no extra charge.[CC] CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Hamilton Bailey Appointed as Lead Plaintif ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02613-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order granting Hamilton Bailey's unopposed motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and to have his attorneys appointed lead counsel. On April 5, 2024, plaintiff James Moore filed this putative securities class action on behalf of all individuals who purchased shares of Checkpoint between March 10, 2021 and December 15, 2023. Moore alleges that, throughout the class period, Checkpoint made upbeat statements about its business, operations, and prospects; in particular, as to its lead antibody product candidate, cosibelimab, and the “substantial progress” Checkpoint had made “towards [its] potential approval” by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Checkpoint acquires, develops, and commercializes novel skin-cancer treatments. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utV61Q at no extra charge.[CC] CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Khalsa Securities Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The Children's Place, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2024, that as of February 2024, the company is also a defendant in the case captioned "Randeep Singh Khalsa v. The Children's Place, Inc. et al.," a purported class action, pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey. The complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities laws, alleging that between March 16, 2023, and February 8, 2024, the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts to its investors, which the complaint alleges led to a drop in the price of the company’s common stock. The Children's Place, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate an omni-channel children's specialty portfolio of brands with a digital-first operating model. Its global retail and wholesale network includes two digital storefronts, more than 500 stores in North America, wholesale marketplaces and distribution in 16 countries through six international franchise partners. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mediation in Gonzalez Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2024, that the parties in "Gabriela Gonzalez v. The Children's Place, Inc., a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, participated in mediation proceedings on November 15, 2023 and February 9, 2024. The parties agreed to further discuss settlement options in May 2024, which occurred without resolution. In late May, due to the judge's retirement, the Gonzalez action was transferred and reassigned to a different judge. Deadlines were reset, including the company's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff alleged that the company had falsely advertised discounts that do not exist, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion on August 17, 2022, staying the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The demand for arbitration was filed on October 4, 2022, in connection with the individual claim of the plaintiff. A mass arbitration firm associated with plaintiff's counsel then conducted an advertising campaign for claimants to conduct a mass arbitration. In part, to avoid the mass arbitration, the parties stipulated to return the original plaintiff's claim to court to proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the arbitration would not be proceeding and the company's response to the original plaintiff's complaint in court was filed on July 20, 2023. On August 16, 2023, however, the company began to receive notices regarding an initial tranche of approximately 1,300 individual demands that were filed with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. as part of a related mass arbitration claim. The Children's Place, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate an omni-channel children's specialty portfolio of brands with a digital-first operating model. Its global retail and wholesale network includes two digital storefronts, more than 500 stores in North America, wholesale marketplaces and distribution in 16 countries through six international franchise partners. CHRISTIE'S INC: Court Mulls Consolidating Maroulis & Colley Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is contemplating on consolidating the lawsuits styled EFSTATHIOS MAROULIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04221-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), and WILLIAM COLLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04386-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Efstathios Maroulis filed a putative class action against Defendant Christie's Inc. ("Christie's") in 24-CV-4221. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff William Colley filed a similar putative class action against Christie's in 24-CV-4386. As of this Order, Judge Furman says no motion for consolidation has been filed, but 24-CV-4386 has been accepted by the Court as related to 24-CV-4221, and the cases appear to involve common questions of law and fact. The Court is inclined to consolidate the cases pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all purposes. Judge Furman holds that any party, who objects to such consolidation, must file a letter brief, not to exceed three single-spaced pages. The deadline was June 24, 2024. If no party files a letter opposing consolidation, the Court will consolidate the two cases without further notice to the parties. Whereas counsel for Christie's has yet to appear in 24-CV-4386, Judge Furman orders that Plaintiff Colley will promptly serve a copy of this Order on Christie's within two business days of this Order and file proof of service on the docket within one business day of service. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wpaz52r from PacerMonitor.com. CHRISTIE'S INC: Court to Consolidate Colley Suit With Maroulis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is contemplating on consolidating the lawsuit titled EFSTATHIOS MAROULIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04221-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), with WILLIAM COLLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04386-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Efstathios Maroulis filed a putative class action against Defendant Christie's Inc. ("Christie's") in 24-CV-4221. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff William Colley filed a similar putative class action against Christie's in 24-CV-4386. As of this Order, Judge Furman says no motion for consolidation has been filed, but 24-CV-4386 has been accepted by the Court as related to 24-CV-4221, and the cases appear to involve common questions of law and fact. The Court is inclined to consolidate the cases pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all purposes. Judge Furman holds that any party, who objects to such consolidation, must file a letter brief, not to exceed three single-spaced pages. The deadline was June 24, 2024. If no party files a letter opposing consolidation, the Court will consolidate the two cases without further notice to the parties. Whereas counsel for Christie's has yet to appear in 24-CV-4386, Judge Furman orders that Plaintiff Colley will promptly serve a copy of this Order on Christie's within two business days of this Order and file proof of service on the docket within one business day of service. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/32bnzfuj from PacerMonitor.com. CHRISTIE'S INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gaifullin Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ILDAR GAIFULLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIE'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04621 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 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, says the suit. Christie's Inc operates as an art auction house. The Company offers various products including fine and decorative arts, jewelry, photographs, wine, cars, among others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Barney, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 357-1732 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CINCINNATI LUBES: Williams Seeks Collective Action Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN LAMONT WILLIAMS, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CINCINNATI LUBES, INC. Case No. 3:23-cv-00900 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: ( (1) authorizing this case to proceed as Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action for overtime violations on behalf of similarly situated hourly-paid employees; (2) directing the Defendant to immediately provide Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and last known telephone numbers of all putative class members; (3) providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all of Defendant's locations where putative class members work, as well as be mailed and emailed to the putative class; (4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this is fully briefed; and (5) requiring that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms be deemed "filed' on the date they are postmarked. Cincinnati provides automotive preventive maintenance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yYpQUS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com CLEAN HARBORS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by July 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREESE FOGG AND KYLE WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-07626-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered an order setting briefing schedule for the Defendant's motion for collective decertification and plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification and Clean Harbors shall file its Motion for Collective Decertification by July 8, 2024; -- Responses to such motions shall be filed by July 29, 2024; and -- Replies, if any, shall be filed by August 5, 2024. Clean Harbors is an American provider of environmental and industrial services, including hazardous waste disposal for companies, small waste generators and federal, state, provincial and local government. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mlXdx3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Messina, Esq. BERKOWITZ LICHTSTEIN KURITSKY GIASULLO & GROSS, LLC 75 Livingstone Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-7800 Facsimile: (973) 325-7930 E-mail: jmessina@blkgg.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@ schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@ schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: James N. Boudreau, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19148 Telephone: (215) 988-7833 Facsimile: (215) 988-7801 E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com - and - Malcolm J. Ingram, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19148 Telephone: (215) 988-7833 Facsimile: (215) 988-7801 E-mail: ingramm@gtlaw.com CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Class Cert Hearing Adjourned to Sept. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS CROCKER, DANIELLE AND JASON CHARLES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORP. (d/b/a AK STEEL DEARBORN WORKS), Case No. 4:21-cv-11937-SDK-C (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Shalina Kumar entered an order adjourning the motions hearing set for July 10, 2024 to Sept. 4, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. The Parties have engaged a mediator and scheduled mediation to take place on July 18, 2024. Cleveland-Cliffs is a flat-rolled steel producer in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZY4KGi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: Vincent Atriano, Esq. Danelle Gagliardi, Esq. Erik D. Lange, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP 41 S. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-2783 E-mail: vincent.atriano@squirepb.com danelle.gagliardi@squirepb.com erik.lange@squirepb.com COLONIAL LIFE: Class Certification Hearing Set for July 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY R. SEAWELL, III, et al., v. COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00278-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Terry F. Moorer entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and brief in support and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. -- The Court finds that oral argument would be useful on both motions. -- Accordingly, it is ordered that the motions are set for a hearing on July 11, 2024. Colonial offers disability, accident, life, cancer, critical illness and hospital confinement insurance plans. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fuywbs at no extra charge.[CC] CONSOLIDATED SCAFFOLDING: Underpays Scaffolders, Silva Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILBER DAVID SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED SCAFFOLDING, INC. and TOM BOWES, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04591 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a scaffolder from approximately January 2, 2023 to February 15, 2024. Consolidated Scaffolding, Inc. is a scaffolding construction company based in Briarcliff Manor, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Houlding, Esq. FRIEDMAN HOULDING LLP 1050 Seven Oaks Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Telephone: 888-369-1119 Facsimile: 866-731-5553 Email: rebecca@friedmanhouldingllp.com - and - Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com COTIVITI INC: Pre-Discovery Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVETTE PICHLER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COTIVITI, INC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00884-AMA-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen entered an order granting in part Pichler's pre-discovery motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice to potential Opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Court grants conditional certification for all potential opt-in plaintiffs employed by Cotiviti who worked for Cotiviti, Inc. as non-exempt Records Retrieval Agents for the past three years preceding the date of the order granting conditional certification who were trained at, worked at, worked through, or were supervised out of Cotiviti's McKinney, Texas call center. The Court further entered an order that the parties are directed to meet and confer in good faith regarding the form, content, and substance of notice that will be sent, to whom it will be sent, and the methods by which it will be sent.[CC] A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p1JHRR at no extra charge.[CC] CURRENEX INC: Court Denies SS Global's Bid to Dismiss Edmar Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled EDMAR FINANCIAL COMPANY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. CURRENEX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK (S.D.N.Y.). This putative class action involves Currenex, a widely used foreign exchange trading platform jointly operated by Defendants Currenex, Inc., and State Street Global Markets International Limited ("SS Global" or "State Street Global"). SS Global and Currenex, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of State Street Bank and Trust Company ("State Street Bank"). The Plaintiffs alleged that SS Global and Currenex, Inc., conspired with a subset of participants, who traded on the Currenex Platform -- Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman Sachs"), HC Technologies, LLC ("HC Tech"), State Street Bank, and unidentified Doe Defendants (collectively, the "Trading Defendants") -- to "rig" auctions for foreign exchange transactions. Last year, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Relevant here, it granted SS Global's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs, then, filed a second amended complaint ("SAC"), which pled additional facts regarding SS Global's contacts in New York State. SS Global again moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction -- that motion currently is before the Court. For the reasons explained, the motion is denied. In granting SS Global's earlier motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court held that the Plaintiffs did not allege plausibly any facts about SS Global that would support a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists. Instead, the Court observed, the Plaintiffs rely heavily on factual allegations regarding the conduct of 'Currenex' -- a term that the amended complaint uses to refer collectively to both Currenex, Inc., and SS Global. That group pleading -- which conflated the alleged actions of the two entities -- failed to establish personal jurisdiction over each Defendant. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs include a section entitled "summary of jurisdictional facts on State Street Global." Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege that Currenex, Inc. and State Street Global jointly 'offered' and 'operated' the Currenex Platform, and that the Platform website itself defines 'Currenex' to include both Currenex, Inc., and State Street Global. This meant, say the Plaintiffs, that every representation or disclosure by or about 'Currenex' was also explicitly a representation or disclosure by or about both Currenex, Inc., and State Street Global. The Plaintiffs concluded, "State Street Global thus directly participated in the events giving rise to these claims. It shared responsibility for the disclosures at issue. It told users it would take responsibility for offering the Platform and operating the Platform. It referred to itself as being 'Currenex' just as much as 'Currenex, Inc.' is Currenex." The Plaintiffs assert in the SAC that SS Global directly participated in the events giving rise to their claims. The Court agrees, and it holds that the jurisdictional contacts of the Currenex Platform in New York may be imputed to SS Global. Judge Kaplan finds that these contacts with New York suffice to make out a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction and for personal jurisdiction under the State's long-arm statute. Judge Kaplan holds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of pleading facts that, taken as true, make a prima facie case that this Court has personal jurisdiction over SS Global with respect to the claims in suit. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2tsw8wzc from PacerMonitor.com. Daniel L. Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Christopher M. Seck -- christopherseck@quinnemanuel.com -- Jeremy D. Andersen -- jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP; Mark Ruddy -- mruddy@ruddylaw.com -- RUDDY GREGORY, PLLC, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Gregg L. Weiner -- gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com -- Alexander B. Simkin -- alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com -- Robert G. Jones -- robert.jones@ropesgray.com -- Samer Musallam -- samer.musallam@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP, Attorneys for Defendant State Street Global Markets International Limited. DAK RESOURCES: July 25 Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Vigil Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vigil v. DAK Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00163 (E.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 27, 2023), Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order vacating July 25, 2024, hearing for class certification motion. -- If the Court determines oral argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date. -- All briefing shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(c) and (d). -- If the parties wish to modify the briefing schedule, they may file a stipulation and proposed order for the Court's consideration. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC] DAYTON CORRECTIONAL: Terry Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camilia T. Terry et al., v. M. Allen, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00176-WHR-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all person(s) who at any time since 2017-2024 have been, who are currently or will be prisoners under Dayton Correctional situation." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRfykn at no extra charge.[CC] DILIGENT CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Petillo Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KA THERINE PETILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. DILIGENT CORPORATION and UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HEALTH dba UCHEALTH, Case No. 1 :23-cv-02439-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Louis Stanton entered an order and judgment granting final approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all claims raised therein and all Parties thereto, including the Settlement Class. 2. The Settlement involves allegations in Plaintiffs Class Action Complaint against Defendants for purported failure to implement or maintain adequate data security measures and safeguards to protect Personal Information, which Plaintiff allege directly and proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members. 3. The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by Defendants, and the Court expressly does not make any finding of liability or wrongdoing by Defendants. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, words spelled in this Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Final Approval Order and Judgment") with initial capital letters have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Court, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment only, the Court hereby finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals, or their respective successors or assigns, who reside in the United States and whose Personal Information was impacted by the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants, their officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and (iv) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Security Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. Diligent provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xhtBBD at no extra charge.[CC] EAGLE NATIONWIDE: Bid to Substitute Class Representative OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY E. EDMONDSON, et al., v. EAGLE NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-03938-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to substitute Class Representative. The Plaintiffs will have two weeks to file an Amended Complaint substituting Ms. Neal as the class representative. This Court will issue a separate Order which will include the date and time of a telephonic scheduling conference. Ms. Neal has offered deposition testimony evidencing a comprehensive understanding of the purpose of the class action and her anticipated role in it, along with a sufficient general understanding of the facts of the case. She has amply demonstrated her willingness to participate and to represent the group's interests. This Court finds no suggestion that she would be an inadequate representative The "missing" 2010 GFE, then, is not dispositive as to whether Ms. Neal can establish entitlement to equitable tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment, and is not a basis for deeming her an inadequate class representative. In this long-pending class action involving alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("ESPA"”), Plaintiffs have filed a motion to substitute Suzanne "Tracy" Neal as class representative. The basic allegations in this case are that employees of defendant Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company ("ENMC") received kickbacks from a title service company, Genuine Title, in exchange for referrals of hundreds of loans for title settlement services. Eagle is a mortgage company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oVTvJ9 at no extra charge.[CC] EF INSTITUTE: Court Directs Parties to Confer Joint Statement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 23, 2020), the Court entered an order directing the parties to confer and file a joint statement about how they propose to proceed in light of the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court said that such joint statement shall be filed by July 11, 2024. The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute. EF Institute provides educational services.[CC] EIDP INC: Banks Seeks Extension of Discovery Cut-off Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS BANKS, et al., v. EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the Class Certification Discovery Cut-Off deadline by 90 days to Sept. 23, 2024. The current deadline is set for Tuesday, June 25, 2024, per this Court's order granting the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court enter an order reflecting the extension of the discovery cutoff deadline and the deadline for filing the class certification motion. (see amended schedule below) Plaintiffs have conferred in good faith with Defendants in this matter and they will not stipulate such an extension. Proposed Amended Schedule Event Current Amended Deadline Deadline Class Certification Discovery June 25, 2024 Sept. 23, 2024 Cut-Off Plaintiffs' Motion for Class July 19, 2024 Oct. 17, 2024 Certification and Brief in Support of Motion; Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Disclosures Deadline for Deposition of Sept. 18, 2024 Dec. 17, 2024 Plaintiffs' Class Experts Defendants' Opposition to Oct. 18, 2024 Jan. 16, 2025 Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion; Defendants' Class Certification Expert Disclosures and Objections to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Disclosures Deadline for Deposition of Nov. 20, 2024 Feb. 18, 2025 Defendants' Class Experts The Plaintiffs identified deficiencies in the Defendants’ responses to their first set of interrogatories and document production. This led to the Plaintiffs serving a Deficiency Letter on April 26, 2024, addressing these issues and demanding more comprehensive and accurate disclosures. As of the current discovery cutoff deadline of June 25, 2024, and with the class certification motion due by July 21, 2024, significant impediments to discovery have arisen due to the actions of multiple Defendants Defendant 3M has inundated Plaintiffs with over 7 million pages of document production in response to their First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. However, amidst this vast volume, 3M has failed to specify which documents are responsive to Plaintiffs' inquiries. Furthermore, 3M has steadfastly refused to provide a witness for the 30(b)(6) notice, crucial for clarifying the relevance and accuracy of the information sought On Jan. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs served the Requests for Production (RFPs) and Interrogatories (ROGs) to the Defendants. On March 13, 2024, Defendants EIDP and Atotech provided their responses and objections to the Plaintiffs' first set of RFPs and ROGs. EIDP provides seeds and crop protection products for the agriculture industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZP8oFE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David T. Crumplar, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle, Suite 301 New Castle DE 19720-2418 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: davy@jcdelaw.com - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot Rivera, Esq. Veronica Vazquez Santiago, Esq. NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com vvazquez@nsprlaw.com EPOCH EVERLASTING: Can File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order granting the defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class certification: Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ya4y1s at no extra charge.[CC] EQUAL EXCHANGE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. EQUAL EXCHANGE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00055-AGS-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Steve Chu entered an order setting the following case management schedule: Motions for Leave to Amend: June 28, 2024 Status Conference: Sept. 13, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 25, 2024. 1. Counsel must refer to Judge Schopler's Chambers Rules—Civil, as well as the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s chambers rules, which are accessible via the Court's website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. 2. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by the above date. Before filing the motion, movant's counsel must contact Judge Schopler's chambers for a hearing date. 3. The Court shall convene a telephonic attorneys-only Status Conference on Sept. 13, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel shall be prepared to discuss the status of their discovery and settlement efforts. 4. Absent leave of Court, the parties will be limited to the following per-side restrictions during discovery: no more than 25 interrogatories, 25 requests for admission, and 35 requests for production of documents, consistent with the parties' stipulation and this Court's approval at the Case Management Conference. Equal distributes organic, gourmet coffee, tea, sugar, bananas, avocados, cocoa, and chocolate bars produced by farmer cooperatives. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndcVWo at no extra charge.[CC] ERIC CARMEL: Class Cert. Discovery in Pagan Suit Due Oct. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIAR PAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01516-RAL (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Lanzillo entered an amended case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall move to amend the pleadings or add new parties by Aug. 28, 2024. 2. The parties shall complete class certification discovery by Oct. 29, 2024. 3. Plaintiff's Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before Dec. 2, 2024. Defendant's Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before Jan. 2, 2025. Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be on or before Feb. 3, 2025. 4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on or before March 5, 2024; Defendants' Response is due on or before April 4, 2024; and Plaintiffs' Reply, if any, is due on or before April 21, 2024. A hearing on the motion for class certification will be set by further order of court. The Plaintiffs include RONNIE E. JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; KAREEM MAZYCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ANGEL MALDONADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND T. MONTANA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. The Defendants include SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; LAUREL HARRY, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTOPHER OPPMAN, REGIONAL DEPUTY SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TREVOR WINGARD, FORMER REGIONAL DEPUTY SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES BARNACLE, DIRECTOR OF BII, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LUCAS MALISHCHAK, DIRECTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TINA WALKER, SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; SCOTT RIDDLE, UNIT MANAGER, SCI FAYETTE; AND PETER SAAVEDRA, PSYCHIATRIST, SCI FAYETTE. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xsx5WU at no extra charge.[CC] ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Amended Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as People of City of Los Angeles Who Are Un-Housed, as a Class represented by C. Finley, etc., v. Eric Michael Garcetti, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06003-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their amended motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dyvnmW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN + REICHMANN LLP 333 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, California 90292-5152 Telephone: (310) 452-3200 E-mail: filing@yagmanlaw.net ERTC EXPRESS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE DUKES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ERTC EXPRESS, LLC and JOHN SOUZA, Case No. 8:24-cv-00618-TPB-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of an additional two and half weeks, up to and through Thursday, July 11, 2024 to conduct necessary discovery in order to fully respond in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. On May 20, 2024, prior to the Parties conferring on a discovery schedule, or Defendant John Souza answering, Plaintiffs filed a premature Motion for Conditional Certification. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs amended their Complaint and suggested that Senior Account Executive and Account Executives should be conditionally certified as "AEs." On June 3, 2024, Defendants moved the Court to stay consideration of Plaintiffs’ premature Motion to Conditional Certify. The Plaintiffs have attempted to conflate the proposed putative class and based on a preliminary view of the affidavits attached to their Motion for Conditional Certification, have seemingly included misstatements from individuals who allegedly worked as an Account Executive or Senior Account Executive for ERTC. ERTC is a business consultancy that focuses on tax consultation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OhZIAV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James W. Seegers, Esq. Eric L. Barnum, Esq. Mitchell A. Robinson, Esq. Adama K. Wiltshire, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32802-0112 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jseegers@bakerlaw.com ebarnum@bakerlaw.com marobinson@bakerlaw.com awiltshire@bakerlaw.com ETZ HAYIM: Settlement in Cimino Suit Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CIMINO and CONOR MANCONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ETZ HAYIM HOLDINGS, S.P.C., d/b/a LAZARUS NATURALS, Case No. 3:23-cv-01185-JR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jolie Russo entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All persons in the United States whose information may have been impacted in the Data Incident, including persons to whom ETZ mailed a notification that their information may have been impacted in the Data Incident. Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) ETZ and its respective officers and directors; (ii) all members of the Settlement Class who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge." Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel: The Court finds that Plaintiffs will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representatives. Additionally, the Court finds that Siri & Glimstad LLP will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). The Court appoints Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for Class Notice and settlement administration. Lazarus is a supplier of high quality Cannabidiol oils and gummies. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7qelFM at no extra charge.[CC] EVOLV TECH: OPPRS Seeks Leave to File Memo Response --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD RABY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC. F/K/A NEWHOLD INVESTMENT CORP., PETER GEORGE, MARIO RAMOS, MARK DONOHUE, KEVIN CHARLTON, and ADAM DEUTSCH, Case No. 1:24-cv-10761-ADB (D. Mass.), the Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System moves the Court for leave to file a response to Robert Falk's Reply Memorandum of Law in Response to Oklahoma Police's Opposition to Competing Motions for Lead Plaintiff. Under the relevant statute, Oklahoma Police is the presumptively most adequate lead plaintiff since it is the movant with the largest financial interest in this litigation that is also able to meet the adequacy and typicality requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed response will provide Oklahoma Police an opportunity to address the legal arguments and unsupported factual assertions in the Falk Reply. Accordingly, Oklahoma Police requests that the Court grant it leave to file the proposed short response. Evolv develops AI-based touch-less screening technologies for weapons detection, identity verification, and health-related threats. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9qjLDW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick T. Egan, Esq. Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq. Jay Eng, Esq. Christina L. Gregg, Esq. Michael Dark, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Facsimile: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com pegan@bermantabacco.com jeng@bermantabacco.com cgregg@bermantabacco.com mdark@bermantabacco.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in Interest to JOSE PENA, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order granting stipulation to extend motion dates and briefing deadlines on defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's motion for class certification, and defendant’s motion to exclude: 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to oppose Experian's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude shall be continued to July 19, 2024. 2. The deadline for Experian to file a Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and a Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude shall be continued to August 16, 2024. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Experian's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Experian's Motion to Exclude shall all be heard on Sept. 13, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EIWiAz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Angelos Heath, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 369 Pine Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in Interest to JOSE PENA, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her renewed application for leave to file materials under seal in connection with motion for class certification. The Plaintiff submits this Renewed Application for Leave to File Under Seal the materials referenced in the Declaration of John Soumilas at ECF 79, a Declaration of John Soumilas in Support of this Renewed Application, and a Proposed Order. The Plaintiff makes this renewed motion because the Defendant has designated certain information, identified in the Declaration of John Soumilas and its attachments, as "confidential" or "highly confidential" pursuant to the protective order in place in this matter. The existence of a stipulated protective order is, however, not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zv0YJQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Angelos Heath, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 369 Pine Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com FIGURE LENDING: Webb Loses Bid for Special Admission in Ward Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies a motion for special admission filed in the lawsuit captioned LEE WARD, Plaintiff v. FIGURE LENDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00533-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.). The matter is before the Court on Movant E. Adam Webb's "Motion For Special Admission" filed June 17, 2024. This motion has been referred to Judge Keesler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Judge Keesler finds that the Movant seeks to appear before the Court on behalf of the Plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(b)(2), without associating local counsel. The Plaintiff has filed a "Class Action Complaint" against Figure Lending, LLC. The Court generally prefers that attorneys, who are not admitted to this Court, associate local counsel and seek admission pro hac vice. Judge Keesler will decline to diverge from that more common method of appearance in this instance. Accordingly, the Court denies Movant E. Adam Webb's "Motion For Special Admission." A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckntyj8 from PacerMonitor.com. FLORIDA HEALTH: Dipierro Suit Remanded to Hillsborough Cir. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA DIPIERRO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-01864-KKM-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order that: 1. The Clerk is directed to remand this action to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this order to the clerk of that court; and 2. The Clerk is further directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close this case. Based on a May 2023 data breach, the Plaintiffs allege common law tort and contract claims as well as violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The Plaintiffs now move for preliminary certification of their class and for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement. After careful consideration, I conclude that no named Plaintiff has standing. Accordingly, I remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, even if James or another named Plaintiff established standing under the one named plaintiff rule, I would likely be unable to certify a class for failure to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs request that the court certify a single preliminary class for purposes of settlement of "all persons in the United States who were sent notification from [Tampa General] that their Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the [data breach]." They also request that the court approve the settlement agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 on a preliminary basis. Florida Health operates as a non-profit hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P0CTWG at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Bid to Seal Granted in Part w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting in part and denying part without prejudice the motions to seal. The redactions made to the Leiss Report, attached as Exhibit to the Declaration of Peter J. Leiss, are sealed, except for the following: paragraph 51 of page 15, paragraph 69 of page 22, paragraph 114 of page 35, and figure 39 of page 36. Accordingly, these portions of Exhibit 1 must be filed in the public record. The last two pages of the NHTSA PowerPoint presentation, are sealed. If the parties wish to provide supplemental briefing regarding the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification or the Discipline Report, they must do so by June 26, 2024. The parties may either provide additional facts to support their request to seal exhibits in their entirety or propose targeted redactions. If the parties do not file supplemental briefing by this date, the Court shall instruct the Clerk to docket the exhibits in accordance with this Order. The exhibits will remain lodged under seal in the interim. The parties have filed three motions to seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: (1) Defendant Ford Motor Company's Feb. 29, 2024 motion to seal documents attached to Plaintiffs' Dec. 1, 2023 Motion for Class Certification; (2) Plaintiffs' April 15, 2024 motion to seal documents attached to Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and supporting exhibits; and (3) Ford's May 2, 2024 motion to seal documents attached to Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearings related to these motions set for Aug. 8, 2024. The Plaintiffs' motion does not comply with the Civil Case Procedures of the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, U.S. District Judge, nor the law of this Circuit. The Plaintiffs also fail to identify a specific harm that would be caused by the public disclosure of these documents. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to seal. The Court finds good cause exists for sealing this document because it codifies proprietary business information and trade secrets that could harm Ford’s competitive standing. Thus, Ford's motion to seal the last two pages of the NHTSA PowerPoint presentation is granted. The Plaintiffs raise several claims against Ford for alleged latent defects, which cause abnormal and premature wearing and/or loosening of the suspension parts, resulting in "violent shaking," causing drivers to lose control of the Vehicles, and having difficulty steering during their operation under normal driving conditions or speeds. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JL185g at no extra charge.[CC] FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graves Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WANDA GRAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC. d/b/a FRANCISCAN HEALTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-01031-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 18, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Graves was employed by the Defendant as a nurse. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. provides health care services. The Company offers cancer and diabetes care, emergency medicine, pediatrics, surgeries, diagnostics, ophthalmology, intensive care, pain management, and rehabilitation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Hargrove Sues Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY HARGROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Defendant, Case 3:24-cv-01517-S (N.D. Tex., June 18, 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, says the suit. 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, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -and- Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com FUTUREFUEL CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of FutureFuel Corp. (NYSE: FF) between August 10, 2023 and May 10, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for FutureFuel investors under the federal securities laws. To join the FutureFuel class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25714 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) FutureFuel did not have adequate internal controls; (2) FutureFuel's financial statements were misstated; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25714 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GEORGIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.P., a minor child, by and through her father and legal guardian, AVERY PORTER, v. RUSSEL CARLSON, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Health, Case No. 1:23-cv-05205-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash entered an order granting the Parties' consent motion to extend the time for discovery and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests discovery shall be extended until Aug. 19, 2024 with a corresponding extension of the class discovery period through Oct. 13, 2024 and the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended until Nov. 12, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4EUt3r at no extra charge.[CC] GFA ALABAMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY MARTINEZ-LOPEZ; and ROSA LINDA SORIANO-TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GFA ALABAMA INC.; and GLOVIS GEORGIA, LLC d/b/a HYUNDAI GLOVIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02676-JPB-CCB (N.D. Ga., June 20, 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. Plaintiffs Martinez and Soriano were employed by the Defendants as an engineer and as a chemist, respectively. GFA Alabama Inc. provides furnishing automotive services. The Company serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN, LLC 2200 Century Parkway NE Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (678) 439-0330 - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. James Radford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 GIANT COMPANY: Holbert Seeks Leave to File Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE GIANT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00501-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file his motion for Rule 23 class certification. The discovery needed for class certification was obtained only recently, including in Giant's April 22, 2024, supplemental production of approximately 2,300 documents, totaling over 35,000 pages, including over 6,000 pages of substantive emails and attachments, as well as Giant's corporate representative deposition taken on May 22, 2024. Indeed, Holbert noticed, and Giant testified regarding, numerous topics related to the "Proposed Class." Throughout the course of this case, Holbert has repeatedly advised his intent to file for Rule 23 class certification Holbert contends that he should be permitted to file his Rule 23 class certification motion outside of the default time provided by LR 23.3. Giant Company is an American regional supermarket chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rx4RcE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Angeli Murthy, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5269 Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AMurthy@forthepeople.com rmorgan@forthepeople.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks to File Support for Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an unopposed motion for leave to file reply in support of motion for class certification. Because Plaintiffs do not seek to reiterate points already made in their Motion for Class Certification but rather to succinctly address new issues raised by the Opposition, Plaintiffs believe the requested reply brief would be helpful to the court in adjudicating the Motion for Class Certification. For this reason, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to file a reply brief of not more than ten pages, inclusive of all parts, within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s ruling on this unopposed motion Regarding the novel factual material contained in Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class, Defendants have cherry picked and decontextualized excerpts of deposition testimony to support misguided arguments about, among other things, the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs. Other testimony from Plaintiffs Sihler and Bavencoff, as well as relevant contextualizing circumstances undercuts Defendants’ new arguments. Chargebacks911 is a global company fully dedicated to mitigating chargeback risk and eliminating chargeback fraud. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxTBO2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Wagner, Esq. KIBBEY WAGNER PLLC 73 SW Flagler Ave Stuart, FL 34994-2140 Telephone: (772) 444-7000 E-mail: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com - and - Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq. A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. Anthony Sampson, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd Suite 900, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com lorraine@kneuppercovey.com Cyclone@kneuppercovey.com anthony@kneuppercovey.com GLOBAL ORANGE: Faces Bower Suit Over ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------- LESLIE BOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL ORANGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC d/b/a BIGGBY COFFEE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00631 (W.D. Mich., June 19, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased coffee-based drinks or other beverages from Biggby that contained non-dairy milk alternatives including oat milk, almond milk, coconut milk, and lactose-free milk ("Non-Dairy Alternatives") and paid a surcharge for the Non-Dairy Alternatives. Throughout the class period, Biggby charged a $0.50 - $1 surcharge ("Surcharge") to its customers who were lactose intolerant to substitute milk for Non-Dairy Alternative products in its beverages. During the Class Period Biggby did not offer a lactose-free milk option or Non-Dairy Alternatives at no charge. In this way, the Defendant's conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and constitutes common law Unjust Enrichment. As a direct result of Defendant's violation of the ADA, Plaintiff and class members have suffered injury, including but not limited to the violation of their statutory rights and loss of money, says the suit. Global Orange Development LLC is a privately-held coffee house chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 490 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 1 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com - and - Bogdan, Enica, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 375 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (305) 306-4989 Email: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Sjunde AP-Fonden Seeks Leave to File Surreply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sjunde AP-Fonden v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12084-VSB-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his request leave to file Surreply in Response to Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Objections to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff advised counsel for the Defendants that it intended to seek leave to file a proposed surreply and counsel for Defendants stated that they did not consent to the request. The Plaintiff does not believe that the Court should consider Defendants' Reply. However, to the extent the Court does consider it, the Plaintiff submits that in fairness to Plaintiff as the movant seeking class certification, Plaintiff should be afforded an equal number of pages to respond to Defendants' arguments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TdQqtd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Telephone: (610) 822-2229 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail azivitz@ktmc.com GTS LIVING: Sharpe Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delaney Sharpe et al., v. GTs Living Foods, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-10920-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order on motion for class certification: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied without prejudice. 2. No later than Aug. 22, 2024, plaintiffs shall file a renewed motion for class certification. 3. With respect to any renewed motion, the parties shall: (1) apply updated applicable case law; (2) strictly comply with the Court's Order Re: Motions for Class Certification; (3) address whether plaintiffs and class counsel, including Bursor & Fisher, are adequate representatives and class counsel; (4) address whether res judicata and/or judicial estoppel apply and at what stage, i.e., the class certification or the merits stage of the litigation; and (5) address whether a full refund damages model is viable in light of the court's rulings in other cases, given that this case does not involve the sale of pills or supplements and, if such a model is not available, whether this is an issue for the class certification or the merits stage of litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jnwzP8 at no extra charge.[CC] HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Court Dismisses "Right to Repair" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Zac of Adventure Rider reports that a group of motorcyclists looking to sue Harley-Davidson over so-called "Right to Repair" issues has been dismissed in a US District Court in Wisconsin. You might remember hearing about this lawsuit previously on ADVrider, as it came in the fallout from an FTC decision to enforce H-D owners' right to repair their bikes with non-OEM parts. You can see that decision here; it laid down a framework for Harley-Davidson (and other companies) for their actions going forward, but there's nothing to address these companies' past behavior. See below: The orders require the companies to take multiple steps to correct their unlawful behavior: Prohibit further violations: The companies will be prohibited from further violations of the Warranty Act, and in Harley-Davidson's case, the Disclosure Rule. They will also be prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party services or parts, or that they should only use branded parts or authorized service providers. If the companies violate these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court. Recognize consumers' right to repair: Harley-Davidson and MWE Investments will be required to add specific language to their warranties similar to the following: "Taking your product to be serviced by a repair shop that is not affiliated with or an authorized dealer of [Company] will not void this warranty" and/or "using third-party parts will not void this warranty." Weber must add to its warranty a statement that "Using third-party parts will not violate this warranty." Come clean with consumers: The companies must send and post notices informing customers that their warranties will remain in effect even if they buy aftermarket parts and/or patronize independent repairers. Alert dealers to compete fairly: Harley-Davidson and MWE Investments are being required to direct authorized dealers to remove deceptive display materials, train and monitor employees, and not promote branded parts and dealers over third parties. Some owners were unhappy with this, and thought Harley-Davidson should have been forced to pay out money to customers affected by their business practices -- and they lawyered up to that end: In this multidistrict litigation, fifteen plaintiffs, who purchased Harley-Davidson motorcycles from various dealerships and reside in eleven different states, claim that Defendants Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC and Harley Davidson Motor Company Inc. (collectively, Harley-Davidson) used its warranty to force Harley owners under warranty to purchase Harley-Davidson-branded parts, instead of other available aftermarket parts. Reuters has uploaded the entire legal decision here, but the TL/DR is this: These riders took Harley-Davidson to court over it, but they won't get a payout. Instead, they've had their arguments rejected by a federal judge, with each of their complaints addressed in that document. Mostly, it comes down to this: The paperwork from Harley-Davidson told the riders that if they used non-OEM parts they "may" void their warranty. The judge said this didn't mean the same as "will," and also rejected the litigants' other complaints which included allegations of common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and more. Reuters has uploaded the entire legal decision here, but the TL/DR is this: These riders took Harley-Davidson to court over it, but they won't get a payout. Instead, they've had their arguments rejected by a federal judge, with each of their complaints addressed in that document. Mostly, it comes down to this: The paperwork from Harley-Davidson told the riders that if they used non-OEM parts they "may" void their warranty. The judge said this didn't mean the same as "will," and also rejected the litigants' other complaints which included allegations of common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, and more. [GN] HARTFORD HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Healthcare Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Golvala of The Connecticut Mirror reports that two health plans filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Hartford HealthCare and several of its subsidiaries earlier this month for alleged unlawful monopolization, restraint of trade and price fixing. The 53-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court claims that Hartford HealthCare suppressed competition and inflated the cost of care that health plans must pay for. Tina Varona, a spokesperson with Hartford HealthCare, dismissed the allegations as without merit and said the health system remains focused on serving the needs of its patients and communities. "This complaint is without merit, filed by serial plaintiffs' attorneys. We will defend ourselves against the allegations, which fundamentally misrepresent the many ways Hartford HealthCare is working to transform healthcare, including providing best-in-class quality, improved access to care and offering lower-cost options outside of hospitals, like urgent care and ambulatory care centers. Now, as always, we remain focused on serving the needs of our patients and our communities," Varona wrote in emailed comments. The plaintiffs are River Valley Transit, a mass transit provider headquartered in Middletown that provides benefits to employees and their families, and Teamsters 671 Health Service & Insurance Plan, which provides benefits to union members, including transport and construction workers, as well as their families. The lawsuit provides what are claimed to be examples of Hartford HealthCare charging more for the same procedure when compared to its competitors: A colonoscopy at St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport costs $3,800 but only $1,400 at Bridgeport Hospital, which is owned by Yale New Haven Health. At Hartford Hospital, the procedure costs $2,200, but only costs $1,800 at St. Francis Hospital, also based in Hartford and owned by Trinity Health of New England. The majority of employers who offer health benefits do so either through a fully funded plan or a self-funded plan. In a fully funded plan, the health insurer assumes the risk and pays for the health care costs, and the employer pays monthly premiums to the insurer. In a self-funded plan, the employer assumes the risk and pays for health costs directly. Most large employers opt for self-funded plans. Both River Valley Transit and Teamsters 671 Health Service & Insurance Plan have self-funded plans. The proposed class in the lawsuit consists of all insurers or health plans that paid or reimbursed the named Hartford HealthCare entities for general acute care or outpatient services in the Bridgeport, Hartford, Meriden, Norwich, Torrington and Willimantic health service areas since June 2020. The plaintiffs are seeking financial damages and a determination that Hartford HealthCare and its subsidiaries engaged in unlawful conduct. HHC has been able to charge these higher prices, according to the complaint, by using its market dominance to, among other tactics, engage in anticompetitive practices when negotiating with insurance agencies, including "all-or-nothing contracts" and "anti-steering and anti-tiering" clauses. According to a September 2021 presentation to the state legislature's Insurance and Real Estate Committee, "all-or-nothing contracts" require insurers to include all of a network's facilities in its coverage plan, regardless of how expensive they are. "Anti-steering and anti-tiering" clauses limit an insurers' ability to guide members towards providers that they believe offer quality care at a competitive price. The lawsuit alleges that HHC used such provisions to prevent health plans from creating tools that "would otherwise create incentives designed to steer members away from more expensive hospital service providers like HHC and towards more efficient, lower-priced competitors." Hartford HealthCare is one of Connecticut's two largest health systems, along with Yale New Haven Health. Unlike HHC, YNHH has not been targeted in the courts for anticompetitive practices in recent years. Matthew Ruan, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said that there's been more publicly available information regarding the anti-competitive practices of Hartford HealthCare compared to Yale New Haven Health. "If it turns out that Yale New Haven -- and we may find this out in discovery, who knows -- that they're engaged in similar practices, then that's something we'll investigate at that time," said Ruan. The arguments made in the complaint mirror those made in the two other lawsuits brought against Hartford HealthCare within the past two and a half years. In January 2022, St. Francis Hospital, based in Hartford, filed a lawsuit against Hartford HealthCare and several of its subsidiaries, claiming that the health system is trying to create a monopoly on hospital services by acquiring physician networks, particularly cardiologists, and demanding that they refer their patients only to Hartford HealthCare. The following month, a group of Connecticut residents filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the network, alleging that it uses its market dominance to charge higher prices to the state's commercially insured residents. Both cases are currently in the discovery phase, where the parties exchange information about the evidence they'll present at trial. [GN] HEADLESS WIDOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hussein Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SALMA BAHAA HUSSEIN; BRIAN NOONE; JORDAN MERRITT; JOEL ZAVALA; and SANTIAGO ALJURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HEADLESS WIDOW LLC d/b/a THE HEADLESS WIDOW; and EDIN CANOVIC a/k/a EDDIE CANOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04658 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. The Headless Widow LLC owns and operates a bar and restaurant under the tradename "The Headless Widow," located at New York, NY 10003. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. Angela Kwon, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5825 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com akwon@bkllawyers.com HEIDI WASHINGTON: Court Narrows Claims in Williams Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY WAYNE WILLIAMS, v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00078-HYJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Jarbou will dismiss the Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants without prejudice. The Court will also dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against remaining Defendants Washington and Horton. The Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and supplemental state law claims against Defendants Washington and Horton remain in the case. The Court will deny Plaintiff's request for class certification. An order consistent with this opinion will be entered. This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Plaintiff’s request for class certification will, therefore, be denied. The Plaintiff's allegations concern the conditions within URF in 2020 as they related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, he claims that the precautions taken by the MDOC were insufficient to prevent the spread and effects of COVID-19. The Plaintiff alleges that, on Oc. 7, 2020, the Defendant Woodgate "came to work infected" with COVID-19 and was ordered to leave the facility. The Plaintiff claims that the first serious case of COVID-19 arose in the E unit of URF, where Plaintiff resided. Approximately one-and-a-half-months later, on Nov. 17–19, 2020, the Plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19. The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l5uSr6 at no extra charge.[CC] HEIDI WASHINGTON: Williams Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY WAYNE WILLIAMS, v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00078-HYJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Jarbou entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court further entered an order that: -- Plaintiff's federal claims against Defendants Unknown "John Does" and "Jane Does," Corrigan, Woodgate, and Dicus be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e) and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(c). -- Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants Unknown "John Does" and "Jane Does," Corrigan, Woodgate, and Dicus be dismissed without prejudice. -- Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against remaining Defendants Washington and Horton be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e) and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(c). -- Plaintiff's request for class certification is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6mpKeG at no extra charge.[CC] HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Completion of Discovery Due August 15 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAYNA MARIE LANDIN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, and HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05115-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Cartwright entered an order -- Deadline for joining additional parties Sept. 11, 2024 -- Deadline for amending pleadings Oct. 11, 2024 -- All discovery motions must be filed by July 15, 2025 -- Deadline to complete discovery Aug. 15, 2025 (class certification and merits) -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion Sept. 15, 2025 for class certification (noted on the fourth Friday after filing and service of the motion pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply memoranda): Hi-School is a chain of drugstores, hardware stores and combination drugstore/hardware stores. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gwJR5m at no extra charge.[CC] HOLIDAY INN: Class Discovery Deadline Extended in Lingard Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lingard, et al., v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00323 (M.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for a limited extension of time. -- The class discovery deadline is extended for the limited purposes identified in Defendants' Motion. -- The court will enter an amended scheduling order to allow sufficient time to resolve issues related to class certification. -- No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. The nature of suit states Other Statutory Actions. Holiday Inn provides leisure club services.[CC] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Parties Seek Amendment of Pretrial Conference --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BRAHM, v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEMS and SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the Court's pretrial conference order is amended as follows: Jan. 17, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for class certification due, and related disclosure of class certification experts Feb. 14, 2025 Defendants' opposition due, and related disclosure of class certification experts Mar. 14, 2025 Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification due On June 14, 2024, the Parties filed a joint stipulation resolving the motion to compel, whereby Defendants agree to supplement and amend its written discovery in two weeks and produce additional documents. Given that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is still pending and Defendants will finally be responding to discovery and producing documents necessary for Plaintiff to take depositions and then move for certification, good cause exists to extend the deadline by which the Plaintiff must move to certify the class. On July 5, 2023, the Defendants removed this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. On Sept. 1, 2023, this Court set a telephonic Pretrial Conference for October 3, 2023, pursuant to the standing order. The Parties prepared and filed a Rule 26(f) report on Sept. 29, 2023. As of this date, discovery was open. Each party has served written discovery requests and responses and produced documents. On June 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the Defendants to supplement or amend their written discovery and produce documents because the Defendants have only produced eleven privacy policies and fifteen organizational charts to date. Hospital Sisters operates a network of 15 hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout the midwestern U.S. states of Illinois, and Wisconsin. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyJnfH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Phillips, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com aphillips@straussborrelli.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Kevin Leyendecker, Esq. David Warden, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com dwarden@azalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kendall W. Harrison, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. One East Main Street, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53701-2719 Telephone: (608) 257-3911 Facsimile: (608) 257-0609 E-mail: kharrison@gklaw.com - and - Alfred J. Saikali, Esq. Tammy B. Webb, Esq. Michelle S. Lee, Esq. Maveric Ray Searle, Esq. Daniel E. Rohner, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 Facsimile: (305) 358-7470 E-mail: asaikali@shb.com tbwebb@shb.com msearle@shb.com drohner@shb.com HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Adavenaixx Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANEL ADAVENAIXX, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00663-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney Friedrich entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Parties have agreed to a class action settlement of all Released Claims. Plaintiff seeks, and for purposes of settlement only the University does not object to, certification of a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All Howard students enrolled in the Spring 2020 Semester who did not withdraw by March 16, 2020, for whom any amount of tuition and/or fees was paid to Howard from any source other than a scholarship, grant, or tuition remission from Howard, or any other source that did not require repayment, and whose tuition and/or fees have not been fully refunded." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the following persons: (i) Any students who received full scholarships or tuition remission from Howard or otherwise were not obligated to make contributions, payments, or third-party arrangements towards tuition and/or fees for the Spring 2020 Semester (i.e., those whose tuition and fees were paid for by institutional aid, tuition benefits, federal/state/local grants, GI/Yellow Ribbon benefits, outside scholarships and/or third-party sponsorships); (ii) The University and its officers, trustees and their family members; (iii) Class Counsel; (iv) The Judge presiding over the Action; and (v) All persons who properly execute and file a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court expressly reserves the right to determine, should the occasion arise, whether Plaintiff’s proposed claims may be certified as a class action for purposes other than settlement, and the University hereby retains all rights to argue that Plaintiff’s proposed claims may not be certified for class treatment except for settlement purposes. For purposes of preliminary approval, the Court assesses the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Settlement Agreement provides adequate relief to the proposed Settlement Class. The University has agreed to pay $2,073,680 to cover cash payments to Settlement Class Members, Notice and Administration Costs, a Fee and Expense Award for Class Counsel, and a Class Representative Award for the Class Representative. From that amount, Settlement Class Members are eligible to receive cash payments. Cash payments will be shares of the Net Settlement Fund divided equally amount Settlement Class Members. Settlement Class Members do not need to file a claim in order to receive a cash payment. Howard University is a private, federally chartered historically black research university in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Z185c at no extra charge.[CC] HUNGARY: U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Holocaust Victims Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaelan Deese, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that the Supreme Court announced on June 24, 2024 it will review a long-standing lawsuit from families of Holocaust victims seeking compensation from Hungary over property confiscated from them during World War II. The nine justices will hear arguments this fall over a case that concerns whether federal courts in the United States are the proper forum for the lawsuit. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, sovereign nations such as Hungary maintain certain levels of immunity from lawsuits but are exempted from FSIA's protections if property was "taken in violation of international law." A group of Hungarian Holocaust survivors, some of whom are over the age of 90 now, brought a class-action lawsuit against Hungary and its national railway in 2010. The railroad played a key role in the Holocaust, transporting more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland over a period of two months in 1944. The justices will have to determine whether the survivors can justify the exception's requirement that the property has a "commercial nexus" with the U.S. The claim under the class-action suit is that Hungary combined the proceeds of its stolen property with other funds and that some of the proceeds are now within the U.S. due to trade and other business with the overseas sovereign nation. There exists a split in lower courts over this topic. While a lower court agreed that this lawsuit could move forward under the commercial nexus theory, a separate case involving Holocaust victims was overruled in 2021 after the justices said the victims had not reached the bar to prove their claim. Arguments in Hungary v. Rosalie will be heard likely before the end of the calendar year, with a decision expected before the end of June 2025. [GN] I.C. SYSTEM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LEZARK, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that the distribution of the questionnaire and briefing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall proceed as follows: 1. Plaintiff's vendor shall distribute the questionnaire to putative class members on or before July 10, 2024. 2. Putative class members shall respond to the questionnaire on or before Sept. 9, 2024. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be due on or before Oct. 8, 2024 and Plaintiff's supporting brief shall be limited to 20 pages. 4. Defendant's response to the Motion for Class Certification shall be due on or before Oct. 29, 2024 and shall be limited to 20 pages. 5. Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant's response, which shall be filed by Nov. 5, 2024 and shall be limited to five (5) pages. 6. A separate order addressing the timing and procedures for an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will issue after the close of briefing. IC System is a debt recovery agency. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hxYmvA at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS TOOL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 27, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA L. HESS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. d/b/a "Opto Diode Corporation," a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-05171-MRA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order granting second stipulation in part to continue class certification deadlines and modifying pretrial schedule. The class certification deadlines are modified as follows: -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing deadline is now Jan. 27, 2025 (was October 14, 2024). -- Defendant's Opposition deadline is now March 10, 2025 (was Nov. 25, 2024). -- Plaintiff’s Reply is now April 21, 2025 (was Jan. 6, 2025). -- The Class Certification motion hearing is now May 15, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. (was January 27, 2025). The Court sua sponte resets the Fact and Expert Discovery Cut-Off to September 9, 2025 (was June 9, 2025), and the deadline to hear nondiscovery motions, including Daubert motions, to November 13, 2025 (was July 28, 2025). The Final Pretrial Conference (FPTC) shall take place on January 8, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. (was October 6, 2025). The parties shall file motions in limine at least four (4) weeks before the FPTC, with the opposing party having one (1) week to respond. Illinois Tool produces engineered fasteners and components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z8437k at no extra charge.[CC] INARI MEDICAL: Hartmann Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------- PAUL HARTMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INARI MEDICAL, INC.; WILLIAM HOFFMAN; ANDREW HYKES; and MITCH C. HILL, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04662 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the common stock of Inari between March 10, 2021 through February 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unknown to investors, the Defendants failed to disclose that the Company's reported revenue growth and sales and marketing success was due in material part to meals and consulting service payments provided to health care professionals by the Company that were in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil False Claims Act. As a result of this disclosure, Inari's share price declined from a closing price of $58.26 per share on February 28, 2024 to close at $46.12 per share on February 29, 2024, a decline of over $12 per share or approximately 21 percent on heavier than average volume of over 6 million shares traded. As of the close of trading on June 17, 2024, Inari stock had not recovered, closing at $43.23 per share. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the substantial decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Inari Medical, Inc. manufactures medical device. The Company offers a variety of products including minimally invasive, novel, catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy devices and their accessories for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Pamela Mayer, Esq. Brandon Fox, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com pmayer@kaplanfox.com bfox@kaplanfox.com INSOMNIA COOKIES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL WILLIAMS and JONN GIBSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC d/b/a INSOMNIA COOKIES and SERVE U BRANDS, INC; Case No. 4:23-cv-00669-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the Motion and extending the deadline for the Defendants to file their response in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Collective Certification, for 17 days, up to and including July 8, 2024, and extending the Plaintiff's deadline to reply from July 5, 2024 to July 22, 2024. Due to pre-existing obligations and the press of other matters, counsel has been unable to complete the response and respectfully requests an additional 17 days to do so. The Defendants also consent to and join in Plaintiff's request for a corresponding extension of the Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply in to Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Collective Certification. The parties are presently engaged in negotiations surrounding a Stipulation and Order consenting to a mutually agreed upon conditionally certified collective action and notice. Agreement as to this Stipulation would resolve the pending motion, obviating the need for Defendants to respond. The requested 17-day extension would also allow for more time for the parties to potentially resolve the pending motion without need for further briefing. This request for additional time is made in good faith and is not made for any improper purpose. No party will be prejudiced by the granting of the requested relief. On May 31, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective. Insomnia Cookies is a chain of bakeries that specializes in delivering warm cookies, baked goods, and ice cream. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhK8nP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Douglas J. Klein, Esq. Noel P. Tripp, Esq. Christian M. Mercado, Esq. Andrew D. Kinghorn, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue, 28th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4000 E-mail: Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com Noel.Tripp@jacksonlewis.com Christian.Mercado@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.Kinghorn@jacksonlewis.com INTERNATIONAL STAR: Sanchez Bid for Default Judgment Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL STAR REGISTRY OF ILLINOIS, LTD., Case No. 1:24-cv-20083-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Judgment is entered in Plaintiff's favor against Defendant, International Star Registry of Illinois Ltd., as to liability only. The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine damages at a future time. On Jan. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendant on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals seeking damages, an injunction, and declaratory relief for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the TCPA's prohibition on soliciting phone numbers on the DNC Registry. The Defendant allegedly has sent unsolicited text messages to telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States who are registered on the DNC Registry in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. International Star has provided people worldwide with the opportunity to name a star. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yybRW9 at no extra charge.[CC] J. DAVID TAX: Bids to Certify/Decertify Classes Due Nov. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY R. IVERSON, et al., v. J. DAVID TAX LAW, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00718-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- Motions & Briefs to Certify/Decertify Classes: Nov. 1, 2024 -- Disclosure of liability experts: Plaintiffs: March 24, 2025 Defendant: May 19, 2025 -- Deadline for filing dispositive motions: June 30, 2025 -- isclosure of damages experts: Plaintiffs: Aug. 22, 2025 Defendant: Oct. 17, 2025 -- Discovery Cutoff: Nov. 14, 2025 -- First Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 14, 2026 -- Trial: Jan. 26, 2026 J. David Law is a tax law firm providing customized tax solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6uMZ6q at no extra charge.[CC] J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: Must Serve Expert Report in Taylor by Nov. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04832-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Skahill entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Parties to submit join status letter: July 12, 2024 -- Deadline to complete the first phase of Aug. 26, 2024 Pretrial factual discovery necessary For class certification: -- Deadline for the Plaintiff to serve any Sept. 23, 2024 Expert Report(s): -- Deadline for the Defendant to serve any Nov. 28, 2024 Expert Report(s): -- Parties to complete Expert Depositions: Dec. 30, 2024 J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZ0NBZ at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES DAVIS: Soliz Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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. 1:24-cv-00974-LMB-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action and court-facilitated notice. James provides general contracting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VDShES at no extra charge.[CC] 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 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com nrubin@murphypllc.com rperez@murphypllc.com JKS VENTURES: Court OK's Entry of Proposed Consent Decree --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON MICHELE CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JKS VENTURES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08311-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for entry of the proposed consent decree, resolving Plaintiff's complaint for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). The Court found that there was evidence of improper collusion in connection with the First Proposed Consent Decree. The First Proposed Consent Decree was reached in a hurried fashion within days of Defendant having been served with the Complaint. There was no evidence of arms-length bargaining. The subsequent history convinces the Court that the Decree now is more a product of cooperation between counsel than of collusion to defeat the claims of third parties. After the Court called into question the propriety of the First Proposed Consent Decree, the parties made changes to that decree to incorporate specific measures that Defendant would take (if necessary) to ensure that the Website was ADAcomplaint. Importantly, the Second Proposed Consent Decree also required the Defendant to make written status reports to the Court every six months on the measures it had taken to remediate those issues. The Second Proposed Consent Decree still left open the possibility that the parties either would agree at the outset that the allegations made by Plaintiff in the complaint were ill-founded and thus would make no changes to the Website or that Defendant would forestall making changes to the Website through the term of the Decree. No doubt there are additional measures the parties could have taken to be more protective of the rights of those visually-impaired or the Court could have ordered in the event that the Plaintiff prevailed on her claims On Aug. 17, 2023 and again on Sept. 10, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to access the Website from her home in the Bronx, using screen-reader software, in order to purchase dog toys for her son's dog. She encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to the Defendant's online goods, content, and services, and was unable to complete the purchase due to the inaccessibility of the Website. On Sept. 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action, alleging that the Defendant's Website violated Title III of the ADA, as well as the NYCHRL. JKS Ventures provides a recycling service center that provides construction waste management. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ys5N8Y at no extra charge.[CC] JP WHITE: Seeks to File Brief Sur-Reply in Opposition to Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hong v. JP White Plains, Inc, d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains, et.al., Case No. 7:19-cv-05018-NSR-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to submit a brief sur-reply in further opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff originally served his motion seeking class certification on April 22, 2024. The Defendants served opposition on May 22, 2024. Plaintiff served his Reply yesterday, on June 12, 2024. However, the Defendants believe that there are several issues raised in the Plaintiff's reply papers which need to be addressed. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fviB9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Beldner, Esq. TILTON BELDNER LLP 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (516) 262-3602 Facsimile: (516) 324-3170 E-mail: jbeldner@tiltonbeldner.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Madrigal Says ------------------------------------------------------------ STACEY M. MADRIGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; KAISER PERMANENTE 401K RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05191 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2024) alleges violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants' allocation of forfeited fund assets to reduce its own employer contributions benefitted the Defendants, but harmed the Plan and participants in the Plan, by reducing Plan assets, not allocating forfeited funds to participants' accounts, and/or by causing participants to incur expenses that could otherwise have been covered in whole or in part by forfeited funds. By choosing to use forfeited Plan assets to benefit itself and not the Plan or the Plan's participants, the Defendants have placed its own interests above the interests of the Plan and its participants, says the suit. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. operates as a non-profit health care organization. The Organization offers allergy, audiology, cardiology, dermatology, oncology, hospice, laboratory, nephrology, occupational therapy, pain management, pediatric rehabilitation, and pharmacy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com KANG LU USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mazariegos Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO CHRISTOPHER GALICIA MAZARIEGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KANG LU USA CORP.; and KANG YUE USA CORP. d/b/a MOCA ASIAN BISTRO; JOHNSON CHEN; and FANG CHAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04359 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 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 Mazariegos was employed by the Defendants as a busboy. KANG LU USA CORP. operates as an Asian fusion restaurant serving sushi and Chinese, Korean, and Japanese dishes in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 KAY IVEY: Court Tosses Kinetic Justice's Provisional Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EARL COUNCIL AKA KINETIK JUSTICE, et al., v. KAY IVEY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00712-CLM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Corey Maze entered an order: -- granting The Woods Foundation's motion to join in the motion for preliminary injunction and the Plaintiffs' motion for the court to take judicial notice of several of their evidentiary submissions; and -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. To sum up, Plaintiffs haven't established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of either their Ex Post Facto or Equal Protection Clause claims.8 So the court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief without addressing the other preliminary injunction factors. Because Plaintiffs' request for provisional class certification hinges on the court granting preliminary injunctive relief, the court will also not address the parties' arguments related to provisional class certification. Lee Edward Moore, Jr., Jerame Aprentice Cole, Frederick Denard McDole, Michael Campbell, Arthur Charles Ptomey, Jr., and Alimireo English are Black inmates recently denied parole by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upyYui at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT HAWK: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Dye Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY DYE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Knight Hawk Coal, LLC et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01329-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered an order on scheduling and discovery plans as follows: 1. Discovery prior to Class Certification must be sufficient to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied, including a sufficient inquiry into the merits of the case to ensure appropriate management of the case as a Class Action. 2. Initial interrogatories and requests to produce, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 and SDIL-LR 33.1, shall be served on opposing parties by July 1, 2024. 3. Plaintiff(s) depositions shall be taken by December 1, 2024. 4. Defendant(s) depositions shall be taken by February 1, 2025. 5. Third Party actions must be commenced by July 1, 2024 (which date shall be no late than 90 days following the scheduling conference). 6. Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), as follows: -- Plaintiff(s) expert(s): October 1, 2024 -- Defendant(s) expert(s): December 1, 2024. 7. Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be taken by: -- Plaintiff(s) expert(s): November 1, 2024 -- Defendant(s) expert(s): January 1, 2025 Knight Hawk is a mining & metals company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=somQt5 at no extra charge.[CC] LAZ KARP: Mason Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------- ANGEL MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAZ KARP ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00342-BO (E.D.N.C., June 20, 2024) alleges violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knowingly and without consent obtained Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information, including their names and home addresses, from non-public motor vehicle state records, and used it to send parking tickets to Plaintiff's and the Class Members' homes. The Defendant's DPPA violations caused Plaintiff and the Class Members harm, including violations of their statutory privacy rights, harassment, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion in a space that is personal and private to Plaintiff and the Class Members, says the suit. Laz Karp Associates, LLC is a real estate investment and management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828)258-2991 Facsimile: (828)257-2767 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave. Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com LEPRINO FOODS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting Leprino's request to file a short Sur-Reply in support of Leprino's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, or alternatively, allow Leprino the opportunity to provide oral argument. Leprino should have the opportunity to respond to the Plaintiff's new and erroneous arguments that were not contained in his moving papers. This request is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has, for the first time, raised certain issues in his Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification to which Leprino has a due process right to respond. There is good cause to grant leave to file the Sur-Reply or present oral argument. Leprino is a mozzarella cheese maker and a producer of whey protein and dairy ingredients. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yA8whv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sandra L. Rappaport, Esq. Lisa M. Pooley, Esq. Matthew B. Seipel, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: srappaport@hansonbridgett.com lpooley@hansonbridgett.com mseipel@hansonbridgett.com LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Johnson Conditional Class Cert Bid Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-BER (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Reinhart entered an order: -- denying Mr. Johnson's motion for Rule 23 class certification of his state low wage claim and for conditional certification of his FLSA collective action; and -- dismissing without prejudice the Opt-in Plaintiffs. Judge Reinhart said, " Mr. Johnson has not met his burden of showing that he is similarly situated to the Opt-in Plaintiffs or the putative plaintiffs to whom he seeks to send notice. Therefore, conditional certification of the proposed collective action would be improper." Mr. Johnson has not satisfied his burden to show that he and the putative plaintiffs are similarly situated so as to warrant conditional certification of a collective action on his FLSA claim. I likewise find that Mr. Johnson has failed to satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) because he cannot establish commonality or typicality, the Judge added. Similarly, Mr. Johnson proposes that the Rule 23 class for his state law wage claim be defined as: "All current and former Field and Network Technicians who, pursuant to Defendant’s records, did not sign a class waiver or arbitration agreement, and worked for Defendant in the United States and [were] denied compensation for work performed within four years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment in this action." Mr. Johnson worked as a salaried, non-exempt employee for Level 3 in Florida until his voluntary resignation in August 2022. Level 3 is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc., formerly CenturyLink, Inc. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YedHCI at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MEDIA: Objection to Bids to Dismiss Diep Suit Due July 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JACK DIEP, individually; JORY LEVY, individually; JAMES DAYAP, individually; MARVIN CUTCHINS; and RAY CHARLES, JR., Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION d/b/a FORMULA ONE HEINEKEN SILVER LAS VEGAS GRAND PRIX, a foreign corporation; LAS VEGAS PAVING CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation; DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-20, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02124-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada signed the parties' Stipulation and Order setting July 5, 2024, as the new deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1, 6-2 and LR 7-1, the counsel of record for the Plaintiffs, Defendant Liberty Media Corporation, and Defendant Las Vegas Paving Corporation stipulate to extend the time for the Plaintiffs to file their Opposition to the Defendants' respective motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint and for the Defendants to file their Replies by 14 days. Per LR 7-2(b), the Plaintiffs' Oppositions to the Defendants' Motions were due June 21, 2024, and the Defendants' Reply briefs were due June 28, 2024. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 7, 2024, the Defendants timely filed their respective motions to dismiss. The parties stipulate that the new deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Opposition will be July 5, 2024. The parties further stipulate that the new deadline for the Defendants to file their respective Replies will be July 26, 2024. The reason for the requested extension is that the Plaintiffs' counsel is travelling cross-country for an in-person hearing for another matter in the Eastern District of New York. This hearing is in the middle of the two-week period the Plaintiffs have to oppose the Defendants' motions under the local rules. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' counsel submit that the Defendants' motions raise several issues that require in-depth analysis and the Plaintiffs require additional time to properly oppose. Similarly, the parties agree that twenty-one days (rather than seven days allowed under the LR 7-2(b)) allows sufficient time for the Defendants to properly reply to the Plaintiffs' intended opposition. This is the first stipulation to extend the subject deadlines. The parties submit that the request is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yz9f9hp8 from PacerMonitor.com. Steve Dimopoulos -- sd@stevedimopoulos.com -- Paul A. Shpirt -- ps@stevedimopoulos.com -- Jared Kahn -- jkahn@jk-legalconsulting.com -- DIMOPOULOS INJURY LAW, in Las Vegas, Nevada 89119; Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101; Christopher R. Pitoun -- christopherp@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Pasadena, CA 91101, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Cheryl H. Wilson -- cwilson@imwlaw.com -- Victoria L. Hightower -- vhightower@imwlaw.com -- IVIE McNEILL WYATT PURCELL & DIGGS, in Las Vegas, NV 89113; Rodney S. Diggs -- rdiggs@imwlaw.com -- IVIE McNEILL WYATT PURCELL & DIGGS, in Los Angeles, CA 90071, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Esteban Rodriguez -- esrodriguez@omm.com -- David Marroso -- dmarroso@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, in Los Angeles, CA 90067; J. Colby Williams -- jcw@cwlawlv.com -- Philip R. Erwin -- pre@cwlawlv.com -- CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS, in Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, Attorneys for Defendant Liberty Media Corporation. Jennifer L. Micheli -- jmicheli@maclaw.com -- Tye S. Hanseen -- thanseen@maclaw.com -- MARQUIS AURBACH, in Las Vegas, Nevada 89145, Attorneys for Las Vegas Paving Corporation. LIBERTY ONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graulau Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- FERDINAND GRAULAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY ONE BRONX LLC; and LIBERTY ONE GROUP LLC; NATHAN BAUM; JOSE MARTINEZ; and CAROLA FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04625 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 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 Graulau was employed by the Defendants as a superintendent. Liberty One Bronx LLC is a real estate investment company focused on the acquisition, development and management of various properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Liggieri, Esq. L & D LAW P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 374-9786 LINCARE INC: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LINCARE INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by 45-days, until August 12, 2024. The Plaintiff's counsel does not oppose a 21-day extension, but does oppose the balance of Lincare's requested extension. The requested extension will not conflict with any other deadline. Lincare's request for additional time is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay, the Defendant says. On June 6, 2024, Ms. Morris filed her Class Certification Motion. The Class Certification Motion defines Plaintiff's proposed classes distinctly from those proposed classes in Plaintiff's Complaint, including adding "whose cellular telephone number was provided to Defendant by American HomePatient, Inc.", which was not contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. On April 16, 2024, this Court entered its Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order extending the class certification deadline to June 6, 2024. Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services for patients in the home. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nViIxK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: rahcel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO, P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Ceriale, Esq. Jay B. Verona, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813)229-7600 Facsimile: (813) 229-1660 E-mail: mceriale@shumaker.com jverona@shumaker.com mhartz@shumaker.com LONG BEACH, CA: Parties in Guma Suit Must File Joint Status Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guma, et al., v. The City of Long Beach, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04529 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown entered an order directing the parties to file a Joint Status Report with a proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Class Certification after Defendants answer and/or respond to the Amended Complaint. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] LUXURBAN HOTELS: Court Appoints Marchetta Group as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE PACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXURBAN HOTELS INC., BRIAN FERDINAND, and SHANOOP KOTHARI, Case No. 1:24-cv-01030-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order: -- appointing the Marchetta Group as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel; -- terminating all pending motions; and -- directing to confer and by July 2, 2024 jointly file a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. On February 12, 2024, Pack filed a Complaint in this Court on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, to wit, "persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lux Urban securities between November 8, 2023 and February 2, 2024, inclusive." Id. ,r 1. Pack alleges that Lux Urban, its chief executive officer, Brian Ferdinand, and its chief financial officer, Shanoop Kothari, misled the market about LuxUrban's business, operations, and prospects. In sum, Pack alleges that LuxUrban and the individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about LuxUrban's business, operations, and prospects, causing LuxUrban's shares to be overvalued. P Lux Urban leases entire hotels on a long-term basis, and then rents rooms in those hotels to business and vacation travelers on a short-term basis. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Rr9tE at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, ET AL., V. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Darrel James Papillion entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, fully reserving Plaintiffs' right to re-file their motion in the event the parties' negotiations are unsuccessful. The Court further entered an order that the consent motion to reset submission date for plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot. The parties request to continue the submission date of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification until Sept. 4, 2024, because the parties are in actively engaged in discussions to negotiate an unopposed class definition. The Court is not inclined to continue a submission date for nearly three months while the parties determine whether the motion will be opposed. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t3ZLd6 at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON PETROLEUM: Sept. 4 Class Cert Filing Sought in Johnson --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, ET AL., v. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to continue the submission date for their Motion for Class Certification from June 26, 2024 until Sept. 4, 2024. The original submission date for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was set for May 29, 2024. On May 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Consent Motion to Reset the Submission Date for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pending discussions to negotiate an unopposed class definition. The Court granted the Consent Motion and reset the submission date for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to June 26, 2024. Because Plaintiffs and Defendants are still actively engaged in discussions to negotiate an unopposed class definition, they wish to continue the submission date for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until 10:00 a.m. on September 4, 2024, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KbNKxe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq. Daniel J. Dysart, Esq. Julie S. Meaders, Esq. Brennan F. O'Keefe, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com pthibodeaux@fishmanhaygood.com ddysart@fishmanhaygood.com jmeaders@fishmanhaygood.com bokeefe@fishmanhaygood.com - and - Hugh Lambert, Esq. Brian Mersman, Esq. LAMBERT ZAINEY SMITH & SOSO, APLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 E-mail: hlambert@lambertzainey.com bmersman@lambertzainey.com - and - Cayce C. Peterson, Esq. Joseph B. Marino, Esq. Jeffrey P. Green, Esq. JJC LAW LLC 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Heritage Plaza, Suite 810 Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 Facsimile: (504) 513-8824 E-mail: cayce@jjclaw.com josh@jjclaw.com jeff@jjclaw.com - and - Sylvia Elaine Taylor, Esq. Alicia McDowell, Esq. TAYLOR & MCDOWELL LAW 1935 W. Airline Hwy LaPlace, LA 70068 Telephone: (985) 359-9100 Facsimile: (985) 359-9109 E-mail: syvlia@taymclaw.com alicia@taymclaw.com MARIO'S AIR: Court Narrows Claims in Germain Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELENA GERMAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARIO'S AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING, INC., et al. Case No. 8:23-cv-00671-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered an order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss: (1) "Defendant, SEHS Hvac Mario's LLC's Opposed Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint and Dismiss Class Certification" and "Whitfield Management, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Under Rule 12(b)(6)" are granted in part and denied in part. (2) SEHS's motion is granted to the extent that Count I is dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend. The class allegations pertaining to the FTSA are stricken. (3) The motions are otherwise denied. (4) SEHS and WWM are directed to file answers on or before July 2, 2024. This case concerns alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") based on the receipt of two text messages. The Plaintiff Helena Germain, an individual residing in Florida, registered her phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. However, on Sept. 28, 2022, the Plaintiff received a text message purportedly on behalf of Mario's AC, reminding her to consider flipping off the breaker to her air conditioning unit during a hurricane. On Feb. 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Defendant Mario's removed the case to this Court on March 27, 2023. On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Mario's, SEHS Hvac Mario's LLC, and Whitwild Management, LLC as defendants. However, on April 16, 2024, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against Mario’s. On April 25, 2024, SEHS filed a motion to dismiss. On May 2, 2024, WWM filed a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff opposes both motions, and she has filed a notice of constitutional question in relation to SEHS's motion to dismiss. Mario's is an air conditioning contractor specializing in installation, maintenance, and repair services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FXxR5B at no extra charge.[CC] MARTINEZ REFINING: J. Piscitelli Dismissed as Named Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JOSEPH PISCITELLI and DAVID MALAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-04184-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, approves the Parties' stipulation dismissing Joseph Piscitelli as named Plaintiff, without prejudice to his claims. Plaintiffs Joseph Piscitelli and David Malan and Defendant Martinez Refining Company, LLC, by and through their respective counsel, agree and stipulate as follows pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Plaintiff Joseph Piscitelli filed this putative class action on Aug. 16, 2023. On April 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding an allegedly similarly situated Plaintiff, David Malan, to the case as a named Plaintiff and putative class representative. Plaintiff Joseph Piscitelli provided written responses to the Defendant's First Interrogatories and First Requests for Production of Documents on April 23, 2024. However, Mr. Piscitelli did not provide responsive documents to the Defendant's First Requests for Production of Documents and did not offer dates of availability to sit for a deposition. On June 4, 2024, the Parties submitted a stipulation to extend the scheduling order to permit additional time for Mr. Piscitelli to provide responsive discovery. On June 11, 2024, the Parties, through counsel, attended a telephonic case management conference, wherein the Court denied the Parties' request to extend the scheduling order. Mr. Piscitelli is no longer in a position to fulfill his duties as a proposed class representative and no longer wishes to act as a named Plaintiff in this case. He has authorized his counsel to seek his dismissal from the litigation as a named Plaintiff and proposed class representative, without prejudice to his claims or his rights to remain an unnamed class member. In Mr. Piscitelli's absence, the proposed class will continue to be represented by Plaintiff David Malan and counsel from Liddle Sheets Coulson P.C. The Parties assert that it is in the interest of justice to permit Mr. Piscitelli to be dismissed from this action, and his claims on behalf of an allegedly affected class of residents of Martinez, California, will continue to be advanced by Mr. Malan and his counsel from the class action firm of Liddle Sheets Coulson P.C. The Defendant stipulates to Mr. Piscitelli being dismissed from this action without prejudice. Accordingly, no party will be prejudiced by his dismissal as a named party to this action. The Parties request that the Court authorize this stipulation and/or enter an order dismissing Mr. Piscitelli from this action, without prejudice to his claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ywbyycjh from PacerMonitor.com. Mike M. Arias -- mike@aswtlawyers.com -- Arnold C. Wang -- arnold@aswtlawyers.com -- M. Anthony Jenkins -- anthony@aswtlawyers.com -- ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP, in Los Angeles, California 90045; Steven D. Liddle -- sliddle@lsccounsel.com -- Laura L. Sheets -- lsheets@lsccounsel.com -- Matthew Z. Robb -- mrobb@lsccounsel.com -- LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C., in Detroit, Michigan 48207, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Jane W. Kaufman -- jane.kaufman@alston.com -- Jason Levin -- jason.levin@alston.com -- Jennifer Bonneville -- jennifer.bonneville@alston.com -- Meaghan G. Boyd -- meaghan.boyd@alston.com -- Lisa L. Garcia -- lisa.garcia@alston.com -- Attorneys for the Defendant. MERCER UNIVERSITY: Koerner's Bid to Stay/Continue Hearing Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Tilman E. Self, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion to stay/continue hearing in the lawsuit captioned MARY KOERNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCER UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00083-TES (M.D. Ga.). On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff Mary Koerner filed this class action against Defendant Mercer University, alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Defendant notes its correct legal name is "The Corporation of Mercer University." On May 3, 2024, Mercer moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the Court subsequently scheduled a hearing on the matter, which was set for June 17, 2024. However, just five days before the hearing, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay/Continue the Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Engage in Limited Discovery. Essentially, despite that the Plaintiff selected this very Court for her lawsuit, she now questions whether it even has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Specifically, the Plaintiff points the Court to a provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), commonly called the "home-state exception," which provides that a district court "shall decline to exercise jurisdiction" over class actions in which "two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed." Attaching data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the Plaintiff contends that during the 2019-20 academic year, at least 86% of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates listed their state of residence as Georgia. The Plaintiff can't say whether this statistic extends to the entire student body--which would potentially push the class into the bounds of the home-state exception and, thus, preclude this Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Plaintiff requests that the Court (1) provide the parties with 30 days of jurisdictional discovery on the matter and (2) stay or continue the hearing on Mercer's Motion to Dismiss until it is resolved. Mercer opposes the Plaintiff's Motion, claiming that the Plaintiff's Motion feigns a desire to save the parties time and money and preserve judicial resources in an attempt to avoid this Court dismissing her claims with prejudice. On the jurisdictional question, Mercer directs the Court to Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., where the Eleventh Circuit admonished a removing defendant for contesting the jurisdiction that it asserted in its own removal documents. Although in a slightly different context, the Court agrees that Lowery may be instructive here. Likewise, Lowery also presents the question of whether the Court should immediately dismiss the Plaintiff's case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction before proceeding to the immediate motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay/Continue and defers ruling on her Motion to Engage in Limited Discovery. Judge Self says the parties should come prepared to discuss the merits of Mercer's Motion to Dismiss, the newly raised home-state exception issue and assuming the Court doesn't have jurisdiction under Lowery, whether the Court must dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint before it addresses the Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/jj58apep from PacerMonitor.com. META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal the Opposition to User Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel and accompanying exhibits. In accordance with the Court's Order, the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming omnibus sealing motion to be filed following the completion of all class certification and related Daubert briefing. Meta anticipates additional review of the materials to ensure that any requests for sealing are appropriately tailored. Redacted copies of the documents sought to be sealed have been publicly filed on the docket. Meta operates as a social technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SYBXCA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. David Z. Gringer, Esq. Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq. Ryan Chabot, Esq. Paul Vanderslice, Esq. Ari Holtzblatt, Esq. Molly M. Jennings, Esq. Michaela P. Sewall, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Alhindi Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ YOUSEF ALHINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00748 (M.D. Tenn., June 19, 2024) alleges violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class are vehicle owners who were mailed fake parking citations by the Defendant, and whose personal information the Defendant obtained, disclosed and used in violation of federal law. The government can access personal data for legitimate police purposes and private companies cannot access and use such data for commercial purposes, says the suit. Metropolis Technologies, Inc. develops tracking and reporting software. The Company specializes in tele management, call center, and call accounting solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary A. Parker, Esq. PARKER & CROFFORD 5115 Maryland Way Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 244-2445 Facsimile: (615) 255-6037 Email: mparker@parker-crofford.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Email: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 1025 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd., Ste 1532 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 Email: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOAMNA RODRIGUEZ, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Case No. 1:24-cv-20269-JB (S.D. Fla.), Miami-Dade County, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion requesting a five-day extension of time to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class as follows: 1. The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class in this matter that raises significant issues in this matter. The response is due June 21, 2024. 2. The Defendant's counsel needs additional time to review, analyze and complete the response to the motion to certify class. 3. Because of the time needed to prepare a response and duties on other matters, Defendant needs an additional five-day extension of time from the due date to prepare and file the Defendant’s response to the motion. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SdsjG2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eric A. Rodriguez, Esq. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Stephen P. Clark Center 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634 E-mail: ear2@miamidade.gov MICHAELS STORES: Seeks Partial Denial of Vigil Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VIGIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; DAK RESOURCES, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00163-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying class certification in part because the putative class improperly includes numerous individuals who are subject to binding arbitration agreements and therefore may not pursue their claims in this action. The Plaintiff Joseph Vigil asserts wage and hour claims against his alleged joint employer, on behalf of a putative class of hourly employees in California. On Nov. 28, 2022, Mr. Vigil filed this lawsuit, alleging Michaels and DAK jointly employed him. He claims he suffered various violations of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code while working at the distribution center. Mr. Vigil asserts his claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of individuals employed by Michaels in nonexempt positions in California since Nov. 28, 2018. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=26Rzb1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Dixie M. Morrison, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com jslowik@proskauer.com dmorrison@proskauer.com MINKA LIGHTING: Class Settlement in Medoff Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MEDOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MINKA LIGHTING, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08885-HDV-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court previously certified for settlement purposes a class defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose personal information was compromised in the Data Security Incidents that affected Minka Lighting, LLC from approximately December 16, 2021–April 5, 2022 and June 27, 2022–June 29, 2022." Furthermore, the Court finds that notice under the Class Action Fairness Act was effectuated within the time required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and that ninety (90) days has passed without comment or objection from any governmental entity. No Settlement Class Members have opted-out of or objected to the Settlement. Minka manufactures decorative lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yHlJrI at no extra charge.[CC] MOWI ASA: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Salmon Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------- Vince McDonagh, writing for Fish Farmer, reports that a group representing British consumers is pressing ahead with a claim for compensation from Norwegian salmon farmers over alleged price fixing -- and it has put a figure on it. The figures sought on behalf of UK shoppers is at least GBP382m (EUR450m) on the grounds that they have been overcharged by up to 20%. The action is against some of the biggest names in salmon farming including Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg. The claim was lodged at the weekend by Waterside Class Ltd, a company established to pursue the claim. Waterside said the action was being brought on behalf of millions of UK consumers. It said the defendants unlawfully colluded to increase global prices for farmed Atlantic salmon, leading to increases in the prices paid by consumers. It is also being suggested that the alleged cartel's behaviour drove farmed Atlantic salmon prices up to 20% higher than they otherwise would have been, much of which was passed on to consumers. According to the claim, the salmon companies participated in co-ordinated transactions and unlawfully exchanged information to drive farmed Atlantic salmon prices up. All the companies involved have previously denied all such allegations. The latest action, filed at the specialist UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, seeks redress of as much as GBP382m in compensation for consumers who bought certain farmed Atlantic salmon products from UK grocery retailers between October 2015 and May 2019. 'Cartel' allegations According to Waterside, the six defendants worked together to increase the price of farmed Atlantic salmon through various methods, according to the claim. The defendants are accused of manipulating benchmark prices for Norwegian Atlantic salmon by using related entities to purchase salmon at inflated prices, and unlawfully exchanging commercially sensitive information about the price and volumes of sales of farmed Atlantic salmon. Senior executives at rival companies allegedly planned to rig prices via email correspondence, and at various meetings and "working dinners". It is claimed that this was cartel behaviour and a breach of competition laws, which are designed to protect consumers. According to the claim, this unlawful overcharging of consumers continued until 31 May 2019, shortly after the European Commission raided the offices of various Atlantic salmon farmers as part of a major investigation into price-fixing in February 2019. In January 2024, the Commission expressed its preliminary view that various Norwegian companies, including Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy and Grieg, colluded to fix short-term farmed Atlantic salmon prices in Europe between 2011 and 2019. Waterside's sole director and representative, Anne Heal, was previously the Director of Regulatory Affairs at BT. She has set up an advisory panel of experts to offer additional guidance and support during the proceedings: -- Kate Wellington, former Lead Lawyer for Policy & Communications at the consumer champion group Which?; -- Helen Charlton, the current Chair of the Financial Services Consumer Panel; and -- Nicholas Spearing, an expert in competition law with more than 40 years of experience, and a former partner at law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Waterside has instructed law firm Simmons & Simmons and barristers Sarah Abram KC, Matthew Kennedy (both of Brick Court Chambers) and Camilla Cockerill (of 4 New Square Chambers) to represent it. Anne Heal said: "This action claims that some of the Atlantic salmon farming industry's biggest companies have conspired to raid the wallets of hard-working shoppers. This action aims to seek fair redress for the millions of British consumers who we say spent years overpaying for one of the UK's favourite and highly nutritious foods. "By bringing this collective action, I want to give a voice to affected consumers across the UK, and see them properly compensated for their losses. I also want to bring attention to market practices which harm consumers, and hold the defendant companies to account for their alleged wrongdoing." Meanwhile, UK retailers themselves are also pressing a claim for compensation over what they say is the cost them of collusion between the salmon producers. A broadly similar claim is also being pursued by the European Commission, but price fixing allegations in the United States and Canada were settled out of court last year. The companies concerned have strenuously denied allegations of price fixing in both the EU and North America, saying they only settled the US and Canadian cases to avoid lengthy and potentially costly legal action. The Norwegian companies have yet to respond to the weekend action by Waterside Class Ltd. [GN] NASHVILE BOOTING: Class Action Settlement in Ladd Wins Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LADD and NICHOLAS BRINDLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NASHVILE BOOTING, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00626 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the settlement of this action, as embodied in the terms of the Settlement Agreement, is preliminarily approved as a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement in the best interests of the Class, in light of the factual, legal, practical, and procedural considerations raised. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement's plan for class notice is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies the requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). That plan is approved and adopted. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall create the website (NashvilleBootingSettlement.com) with the content reflected in the Settlement Agreement and to notify the previously identified class members with the following text message: This text is being sent to you by court order in Ladd v. Nashville Booting because you may be part of a preliminarily approved class action judgment against Nashville Booting. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall send to Defendant’s counsel, within seven (7) days of entry of this Order, instructions for transmittal of the $25,000 lump sum payment amount. Upon receipt of those instructions, the Defendant shall send payment of the $25,000 lump sum amount to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s client trust fund account within twenty-one (21) days by check or wire. Once that payment is received, Plaintiffs’ counsel is authorized to disburse those funds to reimburse the litigation costs it has previously advanced for the Class ($3,700), as well as to pay the costs of the approved class notice program ($6,300). Plaintiffs’ counsel is to hold the remaining balance ($15,000) until the Court addresses the distribution of that money. Nashville is a parking enforcement company providing free parking enforcement services for their clients. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jKl8Hn at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL MENTOR: Court Allows Hagans to File Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sharon A. King of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit titled JOHN HAGANS, et al., Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00128-KMW-SAK (D.N.J.). The matter is before the Court on the motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add the New Jersey Department of Human Services ("NJDHS") as a defendant filed by Plaintiffs John Hagans and Vivian Hagans. The Court received the opposition of Defendant National Mentor Healthcare, LLC. The Court exercises its discretion to decide the motion without oral argument. The Plaintiffs filed this collective and putative class action alleging that the Defendant violated state and federal wage and hour laws by misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees. Pursuant to the April 13, 2022 Scheduling Order, fact discovery closed on Jan. 13, 2023, while the deadline to seek to amend the pleadings expired on Oct. 13, 2022. The time between the deadline to amend the pleadings and the close of fact discovery was three months. Since the April 13, 2022 Scheduling Order was entered, four Amended Scheduling Orders were issued, each further extending the deadlines for fact discovery. However, Judge King notes, none of these amended orders included an extension of the deadline to seek to amend the pleadings. At a status conference on March 28, 2024, Andrew Frisch, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiffs, advised the Court that he realized the State of New Jersey is an appropriate defendant, and that he would seek leave to amend the complaint to add this proposed defendant. Mr. Frisch represented that discovery was ongoing and that the parties were attempting to schedule depositions. Monica Nugent, Esquire, counsel for the Defendant, agreed with Mr. Frisch's representations, adding that she expected the production of documents to be completed shortly. Although all but the April 13, 2022 scheduling orders were silent as to the deadline to amend the pleadings, the Court found good cause to extend this deadline to April 9, 2024. The parties were still in the midst of discovery--paper discovery was not yet completed, and depositions had not yet begun. On April 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and Local Rule 15.1. The Plaintiffs assert that discovery disputes and the complexity of this collective/putative class action led to delays in discovery, and the consequential delay in identifying "all appropriate defendants." They contend that they have now completed sufficient discovery to identify NJDHS as an appropriate defendant. The Defendant objects to the Plaintiffs' motion, contending that it has repeatedly advised them, and provided to them, discovery about NJDHS' direct involvement in their and Opt-In Plaintiffs' status as Community Care Providers ("CCPs"). The Defendant claims that it was well-known to the Plaintiffs that their status as CCPs is governed by New Jersey regulations. Thus, it argues, the Plaintiffs' claim that delayed discovery resulted in the delay in identifying NJDHS as a defendant is "inconsistent with record evidence." Nevertheless, the Defendant concedes the proposed amendment will not result in severe prejudice to the defense, as discovery is ongoing and depositions have not yet occurred. In determining whether leave to amend should be granted, Judge King points out that courts consider the following factors: (1) undue delay on the part of the party seeking to amend; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive behind the amendment; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies through multiple prior amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; and/or (5) futility of the amendment, citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), among other cases. The Court finds that an analysis of the Foman factors weigh in favor of allowing the proposed amendment. Accordingly, for all these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs must file and serve their Amended Complaint within seven (7) days from the date of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3rteunas from PacerMonitor.com. NEW HAMPSHIRE: G.K. Allowed to Supplement Reports of 4 Experts -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire grants the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement experts' reports in the lawsuit captioned G.K., by their next friend, Katherine Cooper, et al. v. Christopher Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.). The Plaintiffs in this putative class action have moved to supplement the reports of four experts, who filed declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants object, arguing that the untimely supplemental declarations should be excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). Based on the totality of the circumstances, Judge Barbadoro concludes that preclusion is unwarranted and, therefore, grants the Plaintiffs' motion. Four adolescents in the legal custody of the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) filed a putative class action complaint against several state officials challenging the state's operation of its foster care system. The complaint alleged that the Defendants are violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, by unnecessarily placing older foster youth with mental impairments in congregate care facilities rather than community-based foster homes. The complaint further alleged that the Defendants are violating the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) by failing to comply with federal case planning requirements. The Plaintiffs also brought a claim under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Court dismissed. The Named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of: All children, ages 14 through 17, who: (1) are, or will be, in the legal custody or under the protective supervision of DCYF under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 169-C:3 (XVII) and/or (XXV); (2) have a mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or have a record of such an impairment; and (3) currently are, or are at serious risk of being, unnecessarily placed in congregate care settings. Following a partially successful motion to dismiss and a preliminary pretrial conference, the Court approved a joint discovery plan in March 2022. In that plan, the parties agreed to proceed with merits and class certification discovery simultaneously and the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to file a motion for class certification as soon as is practicable. Discovery disputes began almost immediately, requiring the Court to rule on multiple motions to compel, as well as several motions to continue and extend the deadlines outlined in the initial discovery plan. Consequently, the Plaintiffs were unable to obtain all requested discovery before filing their motion for class certification in March 2023. For example, Judge Barbadoro explains, due to the volume of material and the relatively disorganized nature of their records, the Defendants were unable to produce the case files of all putative class members until May 2023--five months after the Court's initial production deadline and two months after the Plaintiffs had filed their motion for class certification. Similarly, the Defendants did not produce accurate data reflecting the placement histories of older foster youth (referred to by the parties as "Interrogatory 1.2 data") until nearly three months after the Plaintiffs' experts had submitted their declarations analyzing an earlier, and admittedly flawed, dataset. The Defendants also redacted some discovery materials and withheld others. For example, the Defendants initially produced a redacted "CAT dataset," which detailed the level-of-care recommendations from the CAT assessment tool that the Defendants use to guide their placement decisions, but did not produce an unredacted version of the dataset until November 2023. The Defendants also withheld certain electronically stored information (ESI) production after the Plaintiffs refused to agree to a clawback provision. Production of the withheld ESI discovery did not begin until October 2023 and is still ongoing today. Although the Plaintiffs were aware of these discovery deficiencies, they did not seek to extend the class certification briefing deadlines. Rather, the Plaintiffs opted to move forward on an expedited basis out of concern that the Named Plaintiffs' claims would become moot if they were to exit DCYF custody before the Court ruled on class certification. The motion for class certification became fully ripe in August 2023 and the Court held a motion hearing in November 2023. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs argued that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) was satisfied because the Plaintiffs' claims challenged three "well-defined common practices" of the Defendants: the use of congregate care as "default placements;" the use of congregate care as "long-term housing;" and the systematic failure "to provide and maintain timely, accurate, and legally sufficient case plans." The Plaintiffs identified various underlying causes of these practices, including (1) the disproportionate funding of congregate care placements over community placements; (2) the failure to adequately recruit and train qualified foster parents; (3) the failure to identify and utilize kinship placements; and (4) reliance on a flawed CAT assessment tool to guide placement decisions. Immediately after the hearing, the parties agreed to stay litigation in order to pursue mediation. While mediation was ongoing, the last of the Named Plaintiffs exited DCYF custody and the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a fifth named plaintiff, D.M. The parties were ultimately unable to reach a resolution, and mediation came to a close in April 2024. Two weeks later, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to supplement the record with additional reports from their four experts. The Plaintiffs argue that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), they should be permitted to supplement the class certification record with the additional expert declarations and supporting exhibits in order to incorporate and respond to evidence provided by the Defendants after the initial expert reports were submitted in March 2023. The Plaintiffs' motion seeks to supplement the reports of Bryan Victor, Tracey Feild, Daryl Chansuthus, and Theodore Cross, all of whom filed expert reports under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Barbadoro notes that the opinions in the Plaintiffs' proffered supplemental reports, broadly speaking, fall into two categories. Some of the opinions pertain solely to D.M., the newly-added plaintiff, in order to demonstrate that D.M. is an appropriate class representative. The remainder of the opinions analyze the Defendants' placement and case planning practices in order to establish the existence of system-wide failures and identify the discrete causes of these failures. Judge Barbadoro concludes that the Plaintiffs are substantially justified in supplementing their expert opinions with analysis of D.M.'s ability to serve as a suitable class representative. The need to add a new plaintiff did not arise until the last of the original four named plaintiffs exited DCYF custody in January 2024. Because the Plaintiffs could not have foreseen the need for analysis of D.M. when they filed their initial expert reports in March 2023, they are substantially justified in supplementing their expert disclosures with opinions that pertain to D.M.'s ability to serve as a class representative. Considering each of these factors under the totality of the circumstances, Judge Barbadoro concludes that preclusion is not an appropriate sanction under Rule 37(c)(1). Rather, the more appropriate course is to allow the Plaintiffs to supplement their expert reports with the supplemental declarations and accompanying exhibits but provide the Defendants with an adequate opportunity to respond to the new reports. For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their expert declarations. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cpvy2mu from PacerMonitor.com. NEW HAMPSHIRE: GK Can File Supplement on Expert Declarations ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., by their next friend, Katherine Cooper et al., v. Christopher Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their expert declarations. Judge Barbadoro concluded that preclusion is not an appropriate sanction under Rule 37(c)(1). Rather, the more appropriate course is to allow the plaintiffs to supplement their expert reports with the supplemental declarations and accompanying exhibits but provide the defendants with an adequate opportunity to respond to the new reports. The plaintiffs in this putative class action have moved to supplement the reports of four experts who filed declarations in support of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants object, arguing that the untimely supplemental declarations should be excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). Based on the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that preclusion is unwarranted and therefore grant the plaintiffs' motion. Four adolescents in the legal custody of the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) filed a putative class action complaint against several state officials challenging the state's operation of its foster care system. The complaint alleged that the defendants are violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, by unnecessarily placing older foster youth with mental impairments in congregate care facilities rather than community-based foster homes. The complaint further alleged that the defendants are violating the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA), by failing to comply with federal case planning requirements. The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of: "All children, ages 14 through 17, who: (1) are, or will be, in the legal custody or under the protective supervision of DCYF under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:3 (XVII) and/or (XXV); (2) have a mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or have a record of such an impairment; and (3) currently are, or are at serious risk of being, unnecessarily placed in congregate care settings." A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=goIsGK at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Hall-Landers Seeks to Certify Undergrads Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY E. HALL-LANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (c): 1. Certifying a class of New York University undergraduate students as follows: "All undergraduate students enrolled in classes at New York University at one of NYU's New York campuses during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition. 2. Appointing Casey E. Hall-Landers as class representative; and 3. Appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z8MvoC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq. Jospeh I. Marchese, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com jwolloch@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to July 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wells, et al., v. Northeast Behavioral Health Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-11256 (D. Mass., Filed May 10, 2024), the Hon. William G. Young Judge entered an order granting assented to motion for extension of time to July 8, 2024, to file response as to first motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose One-Step Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA WELLS, JEANNETTE HOLLAND, and MARTIN MCCRAY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORPORATION, JENNIFER CULLEN, and HILARY JACOBS, Case No. 1:24-cv-11256-WGY (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Defendants to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' "Motion for One-Step Notice Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act" to July 8, 2024. The Defendants intend to oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion, and they need additional time to gather and analyze information from multiple sources, while seeking to avoid disrupting the vacation schedules of the Defendants' representatives and in-house counsel, especially around the July 4th holiday. The Defendants will be able to submit their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion by no later than July 8, 2024, sixteen days before the scheduled argument. The Plaintiffs assent to the Defendants' request for an extension of the deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to the Motion. No Scheduling Order has yet been entered by this Court. Granting this assented-to motion for extension for time will not alter or impact the Court's trial calendar and will not prejudice either party. The Plaintiffs' motion was filed on June 7, 2024. The Plaintiffs' motion is scheduled for oral argument on July 24, 2024. Northeast is a detox and inpatient drug and alcohol rehab center. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XYGSel at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Scott A. Roberts, Esq. Julia E. Russo, Esq. HIRSCH ROBERTS WEINSTEIN LLP One Liberty Square, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 348-4300 Facsimile: (617) 348-4343 E-mail: sroberts@hrwlawyers.com jrusso@hrwlawyers.com OKLAHOMA: Parties Seek Initial OK of Proposed Consent Decree ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as (1) LESLIE BRIGGS, as next friend of T.W. and B.S.; (2) EVAN WATSON, as next friend of C.R.; and, (3) HENRY A. MEYER, III, as next friend of A.M., for themselves and for others similarly situated, v. (1) ALLIE FRIESEN in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; and (2) DEBBIE MORAN, in her official capacity as Interim Executive Director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (i) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Consent Decree that (among other things) certifies a settlement Class, appoints Class Counsel, and adopts a remedial Plan to resolve Plaintiffs' claims; (ii) approving the forms and plan of Notice to the Class; and (iii) setting a hearing 60 days after granting this Motion to determine the final approval of the Consent Decree. The proposed Consent Decree, which has been agreed to and finalized by the Parties' counsel, is attached as Exhibit 1. In accordance with the proposed Consent Decree, and Rule 23(e), the Parties stipulate to, and request that the Court certify, the following Class under Rule 23(b)(2): "All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Oklahoma State court and are: (i) declared incompetent to stand trial by the state court; (ii) court- ordered to receive competency restoration services by the Department or its designees; (iii) incarcerated in a county jail or similar detention facility while their criminal cases are stayed; and (iv) awaiting court-ordered competency restoration services to be provided by the Department or its designees, whether or not placed on a competency waitlist maintained by the Department or its designees." In this action, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the prolonged waiting periods to receive competency restoration treatment while incarcerated in county jails violated the Class Members' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs seek only injunctive, non-monetary relief, and class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gHaZLL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul DeMuro, Esq. Frederic Dorwart, Esq. David Leimbach, Esq. FREDERIC DORWART, LAWYERS PLLC Old City Hall, 124 East 4th Street Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 583-9922 Facsimile: (918) 583-8251 E-mail: pdemuro@fdlaw.com fdorwart@fdlaw.com - and - Nick Southerland, Esq. Brian S. Wilkerson, Esq. OKLAHOMA DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC. 2816 E. 51st Street, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74105 Telephone: (918) 743-6220 Facsimile: (918) 743-7157 E-mail: nick@okdlc.org brian@okdlc.org The Defendants are represented by: Gentner Drummond, Esq. Erin M. Moore, Esq. Tracy E. Neel, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL GENTNER DRUMMOND 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 Facsimile: (405) 521-4518 E-mail: Erin.Moore@oag.ok.gov Tracy.neel@oag.ok.gov OLO INC: S.D. New York Amends Final Order in Steamship Trade Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Amended Final Order and Judgment granting final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled 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.). On June 11, 2024, the Court issued a Final Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Now, having reviewed the June 14, 2024 letter of Amanda F. Lawrence requesting modification of the Final Approval Order, the Court modifies the Final Approval Order by substituting Exhibit A originally incorporated in the Final Approval Order with the Exhibit A, attached in this Amended Order. Exhibit A contains a list of those who filed Requests for Exclusion. A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Final Order and Judgment dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhe3mffa from PacerMonitor.com. ONIX GROUP: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ONIX GROUP, LLC DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-02288-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marston entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and revised Settlement Agreement, Notices, and Claim Form. -- The Court will schedule a final approval hearing. -- The parties' proposed settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel with the help of an experienced mediator. -- Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted. Thus, the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and does not otherwise reveal any deficiencies. It is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and that presumption is supported by the Girsh factors, seven of which weigh in favor of approval and two of which are neutral.13 c. Notice The Court is also satisfied that the form and content of the revised notice to the settlement class is adequate. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to adequately safeguard sensitive personal information entrusted to it by its customers, despite the foreseeability of a data breach. The Plaintiff proposes a class of: "All 308,942 natural persons whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach and who have not been confirmed to be deceased." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges presiding over the Action and members of their immediate families and their staff; (2) Onix, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Onix or its parents, have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; (3) natural persons who properly execute and submit a Request for Exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any such excluded natural person. The settlement requires Defendant to create a $1,250,000 non-reversionary settlement fund which will be used to pay for administrative expenses, taxes, any service award, and any fee award and costs. Onix is a construction company. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWTbaJ at no extra charge.[CC] OUTOKUMPO STAINLESS: Callier Bid to Compel Discovery Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS CALLIER, et al., v. OUTOKUMPO STAINLESS USA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00521-JB-N (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Katherine P. Nelson entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery: Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is denied as to RFPs No. 2-4 on the basis that OTK has affirmed its production of all records responsive to these requests. However, OTK is ordered to formally amend and/or supplement its response to reflect that it has produced all documents in its possession response to this request by no later than July 12, 2024. To the extent any party feels they may be entitled to an award of reasonable expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) in connection with the disposition of Plaintiffs' motion to compel, that party must file and serve a motion for such expenses, supported by adequate briefing and evidence showing both entitlement to such expenses and the reasonableness of the amounts requested by no later than July 19, 2024. Outokumpu is a global stainless steel manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VFxkR6 at no extra charge.[CC] PANORAMA EYE: Faces Jones Class Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- SARAH JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PANORAMA EYE CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-0173 (D. Colo., June 21, 2024) arises after cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the Private Information of Plaintiffs, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect Plaintiff's and Class Member's Private Information—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendant is an eye care management company based in Fort Collins, Colorado that serves eye care providers throughout Colorado and Wyoming. As a part of providing those services, Defendant acquired and maintained the personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") of consumers, including Plaintiff. On June 3, 2023, the Defendant discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. The Data Breach took place from May 22, 2023, to June 4, 2023. Following an investigation that concluded on or about May 9, 2024, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to consumer's Private Information, including but not limited names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers/state IDs, financial account information, dates of service, and medical provider names. On June 5, 2024 -- more than a year after the Data Breach occurred – the Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's Notice Letter obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted -- refusing to tell victims how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when it discovered the breach, or why it took Defendant nine months to finally begin notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information.  The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information, says the suit.       Accordingly, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL, Esq.3301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Court Restricts Public Access to Green's Docs ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE GREEN and ANDERSON KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD; PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE OF COLORADO, LLC, collectively d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE; and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-00023-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to restrict public access to certain documents filed in support of their motion for class certification finding the subject motion meets the requirements as outlined in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c). A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eAkOsY at no extra charge.[CC] PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Green Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE GREEN and ANDERSON KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD; PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE OF COLORADO, LLC, collectively d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE; and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-00023-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certify the following class: "All of Defendants' current and former employees who worked as servers in at least one week in Colorado within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and who were paid a subminimum hourly wage pursuant to Colorado Wage Law." Perry's pays all servers at its Colorado location a subminimum hourly wage and claims a "tip credit" for a portion of the tips servers receive from customers to offset Perry's obligation to pay the required minimum wage under Colorado state law. Perry's also required all servers to participate in a mandatory tip pooling arrangement. All class members were paid a subminimum hourly wage to perform a number of non-tipped duties, both related and unrelated to their tipped occupation as servers. All of Perry’s servers, regardless of the location, are required to perform, and spend a large amount of their work time performing non-tipped "side work" at the beginning and ending of each shift, as well as continuous side work duties during their shift. Perry's operate the Perry's Steakhouse and Grille in Lone Tree, Colorado. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4ug99 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: 617-994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and – Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com PINNACLE CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arroyo Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOEL ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE CITY LIVING, LLC; and BFC PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04335 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 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 Arroyo was employed by the Defendants as a superintendent. Pinnacle City Living, LLC specializes in managing New York City residential buildings, providing tailored multifamily solutions for all asset types. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 Email: Jason@levinepstein.com PRIMMER PIPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA GABORIAULT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PRIMMER, PIPER, EGGLESTON, & CRAMER, P.C., AND JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-wks (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge William K. Sessions III entered an stipulated discovery schedule/order: Event Proposed Deadline Proposed Deadline (Plaintiff) (Defendant) Deadline to Amend Pleadings Feb. 3, 2025 Feb. 3, 2025 and Add Parties Deadline for Completion of March 31, 2025 March 31, 2025 Class Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 30, 2025 April 30, 2025 Certification and Class Certification Expert Reports Defendant's Opposition May 30, 2025 May 30, 2025 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants Class Certification Expert Reports Plaintiffs' Reply in Support June 20, 2025 June 20, 2025 of Motion for Class Certification and Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Reports Class Certification Expert March 31, 2025 March 31, 2025 Discovery Complete 6. The Early Neutral Evaluation session shall be conducted thirty (30) days following decision on class certification. The parties will propose the early neutral evaluator. The case is a data breach class action arising out of a November 2021 cyberattack on Defendant. As a result of that data breach, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members have been placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing risk of harm from identity theft and identity fraud, requiring them to take time and effort to mitigate the actual and potential impact of the incident on their lives. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to safeguard highly sensitive Protected Health Information ("PHI") including but not limited to medical information, names, health insurance information and policy numbers, diagnosis and clinical information, physician name and practice type, medical history, medical procedure information, medical record numbers, test results and lab reports, treatment type and location, as well as Personal Identifying Information ("PII") including names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account numbers, dates of birth, online credentials, tax identification numbers, passport numbers and/or electronic signatures which Plaintiff alleges Defendant collected from Plaintiff and/or Class Members. Primmer is a New England-based law firm focused on meeting the legal needs of businesses, institutions, and organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OnHYbG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com - and - Andrew B. Delaney, Esq. MARTIN DELANEY &RICCI LAW GROUP 100 North Main Street Barre, VT 05641 Telephone: (802) 479-0568 E-mail: andrew@mdrvt.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew S. Borick, Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC 199 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802)-863-2375 E-mail: mborick@drm.com - and - Christopher J. Seusing, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP 33 Riverside Avenue, Suite 502 Westport, CT 06880 Telephone: (475)-755-7040 E-mail: cseusing@wshblaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 24, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TOBIN, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05061-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order adopting case management conference and modifying the Order: Event Deadline Deadline to serve initial disclosures June 28, 2024 Deadline to amend the pleadings and/or Nov. 20, 2024 join new parties, except to narrow the operative alleged class definition Close of Fact Discovery Jan. 24, 2025 Deadline to narrow the operative class Jan. 24, 2025 definition Deadline to file motion for class Jan. 24, 2025 certification and Plaintiff's expert reports supporting the motion Deadline to complete document Feb. 28, 2025 production and depositions for Plaintiff's experts re: class certification Deadline to file opposition to motion April 4, 2025 for class certification and Defendant's expert reports supporting the opposition Deadline to complete document production May 16, 2025 and depositions for Defendant's experts re: class certification Deadline to file reply in support of June 6, 2025 motion for class certification, including any rebuttal expert reports Hearing on motion for class certification Aug. 1, 2025 Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zc0SF5 at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Volino's Bid for Deal Approval Due July 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DOMINICK VOLINO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directs the Plaintiff to file the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement by July 1, 2024. The Court has been informed that the parties have reached a settlement in principle in this case. Accordingly, any pending motions other than motions to seal are denied as moot, and all conferences are canceled. The Plaintiff will file the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement by July 1, 2024. The Clerk of Court is requested to close the motions at Dkts. 305, 313, 321, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 13, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n75mwrs from PacerMonitor.com. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Stays Watson Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WATSON, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, V. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-00203-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny Reeves entered an order granting motion to stay pending resolution of re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 23-0508 (6th Cir. April 30, 2024). Proceeding with this case while potentially relevant issues are pending appellate review would only require additional resources by the parties at a later time if the Clippinger decision provides guidance contrary regarding any issue this Court might decide in the intervening period. The Plaintiff Melissa Watson filed this purported class action on Aug. 4, 2022, seeking to challenge Progressive's method for determining the actual cash value ("ACV") of a total loss vehicle. She argues that Progressive calculates and applies its adjustment in a way that "thumbs the scale" against the insured. Ms. Watson subsequently filed a motion for class certification on Feb. 2, 2024. Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=diqRAM at no extra charge.[CC] PURPLE INNOVATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 30, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASON JULIAN and ALEXANDER TAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PURPLE INNOVATION, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01078-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting joint stipulation pertaining to the case schedule: Event/Action Jointly Proposed Deadlines Initial Disclosures June 28, 2024 Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Expert Simultaneously with filing Names and General Subject Matter of motion for class certification Class Certification Motion Jan. 30, 2025 Defendant's Disclosure of Expert Simultaneously with filing Names and General Subject Matter of class certification opposition Class Certification Opposition Feb. 27, 2025 Fact Discovery Completion (for 90 days after decision on Non-expert discovery) class certification Class Certification Reply March 13, 2025 Motion for Class Certification March 27, 2025 Hearing Joint Case Management Statement April 11, 2025 Further Case Management Conference April 18, 2025 Purple designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other comfort products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OiPDf3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Ellen S. Robbins, Esq. Caroline Mankey, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 601 W. Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: ellen.robbins@akerman.com Caroline.mankey@akerman.com QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: Class Settlement in Dunne Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DUNNE, v. QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05535-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for approval of preliminary approval of the settlement and class certification with certain exceptions. -- The Court will not enter Plaintiff’s proposed order given the deficiencies identified above with respect to notice. -- The parties shall file a new proposed notice and a new proposed order that correct the deficiencies identified in this order no later than July 18, 2024. -- The Court defers the scheduling of a hearing on final approval of the proposed class action settlement until after the parties submit a proposed notice to class members that addresses the deficiencies identified in this order. -- The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to amend his complaint is granted. On June 14, 2023, the Plaintiff Timothy Dunne filed a class and collective action complaint to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Quantum. The Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA"), the Washington Rebate Act ("WRA"), and the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"). There are approximately 126 members in the proposed settlement class, which includes all individuals who: (1) resided in Washington State or Oregon, (2) were employed by Defendant, (3) in the position of maintenance technician or maintenance manager, (4), and who were paid on an hourly rate, (5) at any time from June 14, 2020 to June 14, 2023. (Dkt. No. 31-1 at 2.) Participating class members shall be all Oregon class members who opt in and Washington class members who do not submit a written and valid opt out The total settlement amount is $150,000. (Id. at 3.) Out of this, the following payments will be made: (1) $5,000 to the named plaintiff as a service award, (2) $60,000 to cover the attorney fees of Plaintiff’s counsel, and (3) $10,000 for settlement administrative costs. (Id. at 3–4.) After these payments are made, the remainder of the settlement funds will be available for distribution to the participating class members. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ShrtMM at no extra charge.[CC] QUEBEC MARITIMES: Court Rejects Appeal to End Hazing Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal against the authorization of a class-action lawsuit involving the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League and its teams over hazing abuse. In a decision today, Justice Sophie Lavallee says the appeal by the QMJHL, the league's 18 teams and its umbrella organization -- the Canadian Hockey League -- did not meet the strict criteria needed to end the lawsuit. The class action was filed last year by Carl Latulippe, a former Quebec minor hockey star who went public with alleged abuse suffered while playing for two teams in the mid-1990s. The lawsuit authorized by Quebec Superior Court on April 10 seeks $650,000 for Latulippe in damages, including pain, suffering and humiliation, as well as lost productivity and therapy costs, and seeks another $15 million to be shared among other alleged victims. The league had appealed on the grounds that the main applicant, Latulippe, had no link to "almost the totality" of the teams targeted in the lawsuit. Lavallee says the Superior Court judge did not make errors in law and that details of which party is jointly responsible for damages will be debated later. Those covered in the class action are "all hockey players who have experienced abuse while they were minors and playing in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League" since July 1, 1969. The league was renamed the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League last year. [GN] R&G BRENNER: Court Recommends Certifying Income Tax Preparer Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVE CINAR, CELESTE DRAYTON, NICOLE ADOLPHUS, DARLENE RIERA, and STUART BARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R&G BRENNER INCOME TAX, LLC, SUMMIT CONSULTANTS, INC., APEX PLANNING INC., and BENJAMIN K. BRENNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01362-RPK-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James R. Cho recommends granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of: "all income tax preparers who worked for defendants from March 13, 2014 until the present. A copy of this Report and Recommendation is being electronically served on counsel." The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants own and operate a tax preparation business that maintains offices in the New York metropolitan area, doing business as R&G Brenner Income Tax Centers, also known as, R&G Brenner Income Tax Consultants. The Plaintiffs each worked as income tax preparers for R&G Brenner at different offices.[CC] A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dBw1EF at no extra charge.[CC] RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HERNANDEZ Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01861-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order certifying the following class for purposes of their claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL"), in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)" "All persons who purchased one or more of the following PetSafe products in the State of California between October 2018 and October 2022: Stay & Play Wireless Fence with Replaceable Battery Collar; Stay & Play Wireless Fence for Stubborn Dogs; Stay & Play Compact Wireless Fence; Wireless Pet Containment System; Pawz Away Mini Pet Barrier; Pawz Away Indoor Pet Barrier; Pawz Away Outdoor Pet Barrier; In-Ground Fence; Stubborn Dog In-Ground Fence; Little Dog Deluxe In-Ground Fence; Deluxe In-Ground Cat Fence; YardMax Rechargeable In-Ground Fence; Basic In- Ground Fence; Rechargeable In-Ground Fence; YardMax Cordless In-Ground Fence; Classic In- Ground Fence; Rechargeable Bark Control Collar; Lite Rechargeable Bark Collar; Bark Collar; and Basic Bark Control Collar. Excluded from this class are governmental entities, Defendant Radio Systems Corporation, any entity in which RSC has a controlling interest, and RSC's officers, directors, affiliates, representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the class are any judges, justices, or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d60Xhd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law dpulgram@sjk.law RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Grady Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GRADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RCM TECHNOLOGIES, INCCase No. e 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order certifying the following Class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All individuals with a nursing degree or certificate who Defendant RCM Technologies, (USA) Inc., employed and assigned through its Travel Division to work at a location in California owned, operated, or overseen by one or more of RCM's clients at any time from October 8, 2017 until the date of the Class Notice." The Plaintiff moves to certify the following four subclasses within this broader Class: -- Covid Testing (A) All Class Members RCM placed to provide or assist in the provision of Covid testing with respect to claims for failure to provide compliant meal and/or rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, under California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; and IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001, parag. 7, 11 & 12 (Second and Third Causes of Action), including any claims for statutory penalties, civil penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief arising out of such alleged violations (Sixth-Eighth Causes of Action); (B) All Class Members placed to provide or assist in the provision of Covid testing with respect to claims for failure to pay for all hours worked, including but not limited to overtime, under California Labor Code section 201, 202, 204, 221-223, 510, 1194, 1198; and Wage Order No. 5-2001, parag. 3, 5, 7 (First and Fourth Causes of Action), including any claims for statutory penalties, civil penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief arising out of such alleged violations (Sixth-Eighth Causes of Action); -- Healthcare Facilities Not Limited to Covid Testing (C) All Class Members RCM placed in a healthcare facility listed in Wage Order 5-2001, parag 2(J), other than home health agencies, to perform nursing duties other than or in addition to Covid testing, with respect to claims for failure to provide compliant meal and/or rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, under California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; and IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001, parag 7, 11 & 12 (Second and Third Causes of Action), including any claims for statutory penalties, civil penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief arising out of such alleged violations (Sixth-Eighth Causes of Action); (D) All Class Members RCM placed in a healthcare facility listed in Wage Order 5-2001, ¶ 2(J), other than home health agencies, to perform nursing duties other than or in addition to Covid testing, with respect to claims for failure to pay for all hours worked, including but not limited to overtime, under California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 221-223, 510, 1194, 1198; and Wage Order No. 5-2001, parag 3, 5, 7 (First and Fourth Causes of Action), including any claims for statutory penalties, civil penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief arising out of such alleged violations (Sixth-Eighth Causes of Action); Members of the Class and each Subclass can be ascertained by Defendant's employment records, which track names, dates of employment, and client assignments. The Plaintiff further moves to be appointed as a representative for the class under FRCP 23(a)(4) and for her counsel to appointed as class counsel under FRCP 23(g)(1) & (4). This case is about a company (Defendant RCM Technologies) that abdicates its affirmative legal duty to provide meal and rest periods to its employees, and prevent off-the-clock work, by relying on its clients to perform that function for it. Specifically, RCM is a "business and technologies solutions" company that employs nurses to work at locations operated by its clients on a temporary basis when the clients do not have sufficient staffing of their own. But while RCM's clients may need the extra labor, they have no contractual or legal obligation to safeguard the rights of the RCM employees, who are only there on a short-term basis. If anything, RCM's clients have a financial disincentive, as they pay RCM by the hour for the time credited to the nurses. RCM's clients are also understandably pre occupied by other matters, such as running their own operations, particularly during the high-surge and chaotic times brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic. RCM's failure to adopt wage and hour procedures, other than to promulgate generic policies and wait for complaints, violated the legal rights of its temporary nurse employees as a class and all too often left them in the lurch while trying to perform their job through some of the busiest and most difficult times. Barbara Ann Grady worked as a temporary nurse for Defendant RCM Technologies (USA), Inc. (RCM) during the Covid-19 pandemic. dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrzVhz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua G. Konecky, Esq. Nathan B. Piller, Esq SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com RED TIGER: Court Tosses Ni Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ni v. Red Tiger Dumpling House Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03269 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 6, 2019), Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown entered an order: -- denying motion to certify class; and -- adopting Report and Recommendations as to Report and Recommendations. Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation, dated May 29, 2024, of Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke, recommending that the Court deny plaintiff's motion for class certification. The time to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72, this Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds Judge Locke's Report and Recommendation to be exceedingly thorough, well-reasoned, and free from clear error. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] REGAL CAPITAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Murray Due July 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAWFORD MURRAY, v. REGAL CAPITAL GROUP LLC and ZACHARY RAMIREZ, Case No. 3:23-cv-00973-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered a case management and scheduling order: Deadline for moving to join a party or amend July 25, 2024 the pleadings: Deadline for disclosing expert reports. Plaintiff: May 13, 2025 Defendant: May 27, 2025 Rebuttal: June 10, 2025 Deadline for completing discovery and filing July 17, 2025 motions to compel: Deadline for moving for class certification: July 24, 2025 Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Aug. 1, 2025 motions (responses due 21 days after service): Mediation Deadline: May 20, 2025 Deadline for filing all other motions including Nov. 24, 2025 motions in limine: Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial Dec. 8, 2025 statement. Date and time of the final pretrial conference: Dec. 15, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=luvaT8 at no extra charge.[CC] RELIANT LIFE: Reed Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES REED, et al., v. RELIANT LIFE SHARES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08577-SB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Aug. 2, 2024, to certify the following class under Rule 23(a) and/or Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") as follows: As against Reliant Life Shares, LLC, Reliant Grantor, LLC and Scott Grady ("Reliant Defendants") As to Counts 1-4 and Count 6: "All investors in Reliant Life Shares, LLC's life settlement investment program who purchased fractionalized shares of an insurance policy and who were beneficiaries under one or more of the Reliant Life Shares, LLC trusts from July 30, 2013 or anytime thereafter through June 21, 2023; ("the Class")"; As to Count 5: Elder Abuse Subclass: "All members of the Class who were 65 years of age or older at the time of their investment." Excluded from the Class are those Class members whose policies matured and distributed prior to June 21, 2023,1 and (a) Defendants or their affiliated entities; (b) the officers and directors of Defendants or any entity in which one of the Defendants has a controlling interest; (c) the immediate family members of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (d) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiffs will further move, and hereby do move the Court to certify the following subclasses of the Class under Rule 23(a) and/or Rule 23 (b)(3): As to Count 9 of the SAC as against UMB Bank, n.a. ("UMB"): "All Class members who were beneficiaries under the Reliant Life Shares Series Statutory Trust Agreement And Declaration of Trust Dated as of June 15, 2015 ("UMB Trust") during the period when UMB acted as trustee between June 15, 2022 and June 29, 2022 ("UMB Bank Subclass")"; As to Count 9 and 11 of the SAC as against Bank of Utah ("BOU"): "All Class members who were beneficiaries under either of the Reliant Trusts during the time when BOU acted as trustee, either as trustee to the Reliant GN4954 Trust, or as Successor Trustee to the UMB Trust, or as Successor Trustee of the First Western Trust Bank Trust, from June 29, 2022 to June 21, 2023 ("BOU Subclass"); The Plaintiffs will move, and hereby do move, to certify Richard E. Donahoo of Donahoo & Associates, PC and Thomas G. Foley, Jr. of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP as Class Counsel. Reliant is a financial services company that focuses on life settlements, investment returns, escrow and trust services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mzqQMS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq. Kevin Gamarnik, Esq. FOLEY, BEZEK, BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-9495 Facsimile: (805) 962-0722 E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com kgamarnik@foleybezek.com - and - Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC 440 West First Street, Suite 101 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 953-1010 Facsimile: (714) 953-1777 E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com skokonas@donahoo.com REMAC LLP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA KARIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMAC, L.L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04608 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.lamourdespieds.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Remac LLP was founded in 1974. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of footwear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. Manhasset, NY 11030 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Tel: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com RENT THE RUNWAY: Bid to Dismiss Sharma Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Rent The Runway, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2024, that on November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled "Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al." 22-cv-6935. All defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion, which was fully submitted on February 23, 2024 and remains pending. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning the company's growth at the time of the IPO. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed Delaware Public Employees' Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, concerning, among other things, the company's growth prospects and fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO. Rent the Runway, Inc. is a shared designer closet with thousands of styles by hundreds of brand partners that gives customers access to its "unlimited closet" through its subscription offering or the ability to rent a-la-carte through its reserve offering. The company's corporate headquarters is located in Brooklyn, New York and its operational facilities are located in Secaucus, New Jersey, and Arlington, Texas. ROBESON HEALTH: E.D. North Carolina Refuses to Toss McKenzie Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JULIANA LAURA MCKENZIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBESON HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-00979-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss and substitute the United States as defendant. The Plaintiff commenced this tort and putative class action with complaint filed May 15, 2023, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, arising out of the Defendant's alleged failure to keep the Plaintiff's personal information secure. After obtaining two extensions of time, the Defendant moved to dismiss and to substitute the United States as defendant. The Plaintiff filed her response after obtaining an additional extension of time, and the Defendant replied. The United States, an interested party, filed Feb. 21, 2024, both a motion for leave to file a statement of interest regarding the Defendant's motion to dismiss and to substitute the United States as defendant and said statement of interest, relying on an excerpt from a grant application allegedly filed by the Defendant. Later that day, the Defendant filed a motion for the Court to reserve ruling until the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in a related case, Ford v. Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc., No. 22-2268 (hereinafter, "Ford"), on which the Plaintiff took no position. The Defendant responded to the United States' statement of interest, the United States replied, and the Defendant filed surreply. The Court granted the United States' motion for leave to file a statement of interest March 26, 2024, and it granted the Defendant's motion to reserve ruling March 27, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the Plaintiff filed notice of subsequently decided controlling authority, noticing this court that the Fourth Circuit had issued its decision in Ford (Ford v. Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc., 97 F.4th 252, 257 (4th Cir. 2024)). On Feb. 21, 2023, the Defendant became aware that its computer network was affected by malware, and determined thereafter that an unauthorized third party gained access to its systems. The unauthorized third party had access to patient names, addresses, social security numbers, and health information, including the Plaintiff's. This information has "been listed for sale on the internet." In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that the Federally Support Health Centers Assistance Act ("FSHCAA"), Section 42 U.S.C. 233(a), immunizes it from liability for the claims asserted and requires substitution of the United States in the Defendant's place. Judge Flanagan holds that the Defendant's argument is foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ford. Judge Flanagan opines that the FSHCAA does not immunize the Defendant from liability for damages caused by the instant data breach. The Fourth Circuit decided in Ford that "data security, which is more akin to an administrative function" than to a medical function, is not "included within the meaning of Section 233(a)." There, the plaintiff's personally identifying information allegedly was stolen from the defendant's third party computer system in a cyberattack. Holding that that Section 233(a) did not apply where the plaintiff's asserted "injury did not occur because of any provision of health care," the Fourth Circuit determined that the United States could not be substituted for the defendant. This case is on all fours with Ford, Judge Flanagan points out. Here, an unauthorized third party allegedly accessed the Plaintiff's private information, which thereafter was "listed for sale on the internet." Where the instant Plaintiff's injury did not occur because of the provision of healthcare, Fourth Circuit precedent dictates that the United States may not be substituted for defendant. Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss and substitute the United States as defendant. The Defendant is directed to file answer within 14 days of entry of this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/7usmc78x from PacerMonitor.com. ROSINA FOOD: Demosthene Seeks Conditional Status of Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKY DEMOSTHENE, et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. ROSINA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00225-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): (a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated; (b) Directing that notice (attached as Exhibit 1) be sent by United States mail, email, and text message to the following: "All current and former hourly production employees of Rosina Food Products, Inc. who were involved in the manufacturing, packaging, or handling of food or food products and who worked 40 or more hours in any workweek from March 15, 2021 to the Present;" (c) Directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the definition above that includes their full names, dates of employment, last known home addresses, personal email addresses, and phone numbers; (d) Directing the Defendant to provide a declaration that the produced roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and, (e) Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any potential opt-in plaintiff. A Memorandum in Support of this Motion, as well as supporting evidentiary exhibits in the form of a proposed notice and six declarations, are attached. Plaintiff also gives notice that she intends to file and serve reply papers in support of this Motion. Rosina produces and distributes frozen pasta, meatballs, and prepared food products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9qUto7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com SALVATION ARMY: Tassinari Seeks to File Class Cert Declaration --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TASSINARI, RICHARD ESPINOSA, and JOSEPH ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-10806-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their request for leave to file declaration of Mark Tassinari in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(3), Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to file the Declaration of Mark Tassinari in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, attached as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs filed their pending motion for class certification on May 31, 2024. As a result, he was unable to finalize and submit the attached declaration. Plaintiff Tassinari was able to reconnect with his attorneys on June 19, 2024, and he promptly finalized and signed the attached declaration. The Defendant will not be prejudiced by this filing, because the declaration is similar to declarations previously filed by Plaintiff Tassinari and the other named plaintiffs, and because Defendant’s opposition to the motion for class certification is not due until July 12, 2024. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yaLT8N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Murray, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. Christine M. Salazar, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: mmurray@altber.com csalazar@altber.com cchan@altber.com - and - Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 40 Rector Street, Floor 9 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org SANDUSKY, OH: Seeks to Strike Affidavit of Counsel -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAKE McGORY, et al., v. CITY OF SANDUSKY, OHIO, Case No. 3:24-cv-00567-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to strike and/or disregard the Affidavit of Counsel filed with the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 2, 2024 and a Motion for Class Certification on April 4, 2024. The Plaintiffs chose to file their Motion for Class Certification without first conducting any discovery. Consequently, on April 10, 2024 the Court entered a non-document order staying any non-mutually agreeable discovery pending resolution of the Motion for Class Certification. Sandusky is an Ohio city on the shores of Lake Erie. It's known for its family attractions, including water, wildlife and amusement parks. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iGK7v2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Rudary, Esq. BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, LLC 75 E. Market Street Akron, OH 44308 Telephone: (330) 253-5060 Facsimile: (330) 253-1977 E-mail: djrudary@bmdllc.com SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Status Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHIE ABLAZA, JOHN BARONE, LINDA CHESLOW, BETTY FELLOWS, MICHAEL FALCO, MELISSA ALDRIDGE, and LEE WEINMAN, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01942-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to vacate the class certification scheduling Order to allow the parties until July 15, 2024 to execute a settlement agreement or file an updated joint status report. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Richie Ablaza, John Barone, Linda Cheslow, Betty Fellows, Michael Falco, Melissa Aldridge, and Lee Weinman and Defendant SanofiAventis U.S. LLC, by and through their respective counsel. Sanofi-Aventis develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Parties' dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZ8yNR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: David R. Singh, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 E-mail: david.singh@weil.com - and - Randi Singer, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: randi.singer@sidley.com SCOUT ENERGY: Court Vacates Class Cert Deadline in Copper-Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cooper-Clark Foundation, The v. Scout Energy Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04048 (D. Kan., Filed Sept. 21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H Vratil entered an order vacating deadline and setting status conference: -- The parties have informally contacted the court to express some confusion about the submission of their status report suggesting remaining case-management deadlines when plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending. -- The court vacates the June 25, 2024 deadline for submission of a status report and sets this case for a status conference on June 26, 2024 at 01:30 PM by Telephone. The nature of suit states diversity-other contract. Scout is an investment adviser.[CC] SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Extend Class Discovery Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the discovery deadline by nine months and staying Select's response deadline to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- Select must be able to depose all named Plaintiffs and 10% of Opt- In Plaintiffs, as happened in Morgan and pursue limited and targeted written discovery of all Opt-In Plaintiffs; yet it has not had opportunity to do so. -- To accomplish this discovery, Select believes the discovery deadlines should be extended by nine months and its response to the pending Motion for Certification be stayed until such time as Select has been able to complete this discovery. -- Accordingly, Select proposes that the discovery deadline be extended until March 14, 2025, and that the Court stay Select's response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until 30 days after discovery has been completed. The case is a hybrid collective and class action lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Illinois Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of their collective action on April 14, 2022, which Select opposed. The Court granted conditional certification for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims on March 3, 2023. Select offers outpatient care and rehabilitation programs to patients. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CeE2Ib at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: David B. Goroff, Esq. John A. Tucker, Esq. Carrie B. Hoffman, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 321 North Clark Street, Ste. 3000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 832-4500 Facsimile: (312) 832-4700 E-mail: dgoroff@foley.com jtucker@foley.com choffman@foley.com - and - Diane G. Walker, Esq. Kristen W. Roberts, Esq. WALKER MORTON LLP 1401 Branding Avenue Downers Grove, IL 60515 Telephone: (312) 471-2900 Facsimile: (312) 471-6001 E-mail: dwalker@walkerroberts.com kroberts@walkerroberts.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iudiciani v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00443 (D.R.I., Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file a motion to certify class on or before Dec. 20, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Seyboth is a real estate office.[CC] SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jacobs Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEA JACOBS; and ELOYD S. LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE, INC.; SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a UNC HEALTH SOUTHEASTERN; ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST; and ADVENTIST HEALTH TULARE, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00234 (D. Neb., June 18, 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, says the suit. Signature Performance, Inc. provides healthcare support services. The Company offers claim processing, resolution, federal contracting, self pay, health information, and cycle management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary 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 - Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jacobs Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEA JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE, INC.; and SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a UNC HEALTH SOUTHEASTERN, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-00491-FL (E.D.N.C., June 17, 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, says the suit. Signature Performance, Inc. provides healthcare support services. The Company offers claim processing, resolution, federal contracting, self pay, health information, and cycle management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com SOMCHAI & COMPANY: Yang Must Submit Supplemental Briefing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANG v. SOMCHAI AND COMPANY INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-12742 (D.N.J., Filed May 21, 2019), Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order that the Plaintiff shall provide supplemental briefing on whether Plaintiff seeks default judgment only on behalf of himself or as to the proposed class, and in either event, the respective procedures. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Somchai was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[CC] SOUTHSIDE PIZZA: Pretrial Sched & Trial Order Entered in Williamson ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD WILLIAMSON, v. SOUTHSIDE PIZZA INC. ET AL, Case No. 2:24-cv-03988-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order vacating scheduling conference scheduled for June 21, 2024. If the parties wish to set additional or alternative dates, they must file a stipulation and proposed order setting forth the dates requested and demonstrating good cause. Setting additional or alternative dates may be especially appropriate in class actions, patent cases, or cases for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9x3SB at no extra charge.[CC] SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement in Chen Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine Chen, Michael Nguyen, and all other similarly situated employees of SS&C, v. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John Cronan entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement stipulation, certifying the class for settlement purposes, approving the proposed notice and authorizing distribution of the notice package, and implementing the settlement procedure: 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement memorialized in the Settlement Stipulation, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Miller Declaration. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is likely to obtain final approval following notice to the class members. Specifically, based on the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court finds that this case involved a bona fide dispute over wages. The Court finds that preliminary approval is warranted because the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the class, and the proposed Settlement was negotiated at arms-length. The Court further finds that the relief provided is fair and reasonable, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, and was reached after the parties conducted extensive discovery. The Court also finds that the proposed method of distribution supports preliminary approval. 2. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Named Plaintiffs Christine Chen and Michael Nguyen as Class Representatives. 3. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP as Class Counsel. The Court sets the following settlement procedure -- July 1, 2024 Mailing of Class Notice -- Aug. 30, 2024 Last day for Class Members to submit a Claim Form, "opt out" of the Settlement or to submit written objections to the Settlement -- Oct. 31, 2024 Final Approval Hearing. SS&C is a cloud-based provider of financial services technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98WBtT at no extra charge.[CC] SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Chen Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certifies a settlement class in the lawsuit titled Christine Chen, Michael Nguyen, and all other similarly situated employees of SS&C, Plaintiffs v. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for settlement purposes only, the Court certifies a settlement class consisting of all individuals, who worked or currently work for SS&C as Associates, Senior Associates, or equivalent titles in New York and were classified as exempt from overtime compensation at any time between Feb. 5, 2016, and the present. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' application for preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Stipulation, certification of the class for Settlement purposes, approval of the proposed Notice and authorization to distribute the Notice Package, and to implement the procedure set forth in the Settlement Stipulation ("Motion for Preliminary Approval"). Defendant SS&C does not oppose this Motion. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement memorialized in the Settlement Stipulation, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kara Miller. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is likely to obtain final approval following notice to the class members. The Court further finds that the relief provided is fair and reasonable, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, and was reached after the parties conducted extensive discovery. The Court also finds that the proposed method of distribution supports preliminary approval. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, (i) Named Plaintiffs Christine Chen and Michael Nguyen as Class Representatives, and (ii) Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, as Class Counsel. The Court approves the Notice, attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Stipulation. The Court finds that the content of the Notice fully complies with due process and Rule 23, and that the Notice adequately puts class members on notice of the proposed Settlement. The parties propose to disseminate the Notice by first-class mail to Class Members' last known addresses, with a postage-paid pre-addressed return envelope. The Court finds that this method of disseminating the Notice, as provided in the Settlement Stipulation, is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and fully meets the requirements of federal law. The Court sets settlement procedure and schedule, including the Final Approval Hearing set for Oct. 31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 17, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4423hrxw from PacerMonitor.com. STAR TRIBUNE: Class Settlement in Feldman Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kyle Feldman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Star Tribune Media Company LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-01731-ECT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Eric Tostrud entered an order that: 1. Plaintiff Kyle Feldman's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and adopt Plaintiff's Proposed Order is granted. 2. Final certification of the Settlement Class is granted. 3. Plaintiff's motion for award of attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and incentive award is granted. 4. Class counsel is awarded $945,963.00 in attorneys' fees. 5. Class counsel is awarded $20,703.07 in reasonable litigation expenses. 6. Class representative Kyle Feldman is awarded a service award of $5,000.00 for his service to the Settlement Class. 7. Final approval of the methods and forms of notice provided to Class Members is granted. 8. This action is dismissed with prejudice. 9. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement Agreement for all purposes. Mr. Feldman seeks to represent a class of similarly situated website subscribers. The class is defined as: "All persons who reside in the United States, and who, from July 7, 2020, to and through the Preliminary Approval date: (1) have or had a Facebook account; (2) also have or had a digital subscription to the Star Tribune, or a home delivery subscription to the Star Tribune that includes digital access; and (3) who viewed videos on Defendant's Website." Plaintiff Kyle Feldman is a startribune.com subscriber. On behalf of a class of subscribers, Mr. Feldman alleges that Star Tribune Media Company, the website’s owner, violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), by sharing subscribers' video-viewing history with Facebook using a code analytics tool called Facebook Pixel. The parties agreed to a $2.9 million class settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved on February 5, 2024, and since then, no objections have been filed. Mr. Feldman has now filed an unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, ECF No. 69, and an unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs, and Service Awards, ECF No. 65. As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), a hearing on these motions was held on May 20, 2024. The motions will be granted. Plaintiff's submissions and other materials in the case file establish that: (1) class certification is appropriate under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (2) the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2); and (3) the requested attorneys’ fees and class-representative payment are reasonable. Star Tribune developed, owns, and operates startribune.com. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HR9U33 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Alexander Coulson, Esq. Steven Liddle, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. Detroit, MI - and - Nathaniel James Weimer, Esq. TEWKSBURY & KERFELD, P.A. Minneapolis, MN, The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq. Andy Taylor, Esq. Anderson Tuggle, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP Minneapolis, MN STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Bid for Conditional Status Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BERNARD, on behalf of himself, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. STRATEGIC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine O'Hearn entered an order: -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification, and Motion to certify class; and -- granting the Defendant's motion to seal. The redacted portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, shall remain redacted, and the unredacted Motion for Class Certification, which includes Exhibits C and D, shall remain under seal. The Court finds that the Defendant has provided a sufficiently detailed description of the documents it seeks to seal; and the Court finds that the Defendant has a legitimate privacy interest in the confidential agreements between it and the two third parties identified in the exhibits -- which contain confidential information related to the agreements between Defendant and the third parties and rate structure -- such that the relief sought is warranted. Because the Defendant wishes to seal and to keep redacted minor portions of Plaintiffs' brief and only two of fourteen exhibits, the Court finds that "the redactions [Defendant] seeks are tailored and not overbroad thereby constituting the least restrictive manner in which to protect [Defendant's] interest in the information. The Defendant submits that the exhibits contain "sensitive confidential and proprietary business information regarding the relationship and rate structure between [Defendant] and [third parties]" and include "a confidentiality provision." Due to the Court's concerns about potential jurisdiction and venue issues, the Court administratively terminated the Motion for Conditional Class Certification, on Feb. 29, 2024 and requested supplemental briefing limited as to those issue. Strategic provides strategic delivery solutions to health systems, including clinical leadership, quality management, and risk management. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pMS8bZ at no extra charge.[CC] STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: Court Stays Discovery for Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYWANA LANETTE PAULK, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; MISSION SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation; SANTA BARBARA TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, a California corporation; CASCADE STUDENT, TRANSPORTATION, an entity of unknown origin, Case No. 2:24-cv-03436-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting stipulation to stay discovery and toll time for plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. Discovery in this matter is stayed until July 9, 2024. 2. All deadlines to respond to any discovery propounded before the date of this Stipulation are tolled from June 18, 2024, to July 9, 2024. Defendants responses to Plaintiff's written discovery propounded on May 20, 2024 will now be due July 11, 2024. 3. The 120-day time limit for Plaintiff to bring a motion for class certification in the Scheduling and Case Management Order is tolled from June 18, 2024 to July 9, 2024. Student Transportation provides bus services for school districts. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FiAHUw at no extra charge.[CC] STURM & RUGER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Extended to Nov. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233 (D. Conn., Filed Oct. 4, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting the plaintiffs' second motion for extension of time absent objection by defendant. The Plaintiffs shall disclose class certification experts by July 11, 2024, and defendants shall disclose their rebuttal experts by September 20, 2024. -- Class certification discovery is due by: Oct. 11, 2024 -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 10, 2024 certification is due by: -- Defendants' opposition by: Dec. 11, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' reply by: Jan. 3, 2025 The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other personal property damage. Sturm is an American firearm manufacturing company.[CC] SUN BEHAVIORAL: Jennings Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA JENNINGS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SUN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., , Case No. : 2:24-cv-03358-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 21, 2024) is collective and class action complaint for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Law against Defendant for alleged failure to pay employees overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of Defendant in the position of Mental Health Technician at its Columbus facility, from 2021 to September 2022. The Defendant is a mental health services provider that partners with hospitals, doctors, schools, and social service agencies to solve unmet behavioral and mental health needs. The company currently owns, operates, and manages a collection of treatment centers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com SWIFT PORK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Vail Extended to Sept. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS VAIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs SWIFT PORK COMPANY, d/b/a JBS USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Regina Edwards entered an order extending class certification discovery and briefing deadlines by approximately 30 days: Action or Event Previous Updated Deadline Deadline Deadline for the Parties to On or before On or before attend private or judicial June 14, 2024 June 27, 2024 mediation: Deadline for completing all July 8, 2024 Aug. 7, 2024 discovery on class certification issues: Plaintiff's deadline to move Aug. 9, 2024 Sept. 6, 2024 for class certification: Defendant's deadline to file Sept. 30, 2024 Oct. 30, 2024 opposition to motion for class certification: Plaintiff's deadline to file Oct. 25, 2024 Nov. 22, 2024 reply to Defendant's opposition to class certification: The Parties have agreed to participate in private mediation with Bill Baten on June 27, 2024, which occurs after the June 14, 2024, deadline in the scheduling order as was necessary to accommodate the mediation. Swift Pork produces and processes meat products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3A47Oe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: H. Max Kelln, Esq. Benjamin Broadhead, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 237-0300 Facsimile: (317) 237-1000 E-mail: h.max.kelln@faegredrinker.com ben.broadhaed@faegredrinker.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al., v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following class: "All persons and entities in the United States and its territories that directly purchased brand Amitiza and/or generic Amitiza in any form from Takeda or any generic Amitiza manufacturer other than Par, or their subsidiaries or affiliates, from the beginning of the period of delayed generic entry until Jan. 2023"; -- appointing Meijer and KPH as class representatives for the direct purchaser class; and -- appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Takeda engages in the research and development, manufacture, import and export sale, and marketing of pharmaceutical drugs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wWmKnR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin C. Burns, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq. Daniel Polonsky, Esq. Mark T. Vazquez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: erinb@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com jessicam@hbsslaw.com rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com danielp@hbsslaw.com markv@hbsslaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 20 Rahling Cir. Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com dgermaine@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com - and - John D. Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall St. Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com TARGET CORP: Sadler Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SADLER , on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge entered an order the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): "All Progression Team Members who have been employed as hourly, non-exempt workers at any of Target's New Jersey distribution centers at any time from August 6, 2019, through the date of final judgment in this matter." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=81CTp8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com TARGET CORPORATION: Tivin Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNET TIVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 0:23-cv-62245-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the date by which the Plaintiff is required to file a Motion for Class Certification, currently due June 28, 2024, until September 30, 2024. The Complaint was filed on Nov. 27, 2023. On March 1, 2024, the Court set the deadline for the Motion for Class Certification to be due by June 28, 2024. On March 29, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to the Complaint. The Defendant's motion has the potential to resolve this case in its entirety or at least significantly narrow Plaintiff's claims and "every claim has the potential to enlarge the scope and cost of discovery." Counsel for the parties have conferred and the Defendant is unopposed to this request. This Motion is made to preserve party and Court resources. No prior adjournments nor any extensions have been requested. Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B5tjxq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com TD BANK: Court Recommends Certification of Classes in Nelipa ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUDMILA NELIPA, ALLISON ARCHER, VERDENIA EDWARDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-LDH-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Marutollo recommends that: -- the Plaintiffs' motion be granted and that the following classes be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3): EFTA Excess Consumer Liability Class "All persons (1) who have or had an account with TD Bank; and (2) notified TD Bank that they had been induced by fraud to provide another person with their account access device leading to unauthorized charges; and (3) within one year prior to filing of this action, TD Bank denied the consumer's Regulation E claim for reasons substantially the same as the following: (a) Evidence shows that an SMS was received and approved by the customer's phone number on file; (b) Customer has had no recent changes to the address, phone number, or online banking credentials in the last 90 days; (c) Customer indicated that they previously provided access/authorization to 3rd party; (d) Customer fell for a scam and gave online banking credentials to a 3rd party; or (e) Customer is a victim of TD imposter scam; and (4) who notified TD Bank within two business days of the alleged loss or theft and who alleged a loss of more than $50, or who notified TD Bank at any time and who alleged a loss of more than $500"; Breach of Contract Class "All persons (1) who were parties to TD Bank's Personal Deposit Account Agreement; and (2) notified TD Bank that they had been induced by fraud to provide another person with their account access device leading to unauthorized charges; and (3) within six years prior to filing of this action, TD Bank denied the consumer's Regulation E claim for reasons substantially the same as the following: (a) Evidence shows that an SMS was received and approved by the customer's phone number on file; (b) Customer has had no recent changes to the address, phone number, or online banking credentials in the last 90 days; (c) Customer indicated that they previously provided access/authorization to 3rd party; (d) Customer fell for a scam and gave online banking credentials to a 3rd party; or (e) Customer is a victim of TD imposter scam; and (4) who notified TD Bank within two business days of the alleged loss or theft and who alleged a loss of more than $50, or who notified TD Bank at any time and who alleged a loss of more than $500." -- Class Representatives: Ludmila Nelipa, Allison Archer, Verdenia Edwards -- Class Counsel: Benjamin Drachler, Beth E. Terrell, Blythe H. Chandler, Ryan Tack-Hooper, and Daniel Adam Schlanger. The Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, against TD Bank for alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and for breach of TD Bank's Personal Deposit Account Agreement. The Plaintiffs contend that unknown perpetrators impersonated TD Bank employees to trick them into providing access to their bank accounts, which the perpetrators then used to conduct unauthorized transactions. After falling victim to these "imposter scams," the Plaintiffs reported the transactions to TD Bank, but TD Bank refused to treat the transactions as "unauthorized" and denied their fraud claims. The Plaintiffs contend that these denials are consistent with TD Bank's "policy and practice" of denying claims of unauthorized transfers in circumstances where the accountholder is defrauded into approving the transactions or providing access to their account. On Oct. 22, 2020, Nelipa, a Staten Island resident, received a text message from what appeared to be TD Bank's Fraud Protection Department inquiring about a $450 charge to her personal checking account that was made at a Walmart in Atlanta, Georgia. A few minutes later, Nelipa received a phone call from a different number that matched the customer service number provided in the TD Bank Personal Deposit Account Agreement that applies to her account. The caller, who described themselves as a TD Bank representative, told Nelipa that the purpose of the call was to inquire about the $450 Walmart charge and to initiate a "fraud prevention process" that would help reverse the transaction. TD is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated June 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YmJdQ5 at no extra charge.[CC] TD BANK: Faces Manougian Class Suit Over Item Returned Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE MANOUGIAN on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TD BANK NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-04429 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2024) alleges that TD Bank routinely charges and collects what it refers to as "Cashed or Deposited Item Returned" fees. TD Bank allegedly imposes these fees whenever customers even attempt to make a deposit despite promising that such fees would be assessed only when an item attempted for deposit actually was fully cashed successfully or funds were deposited, used by the accountholder, and then later needed to be recouped by TD Bank. Indeed, TD Bank calls the fee at issue a Cashed or Deposited Item Returned Fee, not a "Cashing Attempt or Deposit Attempt Fee." TD Bank never represented to its accountholders that it would charge Cashed or Deposited Item Returned Fees whenever they attempted to make a deposit that failed. As such, consumers like the Plaintiff reasonably understand that they will only be assessed "Cashed or Deposited Item Returned Fees" when they are fully provided and use the funds attempted for deposit and those actually deposited and used funds are later reversed -- not when attempted deposits are never made fully available or used by accountholders in the first place. TD Bank's fee assessment practice breaches its own adhesion contract because that contract only authorizes TD Bank to assess Cash or Deposited Item Returned Fees where it has fully cashed or deposited funds into an account, where accountholders have actually used such funds, and where TD Bank must then attempt to recoup already-used funds, says the suit. The Plaintiff held a TD Bank deposit account during the applicable statute of limitations period. On March 8, 2022 and May 13, 2022, Plaintiff Manougian was charged $15 Cashed or Deposited Item Returned Fees. TD Bank is a national bank with a main office and principal place of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa R. Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Oren Faircloth (pro hac vice forthcoming) 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (772) 783-8463 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com TD BANK: Seeks Redactions to May 29, 2024 R&R Filed Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa et al., v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-LDH-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter redactions to the May 29, 2024, Report and Recommendation currently filed under seal. -- Consistent with the parties' prior submissions, the Court's directive at footnote 10 of the Report and Recommendation, and the Court's order granting leave to file proposed redactions by June 14, 2024, TD Bank respectfully requests that your Honor redact the last sentence from the first full paragraph appearing on page 11 of the Report and Recommendation (i.e., the sentence in the main body text immediately following Footnote 12). TD is an American national bank. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 14, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AWY4Ei at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas F. Burke, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market St., 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: burket@ballardspahr.com TECO ENERGY: Bid to Substitute Exhibit OK'd in Roche Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roche v. TECO Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01571 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 14, 2023), Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to substitute exhibit. -- The Defendants seek to correct the inadvertent inclusion of Plaintiff's personal identifying information by substituting a corrected exhibit to their response in opposition to the motion to certify class. -- Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to delete the image at docket entry [49-2] and replace it with the image from docket entry [50- 1].[CC] The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). TEKSYSTEMS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids Moved to August 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL THOMAS, MARIA CONYERS-JORDAN, AUSTIN SHERMAN, LYNDA ALEXANDRA MAHER, AVA DORE, RACHEL RICHENBERG, and EMILY BURKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00460-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman entered an order changing deadlines that: -- Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification Aug. 29, 2024 and Motion for Final Certification Pursuant to the Fair Labo Standards Act (FLSA) are to be filed no later than: -- Defendant's Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motions Sept. 26, 2024 for Class Certification and Motion for Final Certification Pursuant to the FLSA are to be filed no later than: -- Plaintiffs' Replies in Support of their Motions Oct. 24, 2024 for Class Certification and Motion for Final Certification Pursuant to the FLSA are to be filed no later than: -- Defendant's Sur-Reply in Support of its Nov. 27, 2024 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Certification Pursuant to the FLSA is to be filed no later than: TEKsystems provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WB7SiI at no extra charge.[CC] TELLURIDE RESORT: Alvarez Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARINA RUIZ ALVAREZ, KARLA GONZALEZ VELEZ, GABRIELA MOCTEZUMA CASTILLO, and AMELIA COLON CHAIREZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TELLURIDE RESORT PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a MADELINE HOTEL & RESIDENCES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00354-JLK-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs file an unopposed motion for 14-day extension of time to file reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification, Doc. 69, is currently due June 24, 2024. Plaintiffs hereby request a 14-day extension, up to and including July 8, 2024, to file their reply. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bRbgmx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. David Seligman, Esq. Towards Justice, Esq. 303 E 17th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 Facsimile: (303) 957-2289 E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org - and - Andrew H. Turner, Esq. Milstein Turner, PLLC 1490 Lafayette St. No.304 Denver, CO. 80218 Telephone: (303) 305-8230 E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Sets Phase I Discovery in Edgar Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued an Order regarding Phase I Discovery in the lawsuit styled KEIKO EDGAR, DENA BURGE, LEIGH HOCKETT, JORDAN FURLAN, GINA GILOMEN-STUDY, UHA HEALTH INSURANCE, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, and ROGERS MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.). On June 13, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James conducted a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Phase I scheduling conference in this case. The Plaintiffs appeared through counsel, W. Greg Wright and Hammons P. Hepner, in person, and Alison E. Chase, Gretchen F. Cappio, and Matt Tripolitsiotis, remotely via telephone. The Defendants appeared through counsel, Brent N. Coverdale, and Christopher Holding, in person. This Order memorializes the Court's rulings from the scheduling conference. During Phase I, discovery will be bifurcated and limited to the following: a. the timeliness of the Plaintiffs' claims under the applicable statute of limitations ("Timeliness/Limitations Discovery"); and b. the Court's jurisdiction over Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva Israel"), including its contacts with Kansas and the United States and control of its subsidiaries relevant to this lawsuit ("Teva Israel Jurisdictional Discovery"). The Defendants' request to stay all discovery until there is a ruling on their petition for interlocutory review of District Judge Crabtree's M&O is denied. The parties have already exchanged their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. The Defendants' deadline to answer the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint remains five business days after the Court's order on the Defendants' Motion for Clarification. The parties raised concerns about anticipated disputes over timeliness/limitations versus merits discovery. The Court declined to adopt the Defendants' suggestion that, during Phase I depositions, counsel be entitled to instruct witnesses not to answer questions believed to address topics beyond the scope of Phase I discovery. Instead, after discussing various proposals and suggestions, the Court ordered the parties to confer in good faith and attempt to reach an agreement regarding the scope or boundaries of proper Timeliness/Limitations Discovery distinct from merits-based discovery. The parties stipulated no expert witnesses will be disclosed or designated by the parties in Phase I. Discovery may be governed by a protective order. The parties will confer regarding a protocol to govern ESI in this case and if they reach an agreement on all the terms for an ESI protocol, they will jointly submit a proposed ESI protocol to chambers. Depositions may be governed by a deposition protocol, although the Court will not require a deposition protocol in Phase I of this case. The Court declined to adopt the Defendants' suggestion that the fact a witness was deposed in Phase I will not, itself, constitute a basis to refuse to sit for an additional deposition in Phase II, should the case proceed. Instead, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A), absent a stipulation of the parties, leave of Court will be required before any witness can be deposed a second time. The parties will submit to chambers their proposed joint Phase I scheduling order that contains, among other things, the parties' suggested deadlines for completion of Phase I fact discovery and filing Phase I summary judgment motions. All proposed orders and protocols to be submitted to chambers will be submitted in Word format as attachments to e-mails. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye225cp3 from PacerMonitor.com. TIKTOK INC: Griffith Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH; et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the following classes: -- Class 1: Nationwide Pixel Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Subclass 1: California Pixel Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Class 2: Nationwide Pixel and Events API Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel and whose server uses the TikTok Events API from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Subclass 2: California Pixel and Events API Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel and whose server uses the TikTok Events API from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Class 3: Nationwide Pixel Cookie-Blocking Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel from March 2022 to the present, who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account, and who had web browser or system settings turned on to block third-party cookies." -- Subclass 3: California Pixel Cookie-Blocking Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel from March 2022 to the present, who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account, and who had web browser or system settings turned on to block third-party cookies." -- Class 4: Nationwide Pixel and Events API Cookie-Blocking Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel and whose server uses the TikTok Events API from March 2022 to the present, who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account, and who had web browser or system settings turned on to block third- party cookies." -- Subclass 4: California Pixel and Events API Cookie-Blocking Subclass: "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited a website using the TikTok Pixel and whose server uses the TikTok Events API from March 2022 to the present, who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account, and who had web browser or system settings turned on to block third-party cookies." -- Class 5: Nationwide ECPA Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account, and, from March 2022 to the present, visited a website -- Subclass 5: California ECPA Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account, and, from March 2022 to the present, visited a website using the TikTok Pixel but without "Search" as an optional event from the TikTok Pixel configuration menu." In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the following classes: -- Class 6: The Rite Aid Nationwide Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited the Rite Aid website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Subclass 6: The Rite Aid California Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited the Rite Aid website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Class 7: The Hulu Nationwide Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited the Hulu website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Subclass 7: The Hulu California Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited the Hulu website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Class 8: The Etsy Nationwide Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited the Etsy website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Subclass 8: The Etsy California Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited the Etsy website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Class 9: The Upwork Nationwide Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited the Upwork website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Subclass 9: The Upwork California Subclass "All natural persons residing in the state of California who visited the Upwork website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." -- Class 10: The Sweetwater Nationwide Class "All natural persons residing in the United States who visited the Sweetwater website from March 2022 to the present, and who have never been registered users of the TikTok app or held any TikTok account." The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs Bernadine Griffith, Patricia Shih, and Jacob Watters as class representatives for the above classes. The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint the following firms as co-lead class counsel: (1) Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim, LLP; (2) Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and (3) Susman Godfrey LLP. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g23TTn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Christopher J. Lee, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com clee@birdmarella.com - and - Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com kwolke@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.co - and - Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. Steven Sklaver, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com - and - Y. Gloria Park, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 E-mail: gpark@susmangodfrey.com - and - John W. McCauley, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: jmccauley@susmangodfrey.com TIKTOK INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Documents Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2, sealing the materials that are filed in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs seek to file completely under seal Exhibits 3-5, 7-9, 19, 21-25, 29- 30, and 34 to the Declaration of Y. Gloria Park in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as they are documents Defendants have designated CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY pursuant to the Protective Order. The Plaintiffs also seek to file partially under seal the highlighted portions of the following documents, insofar as they contain references to material contained in the sealed exhibit and other material that Defendants have designated CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY pursuant to the Protective Order: Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification; Declaration of Zubair Shafiq, Ph.D. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, dated June 21, 2024; Declaration of Russell W. Mangum III, Ph.D. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, dated June 21, 2024; and Declaration of Eric Schachter in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, dated June 21, 2024. As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Gregory B. Linkh in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal, the documents listed above have been designated, by Defendants, CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY under the Protective Order entered in this action. By making this application, the Plaintiffs do not agree that any of the sealed material, or the documents referencing sealed materials, should be maintained under seal. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), the burden is on Defendants to file a declaration to establish that all or part of the designated material is sealable. TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MqBYza at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Christopher J. Lee, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com clee@birdmarella.com - and - Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com kwolke@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. Steven Sklaver, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. Y. Gloria Park, Esq. John W. McCauley, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com gpark@susmangodfrey.com jmccauley@susmangodfrey.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Toyota Motor Corporation (NYSE: TM) between June 25, 2022 and June 2, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Toyota investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Toyota class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25663 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Toyota understated its malfeasance relating to certification of its cars and issues relating to overall legal compliance; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25663 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification; and -- denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification should be granted in part and denied in part. The proposed Rule 23(b)(2) Class and the Rule 23(b)(3) Masking-and-Testing Subclass do not satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements under Rule 23(a), nor do they meet the criteria under Rule 23(b). The different injuries suffered and the individual questions raised within these proposed classes preclude class-wide resolution of their claims. However, the Court concludes that the Rule 23(b)(3) Unpaid Leave Subclass's Title VII claims meet the criteria for certification. Accordingly, the Court appoints Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel with Ms. Kincannon as the named plaintiff and modifies Plaintiffs' proposed Unpaid Leave Subclass to encompass only the Title VII claims. The Court thus certifies a class consisting of all employees United deemed customer-facing who received an accommodation due to a sincerely held religious beliefs and who were put on unpaid leave. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following classes: 1. Rule 23(b)(2) Class: "All individuals who submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation from United’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to a sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and then faced the choice of: abandoning their religious beliefs or medical needs (i.e., get vaccinated); accepting indefinite leave; or being fired or otherwise separated." 2. Rule 23(b)(3) Masking-and-Testing Subclass: "[A]ll employees United deemed non-customer-facing who received an accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and were subject to the purposely punitive masking-and- testing accommodation." 3. Rule 23(b)(3) Unpaid Leave Subclass: "All employees United deemed customer facing who received an accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and who were put on unpaid leave." The Plaintiffs sued on Sept. 21, 2021, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiffs say United violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by refusing to provide reasonable medical and religious accommodations. United is a major American airline headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gMvHiM at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: $15-M Deal in Discrimination Suit Granted Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- El Paso Inc. reports that on June 24, 2024, Sanford Heisler Sharp announced that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) granted final approval of a $15 million race discrimination class action settlement in a case against the United States Marshals Service. The case was first filed in 1994, and the class includes more than 700 current and former African American Deputy U.S. Marshals who experienced race discrimination in promotions and headquarters assignments and thousands of African American candidates who were denied hire. The final approval of this settlement marks the culmination of one of the longest running race discrimination cases in the nation. The class is represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp's Chairman, David Sanford; partners, Christine Dunn, Kate Mueting, and Saba Bireda and Senior Litigation Counsel, James Hannaway. "This agreement is "the culmination of more than three decades of hard-fought litigation combating race discrimination" and the settlement will provide "meaningful relief for African Americans in the Marshals Service and those denied an opportunity to become Marshals," said Sanford, Chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp. The class charge was originally filed in 1994 and was mistakenly dismissed in 1997. Sanford Heisler Sharp began representing the class in 2004 and was able to reinstate the class charge in 2006. While the EEOC denied class certification in 2007, the EEOC granted Sanford Heisler Sharp's appeal in 2012. In 2017, the Commission certified a class that included all African Americans denied promotions at the Marshals Service due to race discrimination. In 2021, the EEOC granted a motion to amend, expanding the class to include African Americans who were denied hire as Deputy U.S. Marshals. "Our class members and class agents have shown remarkable courage and resilience throughout this case, some of them fighting this battle for almost 30 years," Dunn said. "Thanks to their hard work and dedication, the U.S. Marshals Service is making substantial changes to its processes to help ensure greater racial equity." With the final approval of this settlement agreement by the Administrative Judge, class members are eligible for monetary relief. The settlement also provides that the Marshals Service will institute programmatic relief designed to enhance equity, objectivity, and transparency in promotion, hiring practices, and headquarters assignments. These measures include providing DEI and implicit bias training, implementing changes to recruitment processes, providing decision makers with a list of competencies, and implementing a priority consideration program for current employees. Partner and Co-Chair of the Firm's Discrimination and Harassment Practice Group Kate Mueting commented, "We applaud the commitment and determination of the class agents and the Agency for working together to work toward improved racial justice at the U.S. Marshals Service." The U.S. Marshals Service is a federal agency that provides security to the federal judiciary, apprehends federal fugitives, manages and sells seized assets acquired through illegal activities, houses and transports federal prisoners and operates the Witness Security Program. Bireda added that the case had a "history of hard-fought litigation on behalf of improving conditions for African Americans at the Marshal Service." "This is a momentous day for the class," Hannaway said. "After decades, we have been able to achieve excellent monetary and programmatic relief." More information is available at: https://usmssettlement.com/ About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP is a national public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Diego, Nashville, and Baltimore. Sanford Heisler Sharp focuses on employment discrimination, Title IX, wage and hour, whistleblower and qui tam, criminal/sexual violence, financial services, and Asian American litigation and finance matters. The firm has recovered over $1 billion for its clients through many verdicts and settlements. In 2022, The National Law Journal named Sanford Heisler Sharp Civil Rights Firm of the Year, and it recognized the firm in 2021 as both the Employment Rights Firm of the Year and the Human Rights Firm of the Year. Law360 recognized the firm as employment Practice Group of the Year in 2021, 2019, 2018, and 2016. Benchmark Litigation recognized the firm as the Labor & Employment Firm of the Year in 2021 and 2020. [GN] UNITED WHOLESALE: Files Motion to Dismiss Borrower Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Jensen of National Mortgage Professional reports that United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) is requesting the Michigan federal court dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by borrowers, with the defendants claiming, "This Hunterbrook-affiliated lawsuit is a putative class action that raises a kitchen-sink full of claims against UWM, its holding companies, and its CEO." The class action lawsuit, filed April 2, claims the nation's top wholesale lender, UWM, holds independent brokers captive via its "All-In Initiative" and overcharges borrowers by preventing brokers from shopping around for clients. It alleges the lender violated the RICO Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment among other claims. On the same day, venture-backed capital outlet, Hunterbrook Media, released an exposé containing similar allegations. "Accountability requires action," said Hunterbrook Media Publisher Sam Koppelman when the class action lawsuit was filed. "That's why the Hunterbrook Foundation shared research with Boies Schiller Flexner -- and we hope homeowners have a path to restitution for what our data analysis indicates could be substantial damages." On June 21, the defendants, UWM and CEO Mat Ishbia, filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, claiming the complaint by borrowers "reflects an unprecedented and coordinated effort to smear United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC ("UWM"), its affiliates, and even its CEO--all of which serves to benefit market speculators." UWM argued the plaintiff's allegations under RESPA are time-barred, and the complaint fails to state a claim under that statute in any event. The lender also argued that the RICO claims fail for lack of proximate causation, absence of a cognizable enterprise, and failure to plead predicate acts of racketeering. "Plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy fail for many reasons, including because Plaintiffs failed to plead facts establishing a fiduciary relationship," the Motion To Dismiss read. "Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under any of the state consumer protection statutes they invoke. They do not plead unjust enrichment. And their claims against UWM's holding companies and CEO suffer from a number of additional fatal flaws." In regard to the "All-In Initiative" in which broker partners must choose to work exclusively with Rocket Pro TPO and Fairway Independent Mortgage or UWM, the defendant claims the plaintiff presented no facts showing that Rocket or Fairway would have offered the named plaintiffs loans at better rates. UWM claims that the plaintiffs' own data reflects that Rocket's fees are generally higher than UWM's. Additionally, the wholesale lender claimed its "All-In Initiative" is at-will, and something a broker can choose to forgo or pull out of following a seven day notice. UWM also argued that unjust enrichment claims fail against the non-UWM Defendants because they allegedly do not plead facts showing that any of those defendants were actually enriched. The defendants also claimed that plaintiffs paid UWM, not the Holding Company Defendants or CEO Ishbia, so the plaintiffs cannot pursue an unjust enrichment claim against them. "Every single claim made in this lawsuit is meritless and riddled with flaws," a UWM spokesperson added in a statement sent to NMP. "We've already seen tremendous success with the dismissal of other frivolous lawsuits against our business over the last few years and we are confident in the same outcome here. We will continue to aggressively defend all counts to the fullest extent and stand with the thousands of independent mortgage brokers who serve the unique needs to borrowers across the country every day." Hunterbrook Media, nor the plaintiffs' attorneys, immediately responded to NMP's request for comment. [GN] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alabama Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ALABAMA FAMILY FOOT CLINIC, PC; DESERT ABA SOLUTIONS LLC; UNIQUE INTEGRATED CARE; RIVERBEND COUNSELING SERVICES; E5 THERAPY; KIDSTUFF CHILD AND FAMILY COUNSELING PC; UROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF FLORIDA; BALL'S REXALL DRUGS, INC., D/B/A B&W REXALL DRUGS; CLOE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER; MIND GARDEN, LLC; SERENITY THERAPY, LLC; PITTSBURG INTERNAL MEDICINE PA; GIEVERS-ZUNIGA FOOT & ANKLE CENTER; KAJAL GEHI PSYCHOTHERAPY, LLC; IRWIN COUNSELING SERVICE, PLLC; LAKE ACUPUNCTURE LLC; DIABETES & ENDOCRINE INSTITUTE; SOUTH CITY COUNSELING STL; NANCY FISH LCSW, MPH; SERENITY COUNSELING CENTER NJ LLC; ROBERT MULLAN, DPM, INC.; WITH GRACE MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING PLLC; ANEW U COUNSELING SERVICES, PLLC; CULTIVATING MIND LLC; THE WELLIFE, LLC; KAITLIN HECKMAN LLC; REBECCA WILLIAMS, MS, NCC, LPC; HEELEX LLC; BODY MIND & SPINE CHIROPRACTIC; CORE COUNSELING AND CONSULTATION; and FOUR WINDS COUNSELING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; and OPTUM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-02335 (D. Minn., June 19, 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 Defendants' 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 Plaintiffs' 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, says the suit. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated owns and manages organized health systems. The Company provides employers products and resources to plan and administer employee benefit programs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael V. Ciresi, Esq. Jan M. Conlin, Esq. Melissa A. Goodman, Esq. Heather M McElroy, Esq. Barry M. Landy, Esq. CIRESI CONLIN LLP 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 361-8200 Email: mvc@ciresiconlin.com jmc@ciresiconlin.com mag@ciresiconlin.com hmm@ciresiconlin.com bml@ciresiconlin.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. Brian E. Johnson, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com bej@classlawgroup.com UPSTART HOLDINGS: July 11 Class Cert Hearing Vacated ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al. (UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order vacating the class certification hearing scheduled for July 11, 2024: -- The case presently is set for oral argument at 9:00 AM on July 11, 2024, regarding Motions for Class Certification. Given that the class certification briefing schedule turns on the Magistrate Judge's resolution of Defendants' pending Motion to Compel, the class certification hearing scheduled for July 11, 2024, is vacated. -- A class certification hearing will be rescheduled upon resolution of Defendants' motion. Upstart is an artificial intelligence (AI) lending marketplace. A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cv9FNA at no extra charge.[CC] VICTORIA GOLD: Kalloghlian Probes Potential Investor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- www.standard-freeholder.com reports that Kalloghlian Myers LLP is investigating a potential investor class action against Victoria Gold Corp. (TSX: VGCX) and certain directors and officers. On June 24, 2024, Victoria Gold Corp. announced that its Eagle Gold Mine heat leach pad experienced a failure. On this news, the price of Victoria Gold Corp. shares dropped from $7.43 at the close of trading on June 24 to $1.27 at the opening of trading on June 25. If you owned Victoria Gold Corp. shares, contact Kalloghlian Myers LLP: Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a Toronto-based law firm specializing in investor class actions. [GN] WALT DISNEY: Can Withhold Documents in Pay Equity Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports updates on Disney's pay equity class action. In a split decision of sorts, an L.A. Superior Court judge has given Disney a month to articulate why they can't hand over dozens of requested documents in the pay equity class action. At the end of a hearing on June 24, 2024, Judge Elihu M. Berle indicated he agreed with the gist of the Mouse House's assertions on protected and redacted paperwork. This is very similar to the last time Disney faced such allegations a few years ago from the plaintiffs. However, in terms of 86 specific correspondences, primarily with outside parties, the company will have to provide justification on why it wants certain paperwork kept out of the five-year old matter. "We are pleased that the court denied the plaintiffs' motion, just as it did the first time the plaintiffs attempted to make this groundless argument," said a Disney spokesperson to Deadline. The plaintiffs' lawyers also Certified as a class action in December 2023, the gender-centric case, initiated by Disney staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore in mid-2019, could now include up to 12,000 employees. Originally anticipated to encompass up to $150 million in lost wages, the case could easily grow to $300 million when all is said and done. A May 5, 2025 starting trial has been set on the court calendar. A virtual hearing set this morning in L.A. Superior Court could result in a black eye for the Walt Disney Company and its five-year battle against what is now a sprawling pay equity class action suit. Less than a year before an estimated trial start, Monday's recently began session finds lawyers for Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore facing off with Mouse House attorneys from Paul Hastings LLP over accusations that once again the Bob Iger-led company has been refusing to hand over requested documents. "Disney has inappropriately withheld or redacted hundreds of documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection," states plaintiffs' lead lawyer Lori Andrus in a May 16 motion to compel filing. "Disney's formulaic and vague descriptions of why documents were withheld are not sufficient to justify withholding the documents, and the Court should issue an order requiring Disney to produce the documents and redacted information," the Bay Area-based attorney added in the somewhat redacted document. Back in December, to a "disappointed" Disney's chagrin, LASC Judge Elihu M. Berle ruled that Rasmussen and Moore's lawsuit claiming gender-based pay disparity can become a class-action suit. A formal class notice was issued on April 25 this year and sent out to probable plaintiffs via snail mail and email. Specifically, having successfully fought off various moves by Disney to see the case tossed out, the plaintiffs and their lead lawyer Lori Andrus allege in their initial April 2019 filing that the company knowingly violated the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California's Equal Pay Act by paying female employees less than male employees. Seeking at least $150 million in lost wages, the suit could balloon in damages up to and beyond $300 million. It means the action could prove the biggest ever certified under California law. However, focusing on the time period of 2015 to today, the class action does not include women employed at Hulu, ESPN, Pixar and what was once Fox assets like FX or National Geographic. Perhaps equally important as any hearing today, June 24 is also the last chance for the estimated more than 12,000 plaintiffs to opt out of the case. Centering on the hearing at hand, having been down this document dispute road to some extent a few years ago in this case, Disney is accusing the plaintiffs of conducting a fishing expedition where they determine the bait, the boat, and what actually constitutes fish. "At bottom, the (mostly new) challenges raised in Plaintiffs' Motion are based on nothing more than 'we do not believe you," bluntly claims the media giant in its frequently redacted June 10 filed response. "This is not sufficient." "Nor do Plaintiffs' misleading 'examples' carry the day (for example, addressing only some entries in a chain and ignoring others -- including emails to and from counsel -- that clearly support the privilege)," attorney Felicia Davis says. "And their 'categorical challenges' obscure the fact that Plaintiffs ask the Court to order production of more than five hundred entries where attorneys are either the writer or the recipient of the email, or the author of the document." In their own filings on this matter, the plaintiffs say they believe the documents they want to see in discovery are emails and other correspondence between non-lawyer executives that likely discuss pay equity issues at Disney. With a May 5, 2025 trial start date on the book, let's just say the parties have a legal logjam right now. To that, neither side responded to Deadline requests on the matter and today's hearing. Yet, with one or two eyes on the court calendar, it appears at least one portion of the plaintiffs' poignant case has reached an event horizon, for now. "With service of Plaintiffs' 25th set of Requests for Production and 10th set of Special Interrogatories on June 14, 2024, Plaintiffs have served all the written discovery Plaintiffs currently expect to serve," the plaintiffs said earlier this month. Yet, at the same time, Rasmussen and Moore's lawyer Andrus also notes that they have "identified two additional individuals whose depositions we would like to schedule in the near future, and will be adding to this list over the next several weeks. As well. the plaintiffs "reserve the right to serve additional, very targeted requests based on what we learn from responses to the discovery served or in deposition." In that vein, Disney and the plaintiffs have jointly requested another status conference before Judge Berle for the week of September 9. Fighting off this class action, Disney may be facing another such suit with the move last week by two current staffers to seek a class action of their own over the company's "false representations" and now abandoned plan to relocate hundreds of employees from Southern California to Florida. And they call summer the "slow season." [GN] WALT DISNEY: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Disney's efforts to have an antitrust class action from streaming subscribers dismissed has been denied one more time, but the company will now not be on the hook for any cash. "The Court once again finds Plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to plead Disney's market power in a well-defined SLPTV market in the United States," wrote U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila today, June 25, in a complex and mixed bag ruling for the Mouse House. Back in November 2022, YouTube subscribers in a quartet of states filed a class-action complaint alleging that Disney's control of both ESPN and Hulu has allowed the Bob Iger-run media giant to "inflate prices marketwise by raising the prices of its own products" and also "set a price floor." The bold action detailed that because Disney requires streamers, including YouTube TV and Sling TV, to include ESPN in base packages, they are paying more for their subscriptions than they should. The 82-page complaint additionally claimed antitrust violation on the grounds that Disney's control of content and distribution, including operating control of Hulu and its Hulu + Live TV, presented a barrier to entry in the market. In tones and terms very similar to what he decided back in October last year, the order in part granting and in part denying Disney's latest move to have the November 2022 filed action thrown out will allow the case to go forward in a further reduced form. However, the California-based Judge Davila has also cut any attempt at damages by the plaintiffs from the matter. Without cash on the table, what is left is the possibility of injunctions that would stop Disney from engaging in such antitrust violations in the future. "Because Plaintiffs have specifically alleged that the terms of the MFN provision permit Disney to set a price floor and raise its competitors' ESPN prices (which translate to the subscription package prices) whenever it raises Hulu's prices, the Court finds Plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to plead Disney's market power in a well-defined SLPTV market in the United States," Judge Davila wrote Tuesday. The Walt Disney Company did not respond to request for comment on June 25's order. If and when they do, this post will be updated. Of course, Disney isn't exactly unfamiliar with antitrust allegations of late. Along with Warner Bros Discovery and Fox, Disney is also facing a February filed antitrust action from Fubo over the trio's planned Venu sports streamer service. Venu is set to debut in the fall, just in time for the start of the NFL season -- a league it seems to have very little of to stream. [GN] WHITE ROCK MEDICAL: Employees Sue Over Unpaid Insurance Premiums ---------------------------------------------------------------- Will Maddox, writing for D Magazine, reports that after 158 employees were laid off by White Rock Medical Center on April 30, a class action lawsuit filed by former employees says their employer took health insurance premiums out of their paycheck but didn't use the money to pay for health insurance. The employees subsequently lost their health insurance and were left to foot the bill out of pocket for two months' worth of medical expenses. "As a result of Defendants' reprehensible actions, 158 healthcare heroes were fired without a safety net and with substantial unexpected medical debt. This was all foreseeable and easily preventable by Defendants. Defendants chose an unethical and illegal path that put 'profits over people,'" the lawsuit, filed by Dallas firm Tremain Artaza, reads. The suit is a Rule 23 Class Action suit, meaning that if the case is certified by the court, everyone in the class definition would be considered part of the suit. Employees would not need to opt into the class. The suit names two plaintiffs and describes other potential members of the class as individuals who were notified of their termination on April 30 and who had their health insurance canceled despite having money taken from the paycheck to pay premiums. The primary defendant of the case is Heights Healthcare of Texas, which purchased the East Dallas hospital from California-based Pipeline Health in October 2023 after Pipeline bought the 218-bed hospital in 2018. In 2022, the hospital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while owned by Pipeline. A statement from Pipeline noted "skyrocketing labor and supply costs, decreased ability to generate revenue, and delayed payments from various insurance plans for critical patient care services already delivered" as a cause for the struggles. Heights is currently embroiled in breach-of-contract litigation with Pipeline, which Heights blames for laying off more than one in three White Rock Medical Center employees. The layoffs resulted in the hospital briefly being unable to receive ambulances earlier this year. The suit also names neurosurgeon Dr. Mirza Baig, the hospital's CEO and one of two employees at Heights Healthcare of Texas, which is based near Houston. Baig's company oversees surgical and acute care facilities in the Houston area and a surgical hospital in Hurst. The suit says that the laid-off employees received no notice despite the WARN Act, which requires 60 days' notice for mass layoffs of more than one-third of the staff. Employees received a letter when they were laid off saying that the hospital was unable to give notice because of "unforeseeable circumstances" connected to the litigation with Pipeline. However, the lawsuit claims that notice was a realistic option because Heights' mediation with Pipeline failed in January, and it later filed a lawsuit against Pipeline in February. The plaintiffs argued that the legal troubles in January and February meant Heights leadership had an idea that financial difficulty could be on the way. In addition to the lack of notice, for all of March and April 2024, the suit says the hospital continued to deduct money from the 158 laid-off employees' paychecks to pay insurance premiums, but neither that money nor the company's portion of the premium ever made it to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, which was the hospital's insurance provider. On March 1, Blue Cross canceled the health insurance for employees with unpaid premiums. The named employees received thousands of dollars of medical treatment when they thought they had health insurance. Later, they began to receive notices from Blue Cross about the unpaid medical expenses when they were employed by WRMC, paying insurance premiums, and lacking health coverage. The employees were asked to pay for treatment they assumed would be covered by their health insurance. The plaintiffs named several counts in the suit, alleging the hospital and related entities violated the WARN Act, denied the employees benefits, and breached their fiduciary duty. The defendants have until June 28 to file their answers to the lawsuit, and procedural steps will follow before notice can be sent to other potential members of the class action suit. White Rock Medical Center's in-house counsel did not immediately respond for comment. [GN] WYNN LAS VEGAS: Court Approves Settlement in Little FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order approving stipulation of settlement in the lawsuit styled SHEILA LITTLE, Plaintiff v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01150-APG-MDC (D. Nev.). The parties filed a joint motion for approval of a proposed collective action settlement (the Settlement) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Judge Gordon finds that the proposed Settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute arising under the FLSA for those collective action members, all of whom are current or former employees of the Defendant, that elect to participate in the Settlement. Those collective action members include the current Plaintiffs, who have opted-in to this case, and persons who have not asserted claims in this case but who chose to accept the offer of settlement. As discussed in Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1982), Judge Gordon finds the terms of the proposed settlement represent a reasonable compromise of the disputed issue as to the Plaintiffs' and other collective action members' claims for allegedly unpaid tips and related relief. There is no evidence of collusion, and the settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of both sides and with the assistance of former federal Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Retired. Judge Gordon also finds the settlement apportionment and disbursement of funds is reasonable for the reasons set forth in the motion to approve the Settlement and constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of the FLSA and state law claims. The Settlement is fair and reasonable in all other respects, including (i) the service awards to plaintiff Sheila Little and Opt-in Plaintiffs Elena Espino and Alejandro Benitez (Lead Plaintiffs) for the work that they performed on behalf of others, (ii) the attorneys' fees and costs of plaintiffs' counsel, and (iii) the proposed fees of the Settlement Administrator Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions. There are no collective action members, who will have their legal rights limited by failing to act in response to the proposed Settlement. The persons, who are eligible collective action members, may accept or decline the Settlement as each deems best. If they decline to accept the Settlement and release the Defendant from their FLSA and state law claims they may promptly pursue their FLSA and state law claims against the Defendant in separate litigation without any diminution of their force or value as a result of the Settlement. The Settlement further provides the collective action members may decline to accept the Settlement and recommence their FLSA and state law claims against the Defendant with no erosion of the statute of limitations applicable to those claims as long as they do so within 30 days of the entry of a final judgment in this case. While any plaintiffs that decline to accept the Settlement would have to initiate such separate litigation, as the Settlement requires that this case be dismissed by a final judgment, that requirement does not negate my finding that the Settlement is fair and reasonable under the FLSA and warrants approval, Judge Gordon points out. Accordingly, the Court holds the proposed Settlement is approved as a fair and reasonable compromise and settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act and state law claims for such plaintiffs and the other collective action members, who agree to accept it. Judge Gordon approves in substantially the form annexed as Exhibit E the Notice and Exhibit D the Settlement Offer and Release forms for the proposed Settlement that will be mailed no later than July 5, 2024, to the Plaintiffs and other collective action members. If the Settlement is not voided pursuant to its terms, Judge Gordon will, without a further hearing, approve and enter an Order substantially in the form of Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement that enters a final judgment dismissing this case as provided for by the Settlement and approving a final settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of the Plaintiffs and the other collective action members, who agree to participate in the Settlement. That Order will also address and resolve any potential motion by the Plaintiffs' counsel to be relieved as attorney for any current opt-in plaintiff, who decides to reject the Settlement, if said motion is required to be filed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 16, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2efbbct4 from PacerMonitor.com. [*] NY Sees Rise in Hidden Fees Class Suit on Online Purchases -------------------------------------------------------------- Westfair Online reports that in New York, there has been an uptick in class action lawsuits seeking to contest "hidden" ticket fees following online purchases. The New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law was amended in August 2022, which has prompted dozens of nearly identical class action lawsuits to be filed in New York federal and state courts against various operators of places of entertainment related to charges incurred by consumers for admission. New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07 The New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law governs ticket sale practices for entertainment providers in New York that sell tickets to events. Under Sec. 25.07(4), "every operator . . . of a place of entertainment . . . shall disclose the total cost of the ticket, inclusive of all ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket… Such disclosure of the total cost and fees shall be displayed in the ticket listing prior to the ticket being selected for purchase. Disclosures of subtotals, fees, charges, and any other component of the total price shall not be false or misleading and may not be presented more prominently or in the same or larger size as the total price. The price of the ticket shall not increase during the purchase process, excluding reasonable fees for the delivery of non-electronic tickets based on the delivery method selected by the purchaser, which shall be disclosed prior to accepting payment therefor." Class action complaints have asserted that websites that facilitate online ticket sales do not properly disclose the total ticket price, inclusive of fees and other charges, prior to the ticket being selected for purchase. The complaints have also alleged that the total ticket price has not been displayed on the first webpage where the ticket price appears. The law allows for any person injured by a violation to recover any actual damages or $50, whichever is greater. The Court may also award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Plaintiffs' Lawyers Are Not Dragging Their Heels Plaintiffs across New York State are filing class action lawsuits against a wide variety of businesses engaged in selling tickets through their own website and third-party websites. These class action lawsuits typically allege non-compliance with Sec. 25.07(4) for failing to disclose service fees and other fees to customers up front. The lawsuits describe any additional fees (i.e. electronic or processing fees) as deceitful charges unfairly imposed on customers under the ambiguous guise of taxes and fees. As a remedy for violation of the law, class plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to stop current practices, along with class-wide monetary damages and attorney's fees. Recommendations As these lawsuits continue to be filed, businesses should stay apprised of new developments and assess potential defenses to these claims. Companies should evaluate ticket sale practices and make any necessary changes to comply with the amended New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law. Businesses that work with third-party platforms and ticket resellers should be especially diligent in ensuring their business partners are also in compliance. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Samuel Dobre, Jason Kaufman, Andrew Delzotto, any attorney in Bond's labor and employment practice, or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact. About Bond, Schoeneck & King: Bond is a full-service law firm with downstate offices in Westchester, New York City, Garden City and Melville. Samuel G. Dobre is a labor and employment attorney in Bond's New York City office, representing employers in complex labor and employment litigation matters. He has successfully defended claims of race, gender, age, disability, national origin and religion discrimination, and retaliation. Jason F. Kaufman is also a labor and employment attorney in Bond's New York City office. Jason brings extensive experience in a wide range of litigation matters, with an emphasis on managing labor and employment matters. Andrew J. Delzotto is an attorney in Bond's Westchester office, counseling clients in labor and employment matters and throughout all stages of union collective bargaining negotiations and general employment matters.[GN] [*] Rising Fraudulent Claims Heighten Settlement Risk ----------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Berman, Darren Cottriel, Robert N. Stander and Alexander Prunka, writing for mondaq, report that consumers frequently receive only a paltry fraction of class action settlement funds, which are instead doled out to plaintiffs' lawyers, cy pres recipients, and administrators. Now this problem is compounded by a recent development: an explosion in fraudulent claims submitted to claims administrators. One claims administrator recently reported that it received 80 million fraudulent claims in 2023, an increase of 19,000% since 2021. This disturbing rise correlates with a transition from paper processing systems to digital systems using vendors such as Zelle, PayPal, and Venmo. Fraudsters appear to be using bots operating in foreign countries and other methods to submit fictitious claims. In several instances, this has resulted in claim numbers far exceeding the estimated class size. In light of these developments, defendants must take measures to mitigate risk. Several strategies were proposed. First, use capped settlements to protect against runaway costs and claims that far exceed estimated class size. Second, employ a sophisticated claims administrator with verifiable fraud control systems. Third, negotiate risk-shifting terms in the administrators' agreement. Fourth, include provisions in the settlement agreement enabling the parties and administrator to identify and reject claims with significant indicia of fraud. Most of the money paid into class action settlement funds is never paid out to class members. Empirical research, including research conducted by Jones Day, has shown that most settlement funds are instead distributed to class counsel, cy pres beneficiaries, and others. The utility of class action litigation as a means of compensating class members, always questionable, has been further diminished by a new development: a tidal wave of bogus claims submitted to the administrators of the settlement funds by scammers who are pretending to be class members. As claims administration has gone from a paper process to a primarily digital process, the ability of criminals to submit fraudulent claims has increased exponentially. Anecdotal evidence of increasing fraud has been building for some time. Hard numbers arrived with a recent report from Digital Disbursements, a company that administers the distribution of settlement funds. Digital Disbursements reports that in 2023, it received more than 80 million claims "with significant indicia of fraud" -- up over 19,000% from 2021, when that company received fewer than half a million such claims. Settling defendants should take precautions to mitigate the risk from fraudulent claims. HISTORICAL BARRIERS HAVE PREVENTED CLASS MEMBERS FROM RECEIVING MOST CLASS SETTLEMENT FUNDS As previously analyzed in Jones Day White Papers, and as detailed in a forthcoming law review article written by a Jones Day partner, consumers frequently receive only a paltry fraction of class action settlement funds -- if anything at all. There are numerous reasons for this: -- Significant portions of the settlement funds are paid to class counsel for their fees and expenses. -- Additional funds are paid to the companies that provide notice to the class, process claims from class members, and disburse payments. -- In many class actions, much of the settlement funds are distributed "cy pres" to charities or other entities that are not class members. -- In most class actions, class members do not receive any compensation unless they submit a claim form -- and only about 9% of class members make this effort. -- Many class members who are sent checks never cash them. The check-cashing rate is only 77% for class members who submitted a claim form, and even lower -- 55% -- for class members who received checks in "direct payment cases" that do not require the submission of a claim. As a result, when settlements result in a monetary award, only a small fraction of class members typically receive any monetary benefits, and class members as a whole received only a fraction of the overall award. THE ADVENT OF DIGITAL PAYMENT PLATFORMS, AND THE EXPLOSION OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMS: FROM AI BOTS TO CLICK-FARMS Before digital payment methods became available, class members entitled to monetary settlements typically received paper checks. Today, as U.S. District Judge James Donato recently remarked, "everyone's life is online." These days, it is typical for claims administrators to use digital vendors such as Zelle, PayPal, and Venmo for payment distribution. Using these digital payment platforms, claimants can now receive the monetary benefit of class settlements directly to their e-wallets instead of having to receive and cash a physical check delivered by mail. The hope was that digital distributions would make settlements more accessible for consumers, increase the rates at which consumers submit claims, streamline payments, and lower administrative costs. Unfortunately, growth in technology comes with growth in misuse. Digital Disbursements reports that in 2023, it was retained to provide digital payment processing in 323 cases, up from 80 in 2021.Over the same time period, suspected fraudulent claims in class action settlements rose over 19,000% from roughly 422,000 to more than 80 million. Digital Disbursements does not directly state the percentage of claims that are fraudulent. But it indicates that it received about 135 million total claims in 2023 -- which would mean that most of the claims it received bore "significant indicia of fraud." Digital Disbursements has identified dozens of indicia of fraud. Perhaps the most significant indicator is multiple claims with the same payment destination, the occurrence of which increased by more than 27,000% from 2020 to 2023. Another is the submission of thousands of claims with recently created e-mail domains. Between 2021 and 2023, Digital Disbursements noted a 19,000% increase in claims associated with (i) e-mail domains under three years of age and (ii) at least one other indicator of fraud. Even before Digital Disbursements quantified the trend, there were anecdotal reports of massive fraud in recent cases. -- In a case involving Artsana, a maker of child car booster seats, more than 3.3 million claims were submitted, even though the estimated class size was only 875,000. The claims administrator's analysis showed that scammers used sophisticated methods to generate large numbers of fraudulent claims. -- In Celsius's $7.8 million class settlement, 49% of submitted claims were determined to be fraudulent. Fraudulent methods included filing multiple claims from a single IP address or with the same digital payment account information. -- In Godiva's $15 million claim-based settlement, 47% of all submitted claims were later found to be fraudulently manufactured through a bot operating in a foreign country. THE IMPACT ON CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS The increase in fraudulent claims may impact the utility of consumer class action settlements in two significant ways. First, fraudulent claims will directly dilute individual claim value in capped settlements, which will further reduce the amount of funds ultimately available to the allegedly aggrieved consumers. Second, fraudulent claims can significantly increase administration fees (particularly where such fees are based on a per-claim basis). This could also reduce the overall pot for settlement payments or, where administrative costs are paid outside of the settlement fund, expose the parties to significant unanticipated costs. MITIGATING THE RISK There are ways for companies to mitigate the risks associated with fraudulent claims in class settlements. Settling defendants should consider the following strategies: -- Using capped settlements will safeguard the companies from unexpected costs arising from an influx of bot-made or click-farm–generated fraudulent claims. -- Employing a sophisticated administrator with verifiable fraud controls is crucial. Check the administrator's anti-fraud procedures -- such as reCAPTCHA, address verification, and payment verification -- to ensure the use of robust tools to block fraudulent claims. -- Consider negotiating risk-shifting terms in the administrators' agreement regarding fees and costs incurred as a result of fraudulent claims. -- Consider including provisions in the settlement agreement and proposed approval orders enabling the parties and settlement administrator to identify and reject claims with substantial indicia of fraud as part of the administration process and without the need to obtain further approvals from the court. -- Settling parties should also consider proactively advising the court about the potential for fraudulent claims and the need for such provisions to allow them to reasonably address such claims and best ensure the settlement proceeds go to legitimate class members. Settlement administrators should constantly reassess their security measures to ensure they are equipped to minimize and weed out fraudulent claims. Requiring a verifiable physical address instead of a mobile number or digital payment information could be the next step. CONCLUSION The sudden increase in fraudulent claims poses an additional threat to the longstanding problem of settlement fund dilution. All stakeholders must make diligent efforts to assess the risks they face and take mitigating actions to stem potential damage. [GN] [*] Tennessee Provides Law for Cybersecurity Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that Tennessee has joined a handful of other states to provide certain safe harbors in the cybersecurity realm. Unlike others, the law sites beside -- but does not modify -- the states' data breach notification law. Also unlike others, the safe harbor is very narrowly tailored, and is not triggered by having a data security program. Under the new law, companies are not liable in class action suits that arise from a "cybersecurity event." The term is defined similarly to that used by the SEC when describing public entities 8K filing obligations. Namely, an event that arises from unauthorized access or misuse of either an "information system" or "non-public" information stored on that system. Non-public information is defined to include elements like social security numbers, drivers' license numbers, and financial account numbers, mirroring the state's breach notice law. It also includes, though, "biometric records," an element not found in the breach notice law. There is an exception to this safe harbor. It does not apply if the event was caused by a company's "willful and wanton misconduct or gross negligence." Terms that are not defined under the act. Putting It Into Practice: Given the carve out to this shield, and its limited jurisdiction (in Tennessee and not across the US), it is not clear if it will afford broad protections to companies. However, it may be the start of a trend that we might find in other states over the coming months. [GN] ********* 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 ***