/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240723.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 147 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Abbott Says ALL STARS: Faces Karim Suit Over Blind's Access to Online Store ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Settlement in Belanger Suit Has Final Approval ALTIMMUNE INC: Campanile Sues Over Drop in Share Price AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Certifies Appeal in Malloy Class Suit ANN & ROBERT: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Action Hearing Set February 2026 ASR GROUP: San Gennaro Suit Alleges Sugar Price-fixing Conspiracy BANK OF AMERICA: Must Answer Walker's Amended Complaint by Aug. 9 BOOT BARN: Murray Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers BYTEDANCE INC: Seeks Denial of Young Class Cert Bid CAPITAL ONE: Court Denies Appeal Over Data Breach Certification CARLSEN MOORING: Theriot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CARVANA LLC: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 15, 2025 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fraker Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Humphreys Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Mt. Rainier Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: PSGL Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Rowe Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Shillito Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHESS.COM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Violations COLORADO: DOC Director Sued Over Inmates' Access to Treatment CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Thomas Balks at Unprotected Personal Info COTTON PATCH: Gresham-Coble Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage COUNTY OF WAYNE, MI: Court Severs Sanders' Claims From Bowles Suit COVISINT CORP: Announces Proposed Class Action Settlement CREDIT CONTROL: De Lima Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DICASTAL NORTH AMERICA: Underhill Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime DRIP DROP: Slowinski Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ECP OPTOMETRY: Plaintiffs File Bid for Conditional Certification ENVESTNET INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Bain Capital EQT CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ross Due Nov. 12 EVOLVE BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Biron Suit Alleges FAMILY HEALTH: Faces Adams Suit Over Alleged Data Breach FANDANGO MEDIA: Reeves Sues Over Movie Tickets' Deceptive Ads FARFETCH LTD: Faces Allegations of Fraud in New Class Action FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: TheDove Seeks 9th Cir Review of Final Order FUNDERA INC: Faces McCorkle Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access GERDAU AMERISTEEL: M.D. Florida Dismisses Molla ERISA Class Suit GO NEW YORK: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Teta Class Suit HENRY FORD: McClain Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Parties HIBBETT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to JD Sports Fashion HOMESMART INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Texts HUDDLESON LINENS: Cannot Be Represented by Gledhill in Fernandez HUMANA INC: Moore Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit IDAHO: District Court Grants in Part Bid for TRO in Roe v. Labrador INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Lindley Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Saputo Sues Over Band-Aid Products' False Ads KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses KNOX COUNTY, IL: Seeks More Time for Amended Complaint Response LAKESIDE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Roussell Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma LEONARD'S EXPRESS: Blankenship Files Suit in W.D. New York LG ELECTRONICS: Liz Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store LGI HOMES: McAlister Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by July 26 LGI HOMES: McAlister Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply LIVANOVA USA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Chaudhry Alleges LOGAN SQUARE: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Ramos Suit Says LOLITA'S RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pinales Alleges LOVE CANAL: Judge Dismisses 18 Class Suits Over Toxic Chemicals M&T BANK CORPORATION: Twoguns Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts M&T BANK CORPORATION: Wormack Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MAPLEBEAR INC: Cheng Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Stephens Suit MARIDOR LLC: Turkette Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices MDL 2843: Panel Denies Reconsideration Bid on Transfer of 3 Suits MDL 2843: Zimmerman Suit Consolidated in Facebook Data Privacy Row MDL 2873: Thompson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals' Exposure MDL 2873: Truitt Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals' Exposure METLIFE SERVICES: Kidd Sues Over Denial of Insurance Benefits MIDLOTHIAN MUSIC: Faces Ramos Suit Over Website's Access Barriers NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chalmers Sued Over Use of Commercial Videos NATIONAL TENANT: Rogers Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA NBA PROPERTIES: Bid to Dismiss Fan's 2nd Amended Complaint Denied NEW DIRECTION: Court Explains Rationale for TRO in Theriault Suit NISSAN CANADA: Court OKs Settlement in Data Incident Class Suit NORTHEAST SPINE: Blackman Privacy Suit Removed to D.N.J. OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Spyware in Marketing Emails PATELCO CREDIT: Faces Class Action After Ransomware Attack PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Data, Lee Claims PEGASO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Long Suit Alleges PEORIA UNIFIED: Court Rules Refund in Suit Over Property Taxes POLY & BARK: Faces Class Action Over Discounted Products' False Ads PRIMO WATER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triton US PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Sued Over Unlawful Parking Ticket Citations QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Cole Suit QUOTEWIZARD.COM: Bid to File Supplemental Authority OK'd SANTANDER CONSUMER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Suit Claims SECURITAS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bissette Alleges SENTINELONE INC: Court Tosses Securities Suit With Leave to Amend SHINOLA/DETROIT LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Brown Says STAPLES THE OFFICE: Torres Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. STRONG GLOBAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Fundamental Global SUMMIT HEALTH: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Stewart FLSA Suit SUTTON FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Suit Claims TEACHERS INSURANCE: Pre-Class-Cert. Bids Adjourned to Oct. 31 TENNESSSEE: Lawrence Suit Seeks Class Certification TESLA INC: Insurance Class Action Review Set in October 2024 THINX INC: Faces Espinal Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TIFFANY AND CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says TOM'S PET: Faces Solis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Enriquez Says TRUEACCORD CORP: Hilliard Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts UNITED STATES: Henkel Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA UNITED STATES: Montana-Dakota Seeks Review of Final EPA Rule UNITED WATER: Seeks Leave to Allow Expert to Testify Via Zoom UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Be Well Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: H. Lee Moffitt Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: McCollum Sues Over 12% Decline of Stock Price UOFL HEALTH: Blandford Suit Remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court VERA WHOLE: Spencer Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court VIRGIN GALACTIC: Court Grants Bid to Add Plaintiff in Kusnier Suit WALGREEN PHARMACY: Class of Employees Certified in Lemons Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 10 WALT DISNEY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Kelly WASTE MANAGEMENT: Unlawfully Collects Biometrics, Mallette Alleges WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Harrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid to Intervene in Ordosgoitti Suit Denied WEST COAST SAND: Pineda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WEST VIRGINIA: Bids to Dismiss Sheppheard v. Gov. Justice Granted WHEELING HOSPITAL: Tripp Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WHITWORTH UNIVERSITY: Court Signs Protective Order in Breach Suit WILLIAM LUDOVICO: Scheduling Order Entered in Browntree Class Suit WILLIAMSBURG RECYCLING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Air Pollution WOLF APPLIANCE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Bankhurst Consumer Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Abbott Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES ABBOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul ) Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE ) Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03799-RMG (D.S.C., July 1, 2024) is an action resulting from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which 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. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The 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. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says the suit. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr. 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 ALL STARS: Faces Karim Suit Over Blind's Access to Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL STARS PREMIUM SPORTSWEAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05140 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.allstarelite.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. All Stars Premium Sportswear, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Settlement in Belanger Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement in the lawsuit captioned YVONNE BELANGER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; and ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00317-WJ-SCY (D.N.M.). The matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough's June 4, 2024 Proposed Findings And Recommended Disposition ("PFRD"). In that PFRD, Judge Yarbrough recommends that the Court grant the Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement. Judge Yarbrough notified the parties that they had 14 days from service of the PFRD to file any objections to the PFRD. The parties have not filed any objections to the PFRD, thereby, waiving their right to review of the proposed disposition. Furthermore, upon review of the PFRD, the Court concurs with Judge Yarbrough's findings and recommendation. The Court, therefore, rules that: 1. The Court adopts Judge Yarbrough's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, including all findings as to the class action settlement; and 2. grants the Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mjsa2ny from PacerMonitor.com. ALTIMMUNE INC: Campanile Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ FRANK CAMPANILE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTIMMUNE, INC.; VIPIN K. GARG; RICHARD I. EISENSTADT; and M. SCOTT HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01918-PX (D. Md., July 1, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased Altimmune's common stock or purchased Altimmune call options or sold put options during the Class Period, including any Altimmune common stock purchased or otherwise acquired in connection with the exercise of such options between December 1, 2023 and April 26, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Altimmune overstated the potential for pemvidutide to stand out from competing GLP-1 agonists based on the drug's efficacy and tolerability results observed in the MOMENTUM Trial; (ii) accordingly, the MOMENTUM Trial results were less significant to pemvidutide's clinical, commercial, and competitive prospects than Defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, the Defendants had overstated Altimmune's prospects for finding a strategic partner to develop pemvidutide; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Altimmune's stock price fell $0.87 per share, or 11.98 percent, to close at $6.39 per share on April 29, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts. Altimmune, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on the development of novel peptide-based therapeutics for the treatment of obesity, NASH, chronic hepatitis B, and liver diseases. Altimmune serves patients and healthcare professionals worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cynthia L. Leppert, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LEPPERT, LLC 1 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 980 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 672-4022 Facsimile: (410) 672-4350 Email: CLL@cynthialeppertlaw.com - and - Philip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Certifies Appeal in Malloy Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne R. Traum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants in part and denies it in part the Defendant's Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal in the lawsuit titled DWIGHT MALLOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00286-ART-MDC (D. Nev.). ` Pending before the Court is Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC's Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Questions to the Nevada Supreme Court. Also pending is the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document related to its Motion for Certification. Plaintiff Dwight Malloy filed this purported class action alleging that Nevada law entitles him and the purported class to be paid for time they allegedly spent undergoing pre-shift protective screenings for COVID-19. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of NRS 608.016; (2) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Nevada Constitution; (3) failure to pay overtime in violation of NRS 608.018; and (4) failure to timely pay all wages due and owing in violation of NRS 608.020-.050. In response to the Defendant's initial motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") asserting the same claims. The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Amazon as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately August 2020 to April 2021. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Amazon implemented a company-wide policy requiring each of its hourly, non-exempt employees to undergo a physical and medical examination to check for symptoms of the Coronavirus each shift. The examination, including the time spent waiting in line, took approximately 10 minutes to 15 minutes on average. Amazon did not pay the employees for this time. The Defendant moved for dismissal of the claims in the Plaintiff's FAC, arguing that Covid-19 screening does not constitute "hours worked" under Nevada law because the screenings are not spent primarily for Amazon's benefit. The Defendant further argued that time spent screening for Covid-19 was not indispensable and integral to the employees' primary duties and, therefore, not compensable under the Portal-to Portal Act ("PPA"). After briefing from both parties and oral argument, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, holding that Nevada has not incorporated the Portal-to-Portal Act, that Nevada law requires that an employer pay an employee for all work, and that the time spent in and waiting for Covid-19 screenings "was work." Following the denial of its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant filed its Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Questions to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Plaintiff responded and the Defendant replied. The Defendant later moved for leave to file supplemental authority. The Plaintiff responded, and the Defendant replied. The Court finds that an unsettled question of state law is at least partially dispositive in this case. Judge Traum notes that In re: Amazon.Com, Inc. Fulfillment Ctr. Fair Lab. Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litig., 905 F.3d 387, 402–04 (6th Cir. 2018) held that Nevada does not incorporate the federal PPA into its wage-hour statutes. Whether Nevada incorporates the PPA into its wage-hour statutes is dispositive on the Plaintiff's claims. The Court will, therefore, certify the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: Does Nevada law incorporate the PPA? Given the public policy ramifications and broad application of a determination on this question to Nevada workers and employers, the Court finds that certification of this question to the Nevada Supreme Court is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies it in part the Defendant's Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Questions to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Court certifies a question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court under the official seal of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2hkzuhxa from PacerMonitor.com. Montgomery Y. Paek -- mpaek@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937, Counsel for the moving Defendant. Esther C. Rodriguez -- esther@rodriguezlaw.com -- RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C., in Las Vegas, Nevada 89145, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Don J. Foty -- dfoty@hftrialfirm.com -- HODGES & FOTY, LLP, in Houston, Texas 77046, Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff. ANN & ROBERT: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Dave Brynes of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed in Chicago on Thursday, July 11, takes the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital to task over a major cybersecurity breach. The minor plaintiffs in the suit say they fear the leak exposed their personal data -- including names, social security numbers and medical histories -- to unknown individuals without their consent. "Plaintiffs have suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the present and ongoing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from their private Information being placed in the hands of cybercriminals," the children and their parents and guardians say in the complaint. Lurie does not deny the data breach occurred. The hospital places the incident between Jan. 26 and 31, and in the spring publicly acknowledged its data systems were hacked. Lurie CEO Thomas Shanley further stated in an open online letter that the hospital is working to mitigate the impact on patients. "Once our investigation team identified an amount of data that was impacted by the cybercriminals, we worked closely with law enforcement to retrieve that data," Shanley said. "Our investigation to date has not identified the impacted data on the dark web or in the public sphere." As a form of recompense, Lurie has offered affected patients two years of free access to Experian IdentityWorks, a cybersecurity and identity theft protection suite. For the plaintiffs, the offer is not nearly enough. "Defendant’s offer to plaintiffs and the putative class of 24 months of 'complimentary access to Experian IdentityWorks' is wholly inadequate compared to what may affected victims may face for the rest of their lives due to the data breach," they say in the complaint. The plaintiffs estimate the breach affected over 792,000 current and former Lurie patients, most of them still children. Lurie did not respond to for call to comment on this figure, and does not list its own estimate on its website. Besides the number of affected patients, the plaintiffs take issue with the amount of time it took for Lurie to alert patients to the breach. While the breach occurred in January, the plaintiffs claim they were not made aware their data had potentially been stolen until late June. Lurie's website does not say when it began alerting patients to the breach, and its page on the issue has no immediately visible publish date. However, web data lists June 27 as the publish date for both that page and Shanley's open letter. The date is consistent with when the plaintiffs say they were made aware that their data was potentially compromised. "Lurie Children inexplicably waited nearly five months until June 27, 2024, to inform its patients that their [personal and health information] could be compromised as a result of the data breach," the plaintiffs say in the complaint. "In cases dealing with data breaches, every moment is precious in order to recover data and take the necessary precautions to insulate from the countless harms caused by data breaches." Lurie places the blame for the attack on the ransomware group Rhysida, who take their name from a genus of centipede. The same group was responsible for cyberattacks on the British Library and Chilean army last year. According to a screenshot obtained by Cyber Security News, the group attempted to sell the Lurie data for 60 Bitcoin -- roughly equivalent to $3.4 million. The plaintiffs value the controversy at or over $5 million, and demand a jury trial to determine "compensatory, punitive, statutory, and treble damages." They are represented by Gary Klinger of the Chicago firm Milberg Coleman as well as attorneys from three other firms. [GN] APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Action Hearing Set February 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for USA Today, reports that Apple is now facing a February 2026 trial in a $7 billion class action in California federal court that accuses the company of monopolizing the app market for its iPhones, causing tens of millions of customers to pay higher prices. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers set the date for the jury trial in an order, opens new tab on Thursday, July 11, after ruling earlier this year to certify the case as a class action comprising all U.S. Apple customers who spent $10 or more on Apple app or in-app purchases since 2008. The lawsuit, filed in 2011, accuses Apple of artificially inflating the 30% sales commission charged to developers on the company's App Store, claiming that the overcharges are passed down to consumers through increased prices for apps. An expert for the plaintiffs estimated damages of between $7 billion and $10 billion, court records show. An appeals court in May declined Apple's bid to hear its challenge to the class order before trial. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Apple has denied any wrongdoing. An attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, said that "nearly all the pretrial work is complete and we are looking forward to the trial of this important case." In a different case, Rogers is weighing whether Apple has complied with an order requiring it to give developers more freedom to show consumers other ways to pay for purchases made within apps. That lawsuit, by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games, did not seek monetary damages. The U.S. government and a group of states are separately suing Apple in federal court in New Jersey for allegedly monopolizing the smartphone market. Apple has denied the claims and said it will ask a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. The first major hearing in the case is set for July 17. In re: Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR. [GN] ASR GROUP: San Gennaro Suit Alleges Sugar Price-fixing Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAN GENNARO FEAST, INC. and ANTHONY'S ITALIAN CUISINE INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-02489 (D. Minn., June 27, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix prices for granulated sugar in the United States under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. Beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, the exact date being unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, the Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to artificially inflate the price of granulated sugar in the United States. Among the victims of the conspiracy are direct purchasers of granulated sugar from the Producing Defendants, including food and beverage manufacturers, retailers, food service companies, and distributors, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful agreement, direct purchasers of granulated sugar in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiffs and the Class members, paid supra-competitive prices for granulated sugar sold by Defendants in the United States and its territories beginning no later than January 1, 2019, and running through the present, the suit asserts. Plaintiff San Gennaro Feast is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located in Las Vegas, Nevada. During the Class Period, Plaintiff purchased Granulated Sugar indirectly from one of the Producing Defendants. ASR Group International, Inc. is a privately held Florida corporation and global producer and seller of granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (312) 984-0001 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: burt@whafh.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Esq. ISQUITH LAW PLLC 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (718) 775-6478 E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com - and - Richard J. Vita, Esq. VITA LAW OFFICES P.C. 100 State Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 426-6566 E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Must Answer Walker's Amended Complaint by Aug. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ISADORA Y. WALKER, and ANDREA G. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00356-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, extends the deadline for the Defendant to file an answer to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint through and including Aug. 9, 2024. The matter is before the Court on Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint and a Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Extend"). On March 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint. On May 31, 2024, the Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss. On June 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs' deadline to file an Amended Complaint or a response to the Motion to Dismiss was extended through and including July 1, 2024. The Motion to Extend was filed on June 27, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on July 1, 2024. By the Motion to Extend, the parties request that: 1) the Defendant's deadline to file a response to the Amended Complaint be extended to Aug. 9, 2024, 2) the Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to an anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be extended to Sept. 6, 2024, and 3) the Defendant's deadline to file a reply in support of its anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be extended to Sept. 27, 2024. Judge Metcalf holds that the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint will be extended. Should a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be filed by the Defendant, and should the parties reasonably require additional time to complete the briefing relative to that motion, they may request appropriate extensions at that time. However, their request for extensions of the response and reply deadlines for such a motion, which has not yet been filed, will be denied without prejudice. Therefore, the Court orders that: 1. Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint is denied as moot as a matter of law; 2. The Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is granted in part as follows: a. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is extended through and including Aug. 9, 2024; and b. The parties' request for extensions of the briefing deadlines relative to an anticipated Motion to Dismiss by the Defendant is denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/cuxuxps8 from PacerMonitor.com. BOOT BARN: Murray Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------ WARNER MURRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOT BARN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05141 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.bootbarn.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, hidden elements on the web page, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Boot Barn, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BYTEDANCE INC: Seeks Denial of Young Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Aug. 15, 2024, will move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order denying class certification on the ground that Plaintiff Reece Young fails to meet Rule 23's requirements for class certification. The Court should preemptively deny class certification because, like former-Plaintiff Velez, over 65 percent of the putative class is subject to arbitration agreements with class action waivers that cover the claim the Plaintiff Young seeks to assert on their behalf here. Under these circumstances, the Plaintiff Young cannot meet his burden of establishing that Rule 23's requirements are met as to his nationwide putative class. The Plaintiffs Young and Velez filed this putative class action on March 24, 2022, asserting a negligence claim and a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on allegations that they purportedly suffered mental health injuries and/or were at an "increased risk" of developing such injuries as a result of their content moderation work. The Plaintiff Reece Young and former-Plaintiff Ashley Velez were employed by third parties Atrium Staffing LLC and TELUS International, respectively, which in turn contracted with the Defendants to provide content moderation services for the TikTok platform. ByteDance operates as a multinational internet technology holding company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NdFSE8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Leonora Cohen, Esq. Viola H. Li, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com LCohen@gibsondunn.com VHLi@gibsondunn.com CAPITAL ONE: Court Denies Appeal Over Data Breach Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that The BC Court of Appeal dismissed both an appeal and cross-appeal regarding a class action certification for a data breach, affirming the trial judge's decision on multiple claims and jurisdictional issues. The case involves a former Capital One customer seeking to sue the financial corporation for a data breach executed by hacker Paige Thompson in 2019. The court's decision reaffirmed the class action's original certification while addressing multiple claims and procedural contentions. In 2019, Paige Thompson hacked into Capital One's database, accessing the personal and financial information of approximately six million Canadians and 100 million Americans. Duncan Campbell, a former customer of Capital One, initiated a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and various privacy and consumer protection statute violations. He sought certification under the Class Proceedings Act, which the trial judge granted while dismissing certain claims such as intrusion upon seclusion and breach of confidence as bound to fail. Campbell appealed the dismissal of these claims, while Capital One cross-appealed the certification of privacy-related claims and other aspects of the judge's decision. Capital One argued that the trial judge erred in certifying privacy claims, asserting that British Columbia courts lacked jurisdiction over claims under privacy statutes from Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. They also contended that the trial judge's finding of compensable loss for the class members was speculative and not supported by evidence. The appeal court rejected Campbell's appeal, agreeing with the lower court that the claims of intrusion upon seclusion and breach of confidence were not actionable. The court noted that existing Canadian case law does not extend the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to data custodians like Capital One, who did not invade privacy by themselves but allegedly failed to protect data. On the cross-appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that British Columbia courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under the privacy statutes of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador. The court also found some basis, in fact, to conclude that class members had suffered compensable loss, particularly in relation to additional credit monitoring services obtained following the data breach. The court emphasized that the "some basis in fact" requirement at the certification stage is not an assessment of the merits but rather a threshold to determine whether a class action is the preferable procedure. Given the evidence presented, including expert testimony and affidavits from affected individuals, the court found sufficient grounds to support the certification. [GN] CARLSEN MOORING: Theriot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- BRYCE THERIOT, individually and for others similarly situated v. CARLSEN MOORING & MARINE SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-02423 (S.D. Tex., June 26, 2024) is a collective action lawsuit to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Theriot worked for Carlsen as a line handler from approximately October 2023 until April 2024 to provide services to its marine industry clients. Like the other day rate workers, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a workweek but Carlsen never pays Theriot and the other day rate workers overtime. Instead, Carlsen pays Theriot and the other day rate workers a flat amount for each day worked without overtime compensation, says the suit. Carlsen Mooring & Marine Services provides line handling services, including in the Sabine ship channel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CARVANA LLC: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 15, 2025 --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA JENNINGS and JOSEPH A. FURLONG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-05400-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered a scheduling order as follows: Deadline for Fact Discovery Jan. 15, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiff to serve expert April 15, 2025 report, if any, and dates the expert is available to be deposed within 30 days of the date the report is served. Deadline for Defendant to serve expert May 15, 2025 or report, if any, and dates the expert is 60 days after available to be deposed within 30 days of Plaintiff's expert the date the report is served. report, whichever is sooner. Motion for class certification 30 days after the final expert deposition. Opposition to motion for class certification. 30 days after motion for class certification is filed. Carvana sells cars online.[CC] A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7zraiR at no extra charge.[CC] CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fraker Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carol Fraker, Erica Reyes, Brittany Meadows, David Custis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00420 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02381-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M Berger 225 Jersey St San Francisco, CA 94114 Email: dberger45@gmail.com - and - John Tate Spragens SPRAGENS LAW PLC 311 22nd Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 983-8900 Fax: (615) 682-8533 Email: john@spragenslaw.com - and - Rosanne L. Mah Rosemary Medellin Rivas GIBBS LAW GROUP 1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Fax: (510) 350-9701 Email: rlm@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-3592 Email: kingram@bradley.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Humphreys Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Heidi Humphreys, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00619 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02390-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq. James Arthur Ulwick, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Ste Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com julwick@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Fax: (615) 313-9965 Email: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 150 4th Ave N Ste 1550 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Email: mchalos@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-3592 Email: kingram@bradley.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Mt. Rainier Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mt. Rainier Emergency Physicians, PLLC, River Rock Wellness, Jenna Wolfson, Dr. Michael P. Brook, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00323 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02367-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 6th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 221-6583 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Kathryn E Barnett, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 150 4th Ave N Ste 1650 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Fax: (615) 313-9965 Email: kbarnett@lchb.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN (TAMPA OFFICE) 201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: PSGL Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Paula S. Gordy LISW, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00386 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02377-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily Schiller, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. Robert Bruce Grayson K. Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Freedom Building Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq. Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-3592 Email: kingram@bradley.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Rowe Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Rowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00374 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02375-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 224-7550 Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - and - Chris Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com - and - Emily Schiller, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Freedom Building Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: eschiller@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-3592 Email: kingram@bradley.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Shillito Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Alicia Shillito, Parker Medical Center LPD, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00618 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02389-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas Murphy, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (516) 477-8339 Email: mboltax@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com nmurphy@hausfeld.com - and - Ashley Crooks, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: acrooks@hausfeld.com snathan@hausfeld.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Freedom Building Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com CHESS.COM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that Chess.com, an online chess community with over 100 million members, is facing a class action lawsuit. Filed by named plaintiff Carson Krueger, the lawsuit alleges that Chess.com improperly exposed the personal information of its U.S. members by using tracking software to collect and disclose users' video viewing history without their consent. This alleged violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) involves sophisticated tracking technology that gathers personally identifiable information (PII) and shares it with third-party advertisers for targeted advertising. The plaintiff seeks legal and equitable remedies to stop these practices and redress the harm caused. The lawsuit is pending in the Cook County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Eugene Y. Turin and Jordan R. Frysinger, of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago. [GN] COLORADO: DOC Director Sued Over Inmates' Access to Treatment -------------------------------------------------------------- CARL GAMBRELL; MICHAEL HANSON; ALEXANDER HINKLE; RYAN JONES; JAWAD KHOUIR; SARMAD MOHAMMED; ZACHARY MONDRAGON; DOMINIC PELLICANE; and FRITZ SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOSES STANCIL, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections; AMANDA RETTING, in her official capacity as Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program Administrator and Department of Corrections Representative on the Sex Offender Management Board; and KIMBERLY KLINE, in her official capacity as Chief of Behavioral Health at the Department of Corrections and Chair of the Sex Offender Management Board, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01853 (D. Col., July 2, 2024) arises from the Defendants' continued failure and refusal to provide statutorily mandated treatment to inmates serving indeterminate sentences under Colorado's Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998. According to the complaint, the Defendants are not prioritizing access to treatment based on the severity of an individual's crime of conviction, the risk of reoffending, the willingness to participate in treatment, the behavior while incarcerated, the due process liberty interest, or any other relevant and reasonable metric. The Defendants' refusal to provide treatment to offenders serving indeterminate sentences is arbitrary and capricious. By steadfastly refusing to provide treatment to individuals with indeterminate sentences, the Defendants are breaking the law and breaching their promises to the Plaintiffs and other members of the Proposed Class, says the suit. Department of Corrections is a state institution established by the Colorado Constitution. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. Adam Mueller, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 950 17th Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 831-7364 Facsimile: (303) 832-2628 Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com amueller@hmflaw.com - and - Kelly L. Page, Esq. David M. Beller, Esq. RECHT KORNFELD, P.C. 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 573-1900 Facsimile: (303) 446-9400 Email: kelly@rklawpc.com david@rklawpc.com CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Thomas Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOAN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.  CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02482-ECT-DJF (D. Minn., June 26, 2024) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack around February 2024 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. Despite learning of the data breach on February 12, 2024, and determining that private information was involved in the breach, the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the data breach until June 18, 2024. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. is a Minnesota business corporation that provides radiology services and/or employment to individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com COTTON PATCH: Gresham-Coble Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Gresham-Coble, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. COTTON PATCH CAFE, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-02507 (S.D. Tex., July 2, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") tip credit requirements and the Defendant's failure to pay its employees at the mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendant pays its tipped employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA. Under the FLSA, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay its employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the minimum wage requirement based upon the amount of tips the employees received from customers. As a result of these violations, Defendant has lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked. In other words, Defendant must account for the difference between the wages paid to Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Spring, Texas. The Defendant operates a chain of restaurants in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com COUNTY OF WAYNE, MI: Court Severs Sanders' Claims From Bowles Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled TONYA BOWLES, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan signed a Stipulated Order severing Plaintiffs Brianne and Matthew Sanders' claims. Plaintiffs Matthew and Brianne Sanders ("Sanders Plaintiffs") and Defendant Wayne County ("Wayne County") by counsel, as discussed during the June 18, 2024 status conference, stipulate to an order severing the Sanders Plaintiffs from this Consolidated Case. On Oct. 26, 2023, Matthew and Brianne Sanders v. Wayne County, et al., Case No. 23-cv-10789 (hereinafter "Original Sanders Action") was consolidated with this action. On that same day, in the Original Sanders Action, the Court denied leave to amend the complaint in the Original Sanders Action because "a class action already is pending in this District, and before this Court, which asserts the same claims on behalf of the same property owners." The Original Sanders Action involves six properties that allegedly went through the City of Taylor's Right of First Refusal program, and therefore, did not go through a public auction. The Sanders Plaintiffs' claims involve claims for the equity value of the subject properties and would not be covered by the current posture of the class in this Consolidated Case. As a result, circumstances have changed that justify an avenue for the Sanders Plaintiffs to pursue their individual claims for the equity value of the six properties. Therefore, the Sanders Plaintiffs and Wayne County stipulate to severing the Sanders' claims as to their six properties at issue in the Original Sanders Action. The Sanders Plaintiffs and Wayne County further stipulate and agree that the Sanders Plaintiffs will have seven days from entry of an order severing the Sanders' claims to file an amended complaint and that the County will have 35 days from the filing of such further amended complaint to answer or otherwise respond. Wherefore, the Court orders that the: 1. Sanders' claims will be severed from this case; 2. Original Sanders Action will be reopened; and 3. Sanders Plaintiffs will have seven days from entry of an order severing the Sanders' claims to file an amended complaint and that the County will have 35 days from the filing of such further amended complaint to answer or otherwise respond. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xnmu4uf from PacerMonitor.com. COVISINT CORP: Announces Proposed Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- A SUMMARY NOTICE reports that: TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARE(S) OF COVISINT CORPORATION ("COVISINT") COMMON STOCK WHO HELD SUCH SHARE(S) AT ANY TIME BETWEEN JUNE 5, 2017 (THE DATE OF THE MERGER AGREEMENT BETWEEN COVISINT AND OPEN TEXT CORPORATION) AND JULY 26, 2017 (THE DATE OPEN TEXT CORPORATION COMPLETED ITS ACQUISITION OF COVISINT), EXCLUDING THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY RELATED TO OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY DEFENDANT (THE "CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, that a hearing will be held on October 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, before the Honorable Victoria A. Valentine. The hearing will occur at the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, Sixth Judicial Circuit Business Court via Virtual Hearing. To join the Virtual Hearing by computer with video, go to zoom.us and click on "Join a Call." When prompted, you will join using Meeting ID 248 858 5282. To join the Virtual Hearing by telephone without video, call 1-646-876-9923 and connect using Meeting ID 248 858 5282. The hearing will be held for the purpose of determining: (a) whether the Court should grant final approval of the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Class Members; (b) whether the Court should enter an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice as to the Defendants, and effectuating the releases described in the Stipulation; (c) whether the Court should grant the application of Plaintiffs for the Fee and Expense Award; (d) whether to finally certify the Class as an opt-out class; and (e) such other matters as may properly come before the Court. IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD, OR HELD COVISINT COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING JUNE 5, 2017, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 26, 2017 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF COVISINT COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by calling the Covisint Corporation Merger Litigation, Claims Administrator, at 1-866-742-4955, or on the Internet at www.covisintsettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, you do not need to take any further steps to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. If you purchased, sold, or held Covisint common stock during the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than September 16, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Class Members who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses, and any incentive award to Plaintiffs must be received by each of the following recipients via hard copy and email no later than September 25, 2024: Clerk of Court: Clerk of Court Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan Sixth Judicial Circuit Business Court 1200 North Telegraph Road Pontiac, Michigan 48341 Plaintiffs' Counsel: MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC Juan E. Monteverde The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Defendants' Counsel: PAUL HASTINGS LLP Christopher H. McGrath 695 Town Center Drive 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Monteverde & Associates PC, at the address listed above. Dated: July 9, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT CIRCUIT COURT FOR OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN [GN] CREDIT CONTROL: De Lima Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Leonardo De Lima, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 502024CC008348XXXAMB was removed from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-80816-AMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Account Receivable. R&B Corporation of Virginia doing business as Credit Control -- https://creditcontrol.net/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Dale Thomas Golden, Esq. MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS & MORGAN, PLLC 410 S. Ware Boulevard, Suite 806 Tampa, FL 33619 Phone: (813) 251-3632 Email: dgolden@mgl.law DICASTAL NORTH AMERICA: Underhill Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Underhill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DICASTAL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00689 (W.D. Mich., July 2, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary bonuses as required by the FLSA. As a result, the Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and those similarly situated for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since July 26, 2021 as a non-exempt tool crib attendant. Dicastal North America, Inc. is a Michigan corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoop, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com DRIP DROP: Slowinski Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRISTINE SLOWINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRIP DROP HYDRATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024CH04667, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 27, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05421 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Drip Drop labeled, marketed, and sold certain DripDrop drink mix products as containing "No Artificial Preservatives," despite those products containing these alleged preservatives: citric acid, sodium citrate, potassium citrate, and magnesium citrate. She also asserts that Drip Drop "made false promises, misrepresentations, concealments, suppressions, and omissions of material facts, with the intent that Plaintiff rely upon said false promises, misrepresentations, concealments, suppressions, and omissions of material facts" in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Drip Drop Hydration, Inc. is an oral rehydration solution company, based in Oakland, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brett M. Doran, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 E-mail: doranb@gtlaw.com ECP OPTOMETRY: Plaintiffs File Bid for Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jodi Vanorden, an Arizona resident; Gabriella Gantt, an Arizona resident, v. ECP Optometry Services, LLC, a Delaware company, and Eyecare Partners, LLC, a Delaware company; Case No. 2:24-cv-01060-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All employees who work[ed] for Defendants ECP Optometry Services, LLC and/or Eyecare Partners, LLC; within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present employee; who worked on an hourly basis; who did not receive overtime compensation for their off the clock work are known as (the "Collective Members")." -- authorizing the Opt-In procedure outlined above; and -- granting any other relief as this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff seek to recover unpaid overtime wages for themselves and the Collective Members, requiring the proper payment of overtime wages to employees, under the collective action mechanism of the FLSA. The Plaintiff Vanorden worked full-time as an Optician for the Defendants from January 24, 2023, until April 1, 2024. The Plaintiff Gantt was employed by the Defendants full-time from March 15, 2023, until March 20, 2024. ECP provides a full spectrum of eye care. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4tWP47 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com www.weilerlaw.com ENVESTNET INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Bain Capital ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is investigating Envestnet, Inc. (NYSE: ENV ), relating to its proposed merger with Bain Capital Private Equity, LP. Under the terms of the agreement, Envestnet shareholders will receive $63.15 per share of Envestnet common stock they own. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] EQT CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ross Due Nov. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT CORPORATION COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman IV, entered an order -- Class certification and the current phase of merits discovery shall close on Nov. 12, 2024. -- The telephonic status conference scheduled for July 11 2024 is rescheduled for Nov. 12, 2024. EQT Corporation is an integrated energy company with emphasis on Appalachian area natural gas production, gathering, and transmission. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LMeEeq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott M. Hare, Esq. Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq. WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP 11 Stanwix St., Suite 1400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 The Defendants are represented by: James L. ROckney, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 2225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 EVOLVE BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Longview News Journal reports that the law firm of Edelson Lechtzin LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging data privacy violations by Evolve Bank & Trust ("Evolve"). Evolve learned of suspicious activity on or about June 26, 2024. The case is Tracy E. Starling v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 4:24-cv-549-JM, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Founded in 1925, Evolve Bank & Trust is a national financial institution that leverages technology to provide innovative solutions, combining banking expertise with modern tools. What happened On or about June 26, 2024, Evolve discovered a cybersecurity incident where a known cybercriminal group illegally accessed and leaked customer data on the dark web. It was determined that extensive personal identification information was obtained, including names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, and other personal information. How can I protect my personal data? If you receive a data breach notification in this case, you need to understand the risks of possible misuse of your personal information, including identity theft, and your legal options for mitigating such risks. Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating bringing a class action lawsuit to seek legal remedies on behalf of customers who may have had their sensitive personal and patient data compromised by the Lurie Children's Hospital data breach. For more information, please contact: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. [GN] EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Biron Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BIRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02473 (W.D. Tenn., July 2, 2024) is an action arising from a cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of consumers' highly personal information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and other personal information ("personal identifying information" or "PII"). In failing to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and the Class's PII, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former consumers, says the suit. Evolve Bank & Trust operates as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage solutions, card facilities, and online banking services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss , Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com FAMILY HEALTH: Faces Adams Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00613-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., June 11, 2024) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Family Health Center, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant FHC, the putative class members. The data breach occurred on or about January 25, 2024 and was a result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Based in Kalamazoo, MI, FHC is a healthcare company that provides primary medical care, dental care for adults and children, social services, case management counseling, substance abuse prevention, education and counseling, child development screenings, psycho-educational group services and outreach. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. Alexander G. Kykta, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com leigh@ellseylaw.com alex@ellzeylaw.com FANDANGO MEDIA: Reeves Sues Over Movie Tickets' Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV14691 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Plaintiff Reeves alleges that Fandango is engaged in drip pricing. Fandango advertises the box office price of the tickets it sells on its website and in its mobile app but after consumers select the movie ticket they want to buy, pick their seats, and proceed to checkout, it adds an additional fee for each ticket. Moreover, Fandango's failure to disclose this additional, mandatory fee upfront prevents consumers from comparison shopping, harming consumers and competition, says the suit. Headquartered in Universal City, CA, Fandango is a ticketing company that sells movie tickets online and through its mobile app. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com FARFETCH LTD: Faces Allegations of Fraud in New Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Fashion Law reports that individuals that purchased Farfetch shares ahead of its collapse late last year are upping the ante in their fraud-centric class action against the luxury online retailer. In an amended complaint lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last month, Fernando Sulichin and Yuanzhe Fu (the "plaintiffs") are looking to expand the timeline of their original case and enhance their claims against Farfetch, alleging corporate deception and intentional failures by the company and its key executives to disclose critical issues about the company's financial health that ultimately impacted the value of its stock ahead of its abrupt decline and rescue buy-out in December 2023. The newly amended complaint, which was filed on June 21, consolidates -- and expands upon -- two proposed class action cases that were waged against Farfetch, its founder and former CEO José Neves, former chief financial officer Elliot Jordan, and former Group President Stephanie Phair (collectively, the "defendants" or "Farfetch") in October and December 2023. The bulk of the amended complaint remains the same, with the plaintiffs alleging that in a quest for growth, Farfetch and its executives engaged in a series of expensive acquisitions that they failed to properly integrate into the Farfetch ecosystem, thereby, resulting in significant inefficiencies and costs. Despite being aware of the financial short-comings caused by these acquisitions, the plaintiffs argue that Farfetch intentionally misled investors in an effort to boost the company's stock price. Delving into their allegations, the Farfetch shareholder plaintiffs assert that before its September 2019 initial public offering, Farfetch was praised for its platform business model, in furtherance of which it did not actually own inventory, and instead, facilitated sales for brands. However, as Farfetch began to experience difficulty engaging consumers and generating revenue, it underwent a "monumental shift in [its] business model," according to the plaintiffs, one that saw it execute a series of acquisitions of first-party retailers and e-commerce platforms like Stadium Goods and New Guards Group ("NGG") that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition to engaging in a "blatant deviation" from its core business model and taking on "a material assumption of significant risk" thanks to a string of costly M&A deals, the plaintiffs argue that "unbeknownst to investors, Farfetch failed to make any of the necessary changes to successfully integrate these [newly-acquired] businesses into [its] existing platform and to ensure that the future cash needs of its new acquisitions would not have a negative impact on the group's overall balance sheet and working capital." As a result of the defendants' "utter disregard for proper integration" of the new entities and for Farfetch's "forward cash needs," these companies continued to operate as "standalone" entities, which created "company-wide inefficiencies, unprecedented operating costs, and significant pressures on [Farfetch's] cash flow." "Worse yet, at all relevant times, Farfetch suffered from inapt oversight and material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting," which resulted in "inaccurate and/or overstated revenue, gross merchandise value, and receivables, costly inventory stockpiles, and duplicative operating expenses," the plaintiffs maintain. They assert that such inaccuracies helped to present "an overly positive picture of the company's financial position, which was far from the reality of its operational and financial challenges." Despite initial backlash to its changing strategy (including a 45 percent drop in Farfetch's stock price immediately following the announcement of the NGG acquisition), the plaintiffs argue that the full extent of the damage from these acquisitions did not became apparent until 2023, as the company's mounting issues were hidden, in part, by the temporary e-commerce boom during COVID-19. "The negative impacts of these acquisitions . . . were conveniently and swiftly covered up by the monumental shift to online shopping following worldwide shutdowns in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 beginning in early 2020," the complaint contends. Maybe more importantly, however, Farfetch's growing financial tensions were masked by "materially false and misleading statements" made by the defendants, who "systematically misled investors about the company's true financial health, business model, and growth prospects" by "downplaying the negative impacts affecting the company's revenue growth, cash position, and liquidity strength" in earnings calls, press releases, and other communications. Despite knowing about "significant internal challenges, high operational costs, and severe integration issues" due to Farfetch's acquisitions, the plaintiffs claim that "instead of adjusting its spending and budgets to account for lower-than-forecast revenues and growing expenses resulting in significant cash flow issues," Farfetch's management "repeated past behaviors [and] acquired additional overvalued and underperforming businesses, [which] sent the company into a downward spiral that could not be reversed by purported 'strategic initiatives.'" At the same time, the defendants "continued to paint an overly optimistic picture" of the Farfetch's health, as well as the success of the change in strategy and the aforementioned acquisitions, which the company's leadership touted as capable of "better[ing] Farfetch's position 'to achieve our platform long-term vision and reaccelerate growth," even as the company's financial condition "worsened." Ultimately, the plaintiffs contend that Farfetch's deep-seated issues began to surface as the pandemic's effects waned and as the company started to face increased competition from luxury brands' direct-to-consumer sales, which pressured its operating expenses and profit margins further. By early 2022, internal forecasts showed that Farfetch would not replicate its pandemic growth, and yet, the company and its leadership "recklessly disregarded contrary internal guidance and forecasts to set unrealistic public expectations for continued growth, continued operating cost leverage from its investments, and profitability [for FY 2023]." By the second half of 2023, Farfetch's "slowed and/or stalled revenues were unable to sustain its expenses and coupled with its dwindling and/or non-existent margins, and mounting debt, caused the company to implode under a full-blown liquidity crisis before succumbing to insolvency by December 2023," according to the amended complaint. Taken together, the plaintiffs argue that the aforementioned misconduct by the company and its management -- from their alleged failure to "perform proper due diligence" prior to certain acquisitions or exercise "proper oversight of its [acquired] subsidiaries" to their overstatement of the company's financial results and their publication of "unreliable" financial expectations/guidance -- served to "fraudulently" inflate the value of the company's stock. This resulted in significant damages for the plaintiffs and other members of the class, who "in reliance on the integrity of the market, paid artificially inflated prices for Farfetch securities," they argue, claiming that they "would not have purchased Farfetch securities at the prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by the defendants' misleading statements and/or omissions." As such, the plaintiffs maintain that Farfetch and co. are on the hook for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, interest, and legal fees as a result. A representative for Farfetch did not respond to TFL's request for comment. The case is In Re Farfetch Limited Securities Litigation, 1:23-cv-10982 (SDNY). [GN] FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: TheDove Seeks 9th Cir Review of Final Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- THEDOVE MEDIA, INC. is filing a petition for the Court to review a final order of the Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal Register in the lawsuit entitled TheDove Media, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents. The appellate case is captioned TheDove Media, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Case No. 24-4010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 28, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner THEDOVE MEDIA, INC. is represented by: Oliver J. Dunford, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 4440 PGA Blvd., Suite 307 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (916) 503-9060 Email: odunford@pacificlegal.org - and - Wilson C. Freeman, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 3241 E. Shea Blvd., #108 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Email: wfreeman@pacificlegal.org FUNDERA INC: Faces McCorkle Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SCOTT MCCORKLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUNDERA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05115 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on January 25, 2024. 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. Fundera, Inc. is a credit card service company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com GERDAU AMERISTEEL: M.D. Florida Dismisses Molla ERISA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned GRANT MOLLA, on behalf of the Gerdau Ameristeel US 401(k) Retirement Plan, himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERDAU AMERISTEEL, US, INC., and GERDAU BENEFITS PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02094-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.). The matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendants Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., and the Gerdau Benefits Plans Administrative Committee's Motion to Dismiss filed on Dec. 7, 2023. Plaintiff Grant Molla filed a response to the Motion on Jan. 19, 2024. The Plaintiff is a participant in the Gerdau Ameristeel US 401(k) Retirement Plan ("Plan"). On Sept. 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of the Plan, himself, and all others similarly situated against Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc. and the Gerdau Benefits Plans Administrative Committee ("Committee"). He alleges that the Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan and that they breached their fiduciary duties of prudence in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants "cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars" by causing the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for recordkeeping and other administrative services. Shortly after the Plaintiff filed his complaint, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. While the Plaintiff did not necessarily believe that exhaustion was necessary, he agreed to comply with the "mandatory, pre-suit administrative claim exhaustion procedure" outlined in the Plan's governing document. On Oct. 1, 2022, the Court stayed the case pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. On Nov. 13, 2024, the parties jointly moved to lift the stay. The parties informed the Court that the claim review process was complete and that the retirement plan committee considered and timely denied the Plaintiff's claim, as well as his appeal. The Court granted the motion and reopened the case. On Dec. 7, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiff responded on Jan. 19, 2024. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for a single reason: the complaint does not allege that the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies or that the Committee denied his claim, nor asserts that the Court should overturn the Committee's decision. The Plaintiff counters that he is not required to plead exhaustion when the parties do not dispute that he exhausted his administrative remedies. Of course, Judge Hernandez Covington notes, the complaint did not allege exhaustion because the Plaintiff filed his complaint before engaging in the administrative claim review process. The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiff has now exhausted his administrative remedies. The Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of ERISA for breaches of fiduciary duties. He argues that this case is different from those cited by the Defendants because the parties do not dispute that he has now exhausted his administrative remedies. Based on the parties' shared understanding, the Plaintiff argues, the complaint need not plead either that he exhausted his administrative remedies or that he is excused from doing so. The Court disagrees. The parties' mutual agreement that the Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies does not excuse him from pleading this fact in his complaint. Admittedly, Judge Hernandez Covington says, the Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have caselaw that explicitly addresses whether a plaintiff must amend their complaint to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies in this situation. In several cases within this circuit in which the cases have been reopened upon exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, parties have been required to file an amended complaint stating that they have exhausted their administrative remedies or have voluntarily filed an amended complaint that pleads exhaustion, Judge Hernandez Covington opines. These cases convince the Court that a plaintiff must still plead exhaustion of administrative remedies even when the parties do not dispute this fact. Therefore, to proceed with this action, Judge Hernandez Covington holds that the Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that pleads exhaustion of administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court rules that Defendants Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., and the Gerdau Benefits Plans Administrative Committee's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. If he wishes to proceed on his ERISA claim, Plaintiff Grant Molla must file an amended complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ys9wnvyd from PacerMonitor.com. GO NEW YORK: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Teta Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion & Order granting the motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled CINDY TETA and MOTTY STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GO NEW YORK TOURS, INC., doing business as TOPVIEW SIGHTSEEING AND EVENT CRUISES NYC - CITY LIGHTS CRUISE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01614-ER (S.D.N.Y.). On March 1, 2024 Cindy Teta and Motty Stein brought this action against Go New York Tours, Inc. d/b/a Topview Sightseeing ("Go New York") for violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07. Before the Court is Go New York's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the instant action. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Court grants the motion to compel arbitration. If either party wishes for this action to be stayed rather than dismissed, that party must inform the Court. Go New York is a tour company that is incorporated in New York and maintains its principal place of business in New York City. Go New York sells, among other things, cruise tickets from its website. When purchasing tickets from Go New York, purchasers agree to the terms and conditions of the website via a clickbox. The clickbox, based on the image provided by the Plaintiffs' complaint, is next to a legible line of text which reads "I have read and agree to eventcruisenyc.com terms and conditions," with "terms and conditions" in light blue text. Customers must agree to the terms and conditions in order to purchase tickets. The Go New York website terms and conditions note in their first paragraph that "our terms and conditions contain a mandatory arbitration provision that requires the use of arbitration on an individual basis and limits the remedies available to you in the event of certain disputes." The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the arbitration agreement submitted to the Court is a true and correct copy of the agreement included in the terms and conditions at the time of purchase. The terms also include a section titled "Liability and Warranties Disclaimer." Cindy Teta and Motty Stein purchased cruise admission tickets from Go New York's website in October 2023 and January 2024 respectively. They both allege that when they visited the Go New York website, they first saw a price exclusive of fees, and were only presented with additional fees under the labels "Ticket and Handling," "Marine," and "Fuel" after selecting ticket options and clicking through multiple pages. Plaintiffs Teta and Stein bring this action on behalf of a class for a violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07, which provides that a platform that facilitates the sale or resale of tickets must disclose the total cost of the ticket, inclusive of all ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket (citing New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4)). The Plaintiffs' putative class comprises "[a]ll purchasers of tickets to City Lights Cruise from Defendant's website." On May 10, 2024, Go New York moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the instant action pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 4 & 206. The Court finds no genuine dispute that the parties are bound by the arbitration provisions of the terms and conditions. While the Plaintiffs fault Go New York for failing to provide specific evidence of their agreement to the terms, the Plaintiffs' insinuation that they never agreed to the terms is without factual basis, Judge Ramos holds. The Plaintiffs state that Go New York "does not include any evidence" that they clicked the box, but they do not dispute that they were required to click the box in order to complete the purchase. Moreover, Judge Ramos points out that the Plaintiffs were on reasonable notice of the terms and conditions and the arbitration agreement therein. The terms and conditions themselves were hyperlinked, as indicated by their blue text, directing users to their provisions. The arbitration provisions within the terms were also sufficiently conspicuous given the first paragraph's indication that "our terms and conditions contain a mandatory arbitration provision that requires the use of arbitration on an individual basis and limits the remedies available to you in the event of certain disputes." The Court, thus, finds that because the Plaintiffs had a sufficient opportunity to read the agreement and assented to the agreement by affirmatively clicking on the box, the parties are bound by the agreement. The Court also finds that the ticket fee claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Judge Ramos finds that neither party has requested a stay. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, if either party desires this case to be stayed pending arbitration, that party must inform the Court. For the reasons set forth here, the Court grants Go New York's motion to compel arbitration. If either party wishes for this action to be stayed rather than dismissed, that party must inform the Court. Otherwise, the case will be closed. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 10. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5az8hwzb from PacerMonitor.com. HENRY FORD: McClain Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Parties ------------------------------------------------------------- NINA MCCLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENRY FORD HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11739-DML-CI (E.D. Mich., July 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Michigan Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act, breach of fiduciary duty/confidentiality, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the visitors of its website, https://www.henryford.com/, to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) and Google, Inc., without consent. The Defendant installed called third-party tracking technologies such as the Facebook Pixel and Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Google DoubleClickAds on its website, which track and collect website user communications and send those communications to undisclosed third parties. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit. Henry Ford Health is a healthcare provider in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Julia G. Haghighi, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 Email: nick@coulsonpc.com jprescott@coulsonpc.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com HIBBETT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to JD Sports Fashion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is investigating Hibbett, Inc. (NASDAQ: HIBB), relating to its proposed sale to JD Sports Fashion plc. Under the terms of the agreement, HIBB shareholders are expected to receive $87.50 in cash per share they own. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] HOMESMART INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric J. Troutman, writing for National Law Review, reports real estate brokerage HomeSmart International is caught up in a new TCPA class action as a result of text messages allegedly sent by two brokers -- NATOSHA MOORE, and ELEAZAR MEDRANO, who are named personally in the suit. The Complaint alleges Medrano began texting the Plaintiff -- Christopher Shultz -- in March, 2021. Notably the first text was sent at 1:21 am -- well outside of TCPA calling hour. Several additional texts were allegedly sent by Medrano and Shultz responded that he "had an agent" to no avail. Shultz also allegedly texted stop multiple times but the messages from Medrano allegedly continued. Eventually Medrano's messages stopped but about a year later Natosha Moore's office allegedly began texting Shultz. Shutlz asked not to be contacted but the texts allegedly continued. Plaintiff contends these texts were sent using kVCore in a blast format. HomeSmart's Chief Industry Officer, Todd Sumney is specifically mentioned in the complaint as allegedly offering "a webinar series and podcasts where he offers text messaging scripts and instruction on generating business using these tools." Plaintiff seeks up to $500.00 per call for each of these texts, and is personally suing Moore and Medrano in addition to HomeSmart. Real estate brokerages have been sued in dozens of similar cases over the years owing to the messages being sent by their agents using -- amongst other systems -- kVCore. A few things jump out at me on this one. First, these messages were from way back in 2021. HomeSmart may have gotten smart by now and cleaned up practices but it doesn't matter -- the TCPA has a four year statute of limitations, so calls made as far back as 2020 can still be sued upon today! Second, the agents here are named PERSONALLY. Keep this in mind folks. When a TCPA violation takes place its not just the employer, brand, or franchisor that is liable -- so is/are the actually person(s) responsible for sending the message. And in this case that was allegedly Moore and Medrano. Third, the courts have not done a good job recognizing independent contractor relationships in this setting. The fact an officer of HomeSmart was allegedly encouraging agents to use mass blast technology might be enough to hold HomeSmart liable here. We will have to wait and see. Fourth, the trend of TCPA suits attacking real estate brokerages continues. It is a really big deal. [GN] HUDDLESON LINENS: Cannot Be Represented by Gledhill in Fernandez ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules that Timothy Gledhill may not enter an appearance on behalf of, or otherwise represent, the Defendant in the lawsuit captioned JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUDDLESON LINENS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03793-ER (S.D.N.Y.). Jacqueline Fernandez brings this putative class action against Huddleson Linens, Inc., for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The action was filed on May 16, 2024. On May 17, 2024, an electronic summons was issued, and the Defendant was served on June 20, 2024. That same day, Mr. Timothy Gledhill filed: (1) an Answer to the Complaint, (2) affirmation of service of the Answer on Plaintiffs, and (3) a notice of appearance in the case, apparently purporting to represent Huddleson. Subsequently, Mr. Gledhill was mistakenly listed as a "plaintiff" in the Court's electronic case filing system. Accordingly, Mr. Gledhill may not enter an appearance on behalf of, or otherwise represent the Defendant corporation, Judge Ramos holds. Mr. Gledhill is not a party, and again, may not appear on behalf of Huddleson in any capacity. The Court cautions Defendant Huddleson that its failure to have counsel enter an appearance may risk entry of default judgment against it. Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to strike Documents 6 and 8, and to strike Mr. Gledhill from the ECF docket. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yszk2rjp from PacerMonitor.com. HUMANA INC: Moore Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- KENA MOORE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Kena Moore, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Humana, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00232, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On Jan. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude expert opinions and testimony of Pete Swisher. On same day, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude testimony and opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert Veronica Bray. On Jan. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 23, 2024, Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings denied the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Pete Swisher and their motion for summary judgment, and granted the Defendants' motion to exclude Veronica Bray and their motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Kena Moore, et al. v. Humana, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-5589, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KENA MOORE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Defendants-Appellees HUMANA, INC., et al. are represented by: Michael Patrick Abate, Esq. KAPLAN, JOHNSON, ABATE & BIRD 710 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 540-8280 - and - Brian D. Boyle, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 IDAHO: District Court Grants in Part Bid for TRO in Roe v. Labrador ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge David C. Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho grants in part the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for temporary restraining order in the lawsuit captioned JANE ROE, JANE POE, JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-DCN (D. Idaho). Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Provisional Class Certification, and Preliminary Injunction and the Defendants' Motion for Hearing and Briefing Schedule. Because oral argument would not significantly aid its decision-making process, and because of the unique circumstances this case presents, the Court decides the motions on the briefing. On June 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit, levying a civil rights and constitutional challenge to Idaho Code Section 18-8901. That statute generally prohibits the use of public funds for gender transition procedures. The Plaintiffs bring this case as a putative class action. The named Plaintiffs are three transgender women, who are currently incarcerated in facilities administered by the Idaho Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). They allege that Section 18-8901 denies them and other similarly situated inmates necessary medical treatment in contravention of the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. With their complaint, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for a temporary restraining order (a "TRO") on enforcement of Section 18-8901, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. They also request a preliminary injunction on enforcement of Section 18-8901 and provisional class certification. In response to the Plaintiffs' request, the Defendants have asked the Court to hold a hearing on the propriety of a TRO no earlier than July 2, 2024. They also ask the Court to allow them until the day of any hearing to file their response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion. Judge Nye notes that the case involves topics of great import to the parties and to the public at large. But the timing of the Plaintiffs' requests places the Court in an awkward position. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) allows a court to issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party, but the Court much prefers to hear from both sides on any issue when feasible. And, despite the parties' optimism, the Court's calendar simply cannot accommodate a request for a hearing within mere hours of the filing of a complaint. Instead, the Court scheduled a hearing on July 15, 2024. The question then becomes whether Section 18-8901 should be enforced between today and the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion. Said another way--should the Court issue a provisional TRO before its formal hearing on the Plaintiffs' request for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction. The Court acknowledges that it has yet to receive briefing from the Defendants. Even so, it can readily conclude that the Plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits of their case. As recently noted by United States Magistrate Judge Raymond E. Patricco, questions regarding the medical necessity of gender-affirming care are unlikely to be resolved at any preliminary hearing--instead, they will almost certainly require deliberative investigation. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), the Court provisionally grants the Plaintiffs' Motion in order to preserve the status quo, subject to further consideration at the scheduled hearing. For the sake of clarity, the Court notes despite the fact that Section 18-8901 is already technically in effect, the status quo that the Court is preserving is the state of affairs prior to July 1, 2024. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs contest the enforceability and constitutionality of Section 18-8901. The relevant status quo, therefore, is the law in Idaho prior to the enactment of Section 18-8901, Judge Nye holds. The Court has set to hold a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion on July 15, 2024. To the extent this is what the Defendants requested, their Motion is necessarily granted in part. However, because the Defendants will seemingly have more time to respond than they anticipated, the Court will require the Defendants to submit any response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion. The Plaintiffs may then submit a reply. Thus, because the Defendants will not be permitted to file a response on the day of the scheduled hearing, their Motion is denied in part. "Today, the Court puts a provisional pause on enforcement Section 18-8901. It does not find it valid. It does not find it invalid. This is not a full adjudication of any argument on the merits," Judge Nye writes in a Memorandum Decision and Order. "The Court is simply holding Section 18-8901 in abeyance and preserving the situation as it existed prior to the parties' disagreement. It does so because it finds that Plaintiffs' have raised serious questions going to the merits of this dispute and in light of the extreme time constraints." Additionally, Judge Nye explains, this pause is limited in nature. The United States Supreme Court recently provided guidance regarding the breadth of preliminary proceedings; see generally Labrador v. Poe, 144 S. Ct. 921 (2024). There, the Supreme Court advised that lower courts should tailor any emergency action to the parties who brought the suit and to the specifics of the challenged law. Thus, the Court's TRO today applies to only the named Plaintiffs in this case. Idaho Code Section 18-8901 is still in effect and enforceable for other purposes and as to other parties. The Court rules as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Provisional Class Certification, and Preliminary Injunction is granted in part: a. The Court grants a provisional temporary restraining order; and b. It declines to rule on the Plaintiffs' requests for provisional class certification and preliminary injunction for the time being; 2. The Defendants' Motion for Hearing is granted in part and denied in part; and 3. Briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion will proceed as outlined, and a hearing was set to be held on July 15, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., to determine whether to enter a formal TRO or preliminary injunction during the pendency of this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4wwkx3j6 from PacerMonitor.com. INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Lindley Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- DEANA LINDLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFOSYS MCCAMISH SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03024-JPB (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated clients stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC is a system software company, with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Saputo Sues Over Band-Aid Products' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARL SAPUTO JR., VALERIE TORRES, and JOYCETTE GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and KENVUE INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01117-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 27, 2024) is a consumer class action lawsuit under the California's Unfair Competition Law and the California's False Advertising Law on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated consumers who purchased for personal, family, or household use Defendants' Band-Aid products that allegedly contain per- and polyfluoralkyl substances. According to the complaint, the Defendants formulate, manufacture, market, and sell the products, which they uniformly represent and advertise as, inter alia, being the "#1 Doctor Recommended Brand" of bandages. The Defendants fail to disclose to consumers that the products contain PFAS. These PFAS are a group of synthetic, man-made, chemicals known to be harmful to both humans and the environment. Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (919) 539-2708 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARRELL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general public, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Dec. 5, 2024, to grant class certification of the following class and subclasses to decide common questions based on common proof: Proposed Class "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (i.e. Nov. 2, 2017) until the present date." Subclass A (Unpaid Wage Subclass) "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were not paid for all hours worked, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date." Subclass B (Unreimbursed Business Expense Subclass) "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were reimbursed no more than $5.00 per month for cell phone reimbursement, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date." Subclass C (Failure To Furnish Written Wage Statements or Accurate Wage Statements) "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were not furnished with written wage statements and not provided the election to receive paper wage statements, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date." The Plaintiffs further request an order appointing a) Plaintiffs, Bennie Hamilton, Anthony Killion, Kristopher Kaczanowski, Leroy Coker, and Darrell Brown, as class representatives, and b) Righetti Glugoski, P.C., Nathan & Associates, APC, and Kowalski Employment Law Corporation, as class counsel to represent the certified class and subclass pursuant to Rule 23(g). Knight provides truckload services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YhiEOL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 2001 Union Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com KNOX COUNTY, IL: Seeks More Time for Amended Complaint Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H., by his next friend DEBRA MEDLOCK, and A.M., by his next friend RACHAEL PUIG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KNOX COUNTY, CHIEF JUDGE RAYMOND A. CAVANAUGH of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, BRIDGET E. PLETZ, Director of Court Services of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, and WENDI L. STECK, Superintendent of the Mary Davis Home, Case No. 4:24-cv-04096-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for an extension of time until Sept. 6, 2024, to respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint and to stay any briefing on Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification until after the Individual Defendants file their responsive pleading. The Individual Defendants have not made any prior requests for extensions of time. No party will be prejudiced by this motion and this motion is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on May 28, 2024. On that same date they filed their motion and memorandum for class certification. On June 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rfLXJM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Hal B. Dworkin, Esq. Eliabeth J. Andonova mallory OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 115. S. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 814-5159 E-mail: Hal.Dworkin@ilag.gov LAKESIDE WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Roussell Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ron Roussell, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members v. Lakeside Women's Hospital LLC doing business as: Lakeside Women's Hospital, Case No. CGC-24-614539 was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03973 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Lakeside Women's Hospital -- http://lakeside-wh.com/-- is a fully Licensed Joint Commission accredited hospital designed exclusively for women.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Mark Bruggebrew, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 772-5737 Email: ef-dmb@cpdb.com LEONARD'S EXPRESS: Blankenship Files Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leonard's Express, Inc. The case is styled as Tyler Blankenship, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Leonard's Express, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00618-JLS (M.D. Pa., July 1, 2024). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Leonard's Express -- https://www.leonardsexpress.com/ -- is a family owned asset-based transportation provider located in Farmington, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Marie Gullo, Esq. THE KANTOR GULLO LAW FIRM, PLLC 348 Harris Hill, Suite A Williamsville, NY 14221 Phone: (716) 626-0404 Fax: (716) 626-0412 Email: cgullo@kantorgullolaw.com LG ELECTRONICS: Liz Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05143 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.lg.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com LGI HOMES: McAlister Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by July 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McAlister v. LGI Homes Corporate, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply in support of motion seeking class certification for good cause shown. The Plaintiff shall file her reply brief on or before July 26, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. LGI operates as a home builder.[BN] LGI HOMES: McAlister Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKKI MCALISTER, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons, v. LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for her to file a reply in support of her motion seeking class certification by 14 days, to July 26, 2024. The Plaintiff's counsel certify that they conferred with the Defendant's counsel prior to filing this Motion, and that the Defendant does not oppose the relief requested. The Plaintiff filed her Class Motion on May 23, 2024. The Defendant filed its Response to the Plaintiff's Class Motion on June 28, 2024. Good cause exists to grant the requested extension as there are a myriad of issues to address and arguments raised in the parties' briefing on the Class Motion. An extension of time will afford the Plaintiff the ability to sufficiently respond. Additionally, the Plaintiff's undersigned counsel was out of state last week at an employment law convention and was unable to perform much work during that time. This is the first request for an extension of the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her Reply. The Court granted one previous extension of time for the Defendant to file a Response to the Plaintiff's Class Motion. This extension is not being sought for any improper purpose or to cause undue delay, and granting this modest extension will not unfairly prejudice any party, particularly because the relief requested is unopposed by the Defendant. LGI is an American construction company that is known for building homes and housing developments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=owdEJo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Claire E. Hunter, Esq. Adam M. Harrison, Esq. Cynthia Sánchez, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 518 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 255-0370 Facsimile: (720) 668-8989 E-mail: chunter@hkm.com aharrison@hkm.com csanchez@hkm.com - and - Jennifer A. Wadhwa, Esq. 3I LAW LLC 2000 S. Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 245-2100 E-mail: jwadhwa@3ilawfirm.com LIVANOVA USA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Chaudhry Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KATHERINE CHAUDHRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVANOVA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-02506 (S.D. Tex., July 2, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. 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. LivaNova PLC operates as a medical technology company. The Company focuses on neuromodulation, as well as cardiac surgery and rhythm management. LivaNova develops medical solutions for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall 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 - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com LOGAN SQUARE: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Ramos Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ESLIMERARI RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOGAN SQUARE ALUMINUM SUPPLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05728 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shopstudio41.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Logan Square Aluminum Supply, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com LOLITA'S RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pinales Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA DE LOURDES PINALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOLITA'S RESTAURANTS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2024-00027081-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 10, 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 Pinales was employed by the Defendants as a cook. Lolita's Restaurants, Inc. is a family-run Mexican food restaurant in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com LOVE CANAL: Judge Dismisses 18 Class Suits Over Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Telvock, writing for WIVB reports that a judge recently dismissed 18 class-action lawsuits that alleged toxic chemicals from Love Canal had migrated into their neighborhoods, damaging property and made some people sick. The lawsuit included dozens of residents who alleged a 2011 sewer excavation project near the landfill had released the toxic chemicals. They sued 10 entities, including OxyChem, the City of Niagara Falls and its Water Board, and Glenn Springs Holdings, which monitors and manages the landfill. The history of Love Canal: Reliving the nightmare (2018) Supreme Court Justice Frank Sedita dismissed each case on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims were speculative. Love Canal is among the worst environmental disasters in the country. It spurred the federal superfund program that aims to clean up toxic sites. "We are pleased with the ruling, which we believe properly applied the law," said Eric Moses, a spokesman for one of the defendants, OxyChem. "The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and US EPA have all determined through decades of extensive monitoring and testing that the landfill remedies, including at Love Canal, have been operating as designed and are protective of human health and the environment." The plaintiffs did file a notice of appeal. [GN] M&T BANK CORPORATION: Twoguns Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Monica Twoguns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00892 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11702-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. M&T Bank Corporation -- http://www3.mtb.com/-- is an American bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: ebrehm@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq. Nicole Friedlander, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 558-4000 Email: schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com friedlandern@sullcrom.com M&T BANK CORPORATION: Wormack Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Dalisa Wormack, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00912 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11701-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. M&T Bank Corporation -- http://www3.mtb.com/-- is an American bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com - and - Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: ebrehm@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq. Nicole Friedlander, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 558-4000 Email: schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com friedlandern@sullcrom.com MAPLEBEAR INC: Cheng Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Stephens Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division appoints James Cheng as lead plaintiff in the securities lawsuit titled ANDY DEAN STEPHENS, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00465-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The Court received three motions--filed by James Cheng, Tapiwanashe Nhundu, and Carlo Viscusi--to appoint lead plaintiff and select lead counsel in this securities class action governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After the three opening motions were filed, Mr. Nhundu filed a statement of non-opposition to the competing motions for appointment as lead counsel, and the Court terminated his motion. Mr. Cheng and Mr. Viscusi subsequently filed a stipulation for their appointment as co-lead plaintiffs with their selected counsel as co-lead counsel. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court grants Mr. Cheng's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel. All other competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, as well as the related stipulation, are denied. Defendant Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart ("Instacart" or the "Company") provides online grocery shopping services to households in North America. Defendants Fidji Simo, Nick Giovanni, Alan Ramsay, Apoorva Mehta, Jeffrey Jordan, Meredith Kopit Levien, Barry McCarthy, Michael Moritz, Lily Sarafan, Frank Slootman, and Daniel Sundheim (collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and with Instacart, "Defendants") were officers and directors of Instacart during the relevant period of Sept. 19, 2023, through Oct. 1, 2023. The Complaint alleges that between Aug. 25, 2023, and Sept. 20, 2023, Instacart filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with its initial public offering ("IPO") that were negligently prepared and that contained materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. More specifically, the Defendants allegedly "made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Instacart had overstated the extent to which online grocery shopping and delivery habits among consumers were accelerating; (ii) Instacart had downplayed the extent of the competition that it faced in the online grocery shopping and delivery market; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the Company's post-IPO growth, business, and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times." On Sept. 22, 2023, Reuters published an article noting Instacart's falling stock price, and on Oct. 2, 2023, investment research firm Gordon Haskett published a statement about its doubts as to the business of online grocery delivery adoption. Instacart's stock price fell after each of these publications. Plaintiff Andy Dean Stephens initiated this action for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on Jan. 25, 2024. The claims under the Securities Act arise out of purchases of Instacart shares based on the Defendants' registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, and the claims under the Exchange Act arise out of share purchases during the class period. On March 25, 2024, the Court received three motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel—one each from James Cheng, Tapiwanashe Nhundu, and Carlos Viscusi. On April 8, 2024, Mr. Nhundu filed a statement of non-opposition to the competing motions for lead plaintiff. Later that day, Mr. Cheng and Mr. Viscusi filed a stipulated request for the Court to appoint them as co-lead plaintiffs, with their selected law firms of Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel. The Defendants objected to the stipulation as procedurally improper. The Court heard oral argument on the matter on May 30, 2024. The Court finds that Mr. Cheng has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. In considering the most important factor of approximate loss, Mr. Viscusi appears to have about $6,000 more than Mr. Cheng in Securities Act losses, but Mr. Cheng has about $150,000 in Exchange Act losses, which tips the scale well toward Mr. Cheng. Judge Davila finds that Mr. Cheng has made the necessary prima facie showing here. With respect to typicality, Mr. Cheng, like all other putative class members, purchased Instacart stock during the class period at allegedly artificially inflated prices due to Defendants' alleged misrepresentations. As for the adequacy requirement, Mr. Cheng does not appear to have any conflicts of interests with other class members, and his substantial stake in the litigation will be a strong incentive to litigate vigorously on behalf of the class. Because Mr. Cheng has the largest financial interest in the class relief sought, and meets the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy, the Court finds that Mr. Cheng qualifies as the presumptive lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. Mr. Cheng has selected and retained the law firm Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as the proposed lead counsel for the class. The Court has reviewed the firm's resume, and is satisfied that Mr. Cheng has made a reasonable choice of counsel. The Court notes that although Mr. Cheng and Mr. Viscusi stipulated to be co-lead plaintiffs with co-lead counsel, the Court is not persuaded by the movants' arguments--presented at the hearing on these motions--that this matter is of such complexity that it requires multiple firms acting as lead counsel. The Court will, therefore, grant the Defendants' objection--which is made only with respect to the stipulation process, and does not take any position on the movants' individual motions--and deny the stipulation for appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. For these reasons, the Court orders that: 1. James Cheng's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel is granted, such that: a. Mr. Cheng is appointed as lead plaintiff in this action; and b. Levi & Korsinsky is appointed as lead counsel; 2. Carlo Viscusi's Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel is denied; and 3. Mr. Cheng and Mr. Viscusi's Joint Stipulation Appointing James Cheng and Carlo J. Viscusi as Co-Lead Plaintiffs is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/33894vyv from PacerMonitor.com. MARIDOR LLC: Turkette Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH TURKETTE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARIDOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00408-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., June 26, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Minimum Wage Act, Virginia Wage Payment Act, Virginia Wistleblower Retaliation, and Virginia common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly failed to properly classify workers as W-2 employees, violated state and federal wage laws by employing unlawful tipping practices, and wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff shortly after she repeatedly complained about Defendant's unlawful employment practices. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a bartender in February 2024. Maridor, LLC operates a restaurant and bar in Roanoke, Virginia, that also offers suites for customers to rent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented: Christopher E. Collins, Esq. Mia Yugo, Esq. YUGO COLLINS, PLLC 25 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 861-1529 Facsimile: (540) 855-4791 E-mail: chris@yugocollins.com mia@yugocollins.com MDL 2843: Panel Denies Reconsideration Bid on Transfer of 3 Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation," MDL No. 2843, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the motion of plaintiffs in two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and one from the Middle District of Georgia, for reconsideration of the panel's April 12, 2024 order transferring their cases to the Northern District of California. After considering all argument of counsel, the panel concluded that these actions share common factual questions with the actions in MDL No. 2843. As we previously found, and as plaintiffs do not dispute, these actions share common factual questions with the actions in MDL No. 2843. In moving for reconsideration, plaintiffs argued that the transferor courts were not given adequate time to rule on plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court, because plaintiffs agreed to a lengthy briefing schedule as a "professional courtesy." "This is not persuasive reason for us to reconsider our transfer order," rules the panel. 'Plaintiffs argue that they agreed to a briefing schedule that accommodated defense counsel's workload, but the stipulation extended plaintiffs’ briefing time, as well. Defendant removed the actions on December 14, 2023, and, due to the stipulated briefing schedule, plaintiffs' motions for remand were not filed until two months later. Parties are free to stipulate to briefing schedules that accommodate their schedules, but the Panel is not obligated to delay its ruling on that basis, just as the transferor courts were free to deny the parties' request for an extended briefing schedule," adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 order denying transfer is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2843-Order_Denying_Reconsideration-5-24.pdf MDL 2843: Zimmerman Suit Consolidated in Facebook Data Privacy Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation," MDL No. 2843, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case styled as Zimmerman V. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.," (C.A. No. 1:23−02139) from U.S. District court for the District of Columbia to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff moved to vacate this order while defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), opposed said motion. The panel held that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2843, arising from allegations that Cambridge Analytica and other defendants and third parties exploited Meta's platform to obtain user data, and that Meta should have imposed more robust controls on the use of data by third party applications to prevent this conduct. Plaintiff argued that his action is substantially different from the actions in MDL No. 2843, and that transfer would be inconvenient and burdensome. While plaintiff's claims regarding his ban from Facebook are unique from most MDL No. 2843 cases, his data privacy-related claims are not. Furthermore, plaintiff filed a similar action directly in the Northern District of California in 2019, and that action is part of MDL No. 2843. The transferee court dismissed plaintiff's non-MDL related claims with prejudice, and his data privacy-related claims are stayed. Zimmerman, therefore, overlaps considerably with his case in MDL No. 2843, and transfer will ensure consistent treatment of his duplicative claims, adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2843-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf MDL 2873: Thompson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals' Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID RICHARD THOMPSON, JR., on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff 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.; 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; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03491-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury 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. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Thompson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Telephone: (404) 381-2888 E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com MDL 2873: Truitt Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals' Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD DAVID TRUITT, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff 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.; 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; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03698-RMG (D.S.C., June 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury 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. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The 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. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Truitt case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Telephone: (404) 381-2888 E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com METLIFE SERVICES: Kidd Sues Over Denial of Insurance Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- PATSY B. KIDD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METLIFE SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; TIAA-CREF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00225 (S.D. Ala., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligent fraud and misrepresentation, declaratory judgment act claim, and violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case arises from the Defendants' denial of the insurance benefits of the Plaintiff and similarly situated insureds despite their coverage under TIAA-CREF long-term care insurance policy. They have been denied benefits because the Defendants did not count days of care paid by Medicare toward the benefit waiting period required by their policies. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit. MetLife Services and Solutions, LLC is an insurance company, with its principal place of business at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., with its principal place of business at One Madison Avenue, New York, New York. TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm, with its principal place of business at 730 Third Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Battle, Esq. Harlan F. Winn III, Esq. Adam P. Plant, Esq. Mallory Morgan Combest, Esq. BATTLE & WINN LLP 2901 Second Avenue South, Suite 220 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 397-8160 Facsimile: (205) 397-8179 Email: rbattle@battlewinn.com hwinn@battlewinn.com aplant@battlewinn.com mmorgan@battlewinn.com MIDLOTHIAN MUSIC: Faces Ramos Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ESLIMERARI RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLOTHIAN MUSIC OF ORLAND PARK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05727 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.midlothianmusic.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Midlothian Music of Orland Park, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chalmers Sued Over Use of Commercial Videos ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO CHALMERS; SHERRON COLLINS; JASON TERRY; RYAN BOATRIGHT; DEANDRE DANIELS; ALEX ORIAKHI; VINCENT COUNCIL; ROSCOE SMITH; MATT PRESSEY; EUGENE EDGERSON; AARON BRAMLETT; JASON STEWART; GERARD COLEMAN; JUSTIN GREENE; RON GIPLAYE; and JAMES CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION a/k/a NCAA; TURNER SPORTS INTERACTIVE, INC.; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC,; BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC.; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE; ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE; and BIG EAST CONFERENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05008 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2024) is an action alleging that the Defendants have used the images and videos of Plaintiffs and Class Members to advertise for the Defendants' commercial purposes without the their consent and while paying them nothing. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peggy Wedgworth, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 5th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Email: pwedgeworth@milberg.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. Michael Dunn, Esq. James R. DeMay, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Steet Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: sharris@milberg.com michael.dunn@milberg.com jdemay@milberg.com - and - Elliot Abrams, Esq. CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER, PLLC 133 Fayetteville St., Ste 400 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 833-3114 Email: elliot.abrams@cheshirepark.com - and - W. Stacy Miller II, Esq. MaryAnne M. Hamilton, Esq. MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC Post Office Box 6340 Raleigh, NC 27628 Telephone: (919) 348-4361 Email: stacy@millerlawgroupnc.com maryanne@millerlawgroupnc.com - and - Scott Tompsett, Esq. TOMPSETT COLLEGIATE SPORTS LAW 1236 W. 61st Terrace Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 216-7866 Email: stompsett@scotttompsett.com NATIONAL TENANT: Rogers Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------ IKEA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL TENANT NETWORK, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02529-MAK (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to District Judge Mark A. Kearney. National Tenant Network, Inc. provides resident screening services. The Company offers tenant performance, credit reports, criminal history, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 MARKET ST SUITE 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com NBA PROPERTIES: Bid to Dismiss Fan's 2nd Amended Complaint Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled THOMAS FAN, Plaintiff v. NBA PROPERTIES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05069-SI (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendant NBA Properties Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court determined that this matter was suitable for resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing on this matter pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court denies the Defendant's motion. In addition, the Court grants the parties' administrative motions to seal. Plaintiff Thomas Fan brings this putative class action against NBA Properties, Inc., and Dapper Labs, Inc., asserting claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), and California Civil Code Section 1799.3. The second amended complaint ("SAC") alleges that the Defendants sell blockchain video clips known as "Moments" on www.nbatopshot.com, and that the Defendants collected and shared highly sensitive and specific personal information about NBA Top Shot users' video consumption habits without their informed written consent. The Court previously granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Fan's first amended complaint as to Defendants NBA Properties and National Basketball Players Association, with leave to amend to amplify the joint venture allegations. The Court denied the motion as to Dapper, holding that Fan stated a claim under the VPPA and California Civil Code Section 1799.3 because, inter alia, NBA Top Shot is "video tape service provider" under the VPPA and that it provides video recording sales under Section 1799.3. On April 5, 2024, Fan filed the SAC asserting claims against Defendants Dapper and NBA Properties. The SAC alleges that NBA Top Shot is either a "joint venture or partnership" and the Defendants are "partners" in the NBA Top Shot enterprise, and includes new joint venture allegations based upon a publicly recorded conversation between Dapper's CEO, Roham Gharegouzlou, and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, at NBA Con 2023; a "pop-up" on the nbatopshop.com website; and the license agreements between the parties. The SAC alleges that NBA Properties has control over various aspects of the NBA Top Shot venture, shares in its profits, has an ownership interest in the venture, and that the conduct of the parties demonstrates that the parties created a joint venture or partnership. NBA Properties contends that the joint venture/partnership allegations are insufficient, and that for the same reason, Fan lacks standing to bring a claim against NBA Properties. The Court concludes that Fan's allegations are sufficient as a pleading matter and that whether the parties have in fact created a joint venture or partnership is a factual question that must be determined on a full factual record. The Court notes that many, if not most, of the cases cited by the parties were decided on summary judgment or after a trial. NBA Properties emphasizes that the Court previously stated that allegations based upon the license agreements, without more, would not be sufficient because the license agreements disclaim an intent to create a joint venture. However, the SAC does contain new allegations aside from those based on the license agreements, and Fan's opposition briefing cites authority for the proposition that a joint venture or partnership can be created even where the parties have expressly disclaimed an intent to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that Fan has alleged a basis for holding NBA Properties liable and has standing to bring claims against NBA Properties, and denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/38pjfmbu from PacerMonitor.com. NEW DIRECTION: Court Explains Rationale for TRO in Theriault Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John W. Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order explaining the approval of the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order in the lawsuit styled JOSEPH GILBERT THERIAULT, et al., Plaintiffs v. NEW DIRECTION IRA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM (D. Kansas). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs have filed a supporting brief. The Court has previously granted the motion. The Court now provides the rationale for its decision. Plaintiffs Joseph Theriault and William Weigel filed this class action against Defendants New Direction IRA, Inc., New Direction Trust Company, and Mainstar Trust, bringing claims sounding in fraud, negligence, consumer protection, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Defendants have all moved to dismiss and compel arbitration. Those motions to dismiss are still pending with the Court. Meanwhile, on May 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs received an email from New Direction Trust Company stating that all account holders, who did not remove assets by July 1, 2024, would be, among other things, bound by a new arbitration agreement and a one-year claims limitation. The Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction based on the email being an abusive communication to the Plaintiffs and putative class members. The Court analyzes the temporary restraining order factors and finds a limited temporary restraining order is necessary. Here, the first relevant inquiry is the likelihood of success that the May 21 email constituted an abusive communication. That is the case here, Judge Broomes says. There are motions to dismiss pending over whether an arbitration clause applies to the Plaintiffs' claims and those of the putative class. The May 21 email seeks to impose an arbitration agreement and claims limitation that would moot the Plaintiffs' claims and eliminate the claims of potential class members. Judge Broomes opines that the Plaintiffs are in a dependent relationship with New Direction Defendants, and their only option for opting out of the new agreement would be to remove assets from New Direction Defendants' care by July 1. This is not a realistic opt out for the Plaintiffs. The Court, thus, finds a likelihood of success on the communication being abusive under Rule 23. Second, Judge Broomes holds, there is irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs and putative class members should the updated agreement take effect. It either eliminates or severely restricts claims with no realistic opportunity to preserve those claims. Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor the Plaintiffs as well. In examining the balance of equities, the Court examines the injury to either side and the effects of granting or denying the motion. Here, Judge Broomes opines, the injuries to the Plaintiffs and the putative class are great if relief is denied, whereas the injuries to the New Direction Defendants are relatively small. The Plaintiffs and the putative class could lose legal recourse, while New Direction Defendants merely have their new agreement stayed pending a further hearing on final corrective action. Accordingly, the Court ruled that New Direction is temporarily restrained from adopting the 2024 Custodial Agreement. The order expired on July 12, 2024, unless extended by the Court for good cause. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/28hjyfmn from PacerMonitor.com. NISSAN CANADA: Court OKs Settlement in Data Incident Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Finance reports that on June 17, 2024, the Superior Court of Quebec approve the settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced against Nissan Canada Inc. in the matter of Levy v. Nissan Canada Inc., Superior Court of Quebec Court File No.: 500 06 000907 184. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice previously approved the settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced in Ontario against Nissan, Nissan Canada Financial Services Inc./Services Financiers Nissan Canada Inc. and Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan") in the matter of Grossman and Arntfield v Nissan Canada Inc., c.o.b. as Nissan Canada Finance and c.o.b. as Infiniti Financial Services Canada, Nissan Canada Financial Services Inc., Services Financiers Nissan Canada Inc. and Nissan North America, Inc., Ontario Superior Court of Justice Court File No. CV-18-00590402-00CP, on April 24, 2024, which approval was contingent upon the settlement approval in Quebec. The lawsuits allege that Nissan is liable for damages resulting from an incident in which it received an anonymous email from an unknown individual claiming to have information about Nissan customers, and demanding a ransom be paid to return the data (the "Data Incident"). Nissan denies any wrongdoing, and none of the allegations of the lawsuit have been proven. Class members include: (i) residents in Quebec who had active leases or loans with Nissan between December 22, 2016 and January 12, 2017; (ii) residents in Quebec who received a letter from Nissan on or about January 2018 informing them of the Data Incident; and (ii) residents in the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) who had active leases or loans with Nissan between from December 22, 2016 and January 12, 2017. Nissan has agreed to provide a fund of CAD $1,820,000.00 to settle the two lawsuits. Class members who have suffered damages, losses, costs and/or unreimbursed expenses caused by the Data Incident (and/or, for Quebec residents, as a result of the receipt of a letter from Nissan on or about January 2018 informing them of the Data Incident) would be eligible for the reimbursement of such damages up to a maximum of CAD $2,500. Class members who do not have documentation or proof of damages and who submit a claim would be entitled to up to a maximum of CAD $35 for reimbursement of lost time. If the total amount of claims to Settlement Class Members exceeds the total amount allocated for either the Documented Claims or the Undocumented Claims, the individual payments to Settlement Class Members may be reduced on a pro rata basis (proportionally). [GN] NORTHEAST SPINE: Blackman Privacy Suit Removed to D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LISA BLACKMAN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. OCN-L-001203-24, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 14, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07022 to the proceeding. The case arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of certain Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's privacy and security rules, Federal Trade Commission guidelines, and for purported negligence and breach of implied contract. Based in New Jersey, Northeast Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC offers sports medicine, physical therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic and pain management care. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mohamed H. Nabulsi, Esq. Steven I. Adler, Esq. MANDELBAUM BARRETT PC 3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 105 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 736-4600 Facsimile: (973) 325-7467 E-mail: mnabulsi@mblawfirm.com sadler@mblawfirm.com OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Spyware in Marketing Emails ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Office Depot has surreptitiously integrated into marketing emails tracking technology that captures recipients' personal information without their knowledge. According to the 18-page privacy lawsuit, the office supplies retailer has embedded into its emails hidden web-tracking tools known as spy pixels, which quietly collect data about consumers as soon as they open the message. The suit claims the company has breached an Arizona privacy law by tracking residents' email records without first acquiring their permission. Per the case, Office Depot captures consumer information through its own trackers as well as through spy pixels provided by a third-party data analytics vendor and embedded within email images. As the complaint tells it, when a consumer opens an Office Depot marketing email, the trackers automatically intercept data about the recipient's device, their IP address, when and where they opened the message, how long they spent reading it, whether it was forwarded, and other personal information. The plaintiff, an Arizona resident, says she has frequently opened the company's emails in the past year. The filing contends that by doing so, the woman had confidential data collected by the tracking tools at issue without her knowledge or authorization, in violation of state law. The Office Depot lawsuit charges that the retailer's "invasive surveillance" of consumers' sensitive email records is a breach of Arizona residents' protected privacy rights. The retail lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Arizona who has opened a marketing email containing a tracking pixel from Office Depot. [GN] PATELCO CREDIT: Faces Class Action After Ransomware Attack ---------------------------------------------------------- Lora Painter, writing for ABC10, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Patelco Credit Union after a ransomware attack left members unable to fully access their accounts and funds. Lawfirm Cole & Van Note filed the suit July 1, days after the ransomware attack hit the credit union, citing its "failure to properly secure and safeguard" members' information. Patelco says its networks are stable, customers' money is secure and they expect to be "completely caught up by the end of the week." No official date of when all services will return to normal has been provided and it's unclear if the ransomware attack. [GN] PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Data, Lee Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILY LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 24CV082691 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the Right to Privacy, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personal information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its data systems following a cybersecurity attack and data breach on or around June 29, 2024. 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. Patelco Credit Union is a credit union company, with its principal place of business in Dublin, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com PEGASO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Long Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEGASO ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; and JOHN COLE STOUT, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-150 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 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 Long was employed by the Defendants as a floor hand or laborer. Pegaso Energy Services, LLC is an oil and gas company providing pump services, completion rig services, well testing services and automation or robotic services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fernando M. Bustos, Esq. Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq. Brandon C. Callahan, Esq. Benjamin E. Casey, Esq. BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 1980 Lubbock, TX 79408-1980 Telephone: (806) 780-3976 Facsimile: (806) 780-3800 Email: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com bcasey@bustoslawfirm.com PEORIA UNIFIED: Court Rules Refund in Suit Over Property Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------- As a part of a $329 million class action lawsuit, the Peoria Unified School District is being required to refund roughly $7.2 million in collected property taxes. Due to an Arizona Court of Appeals ruling on the matter, the pending charges encapsulate nine years of overtaxing homeowners. According to the Maricopa County Assessor's website, in Arizona, the amount of property taxes a resident owes is calculated using the property's "assessed value," which is based on the property's Limited Property Value (LPV) and classification. The case of Qasimyar v. Maricopa County addressed the differences in classification between residences, trying to determine a "change in use" between owner-occupied residential homes, Class 3, and rental or nonprimary residences, Class 4. "The court held that under state statute any transition from a Class 3 to Class 4 or vice versa was a change in use," said Chief Financial Officer Michelle Myers to the Peoria Unified Governing Board during a recent meeting. "The ruling substantially altered the calculation for certain limited property values during those years and subsequently all taxing districts within Maricopa County will be impacted." The ruling impacted past property taxes that had been collected by county taxing authorities, including school districts, from 2015 to 2023. Myers said that the lawsuit only affects offenses within the specific date range and not any future tax activity -- as now the property taxes have been corrected and adjusted. "Maricopa County school districts have been notified that through no fault of their own . . . the districts will be required to refund revenue cash payments previously received related to those years that were collected and levied to support school district budgets," Myers said. She explained that the refund plan is starting and will continue for "a period of time," to address the ruling and will pull back any funds that have been deposited resulting in negative cash amounts for the related school districts. During the state legislature's final work with their budget -- put into place under House Bill 2909 and Senate Bill 1747 -- the body implemented a session law that posed solutions to a number of issues that could possibly arise. The first potential problem addressed is that the session law automatically requires the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to initiate "statewide state aid recalculation." Myers noted without this measure, each district would have to go to its governing board and request individual recalculation. The session law will also allow districts to use "inaccessible cash" as part of the analysis, allowing districts to leverage free cash into their budgeted limit to satisfy school district liability. Districts will also have the opportunity to levy the remaining liability in FY25, through "primary judgment or a cash deficit mechanism." Lastly, districts are authorized to borrow funds if property tax rate liability reaches over 4% of that included in FY24. "Now I can tell you we're not in that situation, we set out tax rate in August of each year," Myers said. "We understand from this most recent communication . . . from the Maricopa County Education Services Agency . . . that though there was an intent to allow districts to levy for the cash deficit in 2025 the mechanics of the statewide recalculation and all of the analysis that's taking place, it will most likely end up being something that's addressed in the fiscal year 2026." Myers said that the processing of the refunds won't start until July 2025 and is expected to run through December 2025. [GN] POLY & BARK: Faces Class Action Over Discounted Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action alleges Poly & Bark's business model relies on advertising fake and misleading sales on its website to trick customers into buying furniture and home decor. The 38-page lawsuit -- filed against Poly & Bark owner Geshem LLC -- says PolyAndBark.com represents that nearly all its products can be bought at a discounted rate using an automatically or manually applied coupon code. However, the case claims these items are rarely, if ever, sold at their purported regular, or reference, price. According to the filing, the online retailer lists its furniture and home decor with false reference prices to deceive consumers into believing they are receiving a good deal and induce them into making a purchase. The suit notes that part of Poly & Bark's alleged pricing scheme involves prominently displaying on the website's landing page sitewide sales where products are supposedly marked down by a specific percentage or dollar amount for a limited time. "[W]hen one sale expires, another similar sale is promptly instituted, or the sale never ends," the complaint contends. "This cycle continues over and over." The company also falsely advertises products on their individual pages with a higher regular price and a lower discounted price accompanied by "Save $__" or "$__ off," the case claims. The lawsuit further alleges that Poly & Bark's false reference pricing causes consumers to overpay for its products because the tactic artificially increases demand, and by extension, the price of an item. "To illustrate, assume a company knows a product will sell in the marketplace at $30. But to increase revenue and capture market share, the company advertises the product as having a regular price of $100 and being on 'sale' at 60% off (i.e., $60 off). Because consumers value products based on the regular price, and a purported limited-time sale conveys savings, the company can sell that $30 product for $40." The plaintiff, a California resident, says she bought stools from PolyAndBark.com in January 2023 that are still being offered on sale as of this month. The woman argues that she would not have paid as much for the items, or purchased them at all, had she known they were listed at a fictitious bargain price. The Poly & Bark fake sales lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased one or more items from PolyAndBark.com at a discount from a higher reference price. [GN] PRIMO WATER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triton US ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is investigating Primo Water Corporation (NYSE: PRMW), relating to its proposed merger with Triton US HoldCo, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Primo Water shareholders are expected to own 43% of the combined company. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Sued Over Unlawful Parking Ticket Citations ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETER CICALE, JR., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61146-AHS (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2024) is an action by vehicle owners who were unlawfully mailed parking citations by the Defendant, and whose personal information the Defendant illegally obtained through flagrant violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's business model ostensibly involves charging drivers to park their vehicles in its facilities. The Defendant's business is about mailing parking citations to vehicle owners and threatening them with severe consequences if they do not pay exorbitant sums demanded in these citations, says the Plaintiff. Professional Parking Management Corporation is a parking-enforcement solution offering powerful and user-friendly tools to simplify parking operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. 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. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, 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 bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Cole Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANGELA COLE and BEATRICE ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-20647-WJM-JSA (D.N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The matter comes before the Court upon Quest Diagnostics, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Angela Cola and Beatrice Roche's putative class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court decides the matters without oral argument. After careful consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs are California residents, who ordered and accessed medical diagnostic tests from Quest by navigating two of its websites: www.questdiagnostics.com ("General Website") and myquest.diagnostics.com ("MyQuest"). Quest is one of the "leading providers of diagnostic information services" and provides clinical lab results. The General Website is available to all internet users and is used to browse articles, read publications, and access Quest's other services and products. MyQuest is a password-protected platform that allows patients to review test results, schedule appointments, or pay bills. Users must create an account to access MyQuest, but not for the General Website. The Plaintiffs navigated to the General Website and were redirected to MyQuest to access their test results, which required them to create accounts to gain access. The Plaintiffs claim that without their consent, Quest assisted Facebook, a third party, in intercepting their internet communications and medical information while they navigated the websites. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Quest integrated the "Facebook Tracking Pixel" into their websites to track the data of users. The Facebook Tracking Pixel is a business tool Facebook offers to advertisers like Quest. For both websites in this case, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant's Facebook Tracking Pixel intercepts and transmits PageView information, which includes the title of the page, keywords associated with the page, and a description of the page. The Plaintiffs also allege that users, who access either website while logged into Facebook will transmit a cookie that contains the user's unencrypted Facebook ID. The Plaintiffs allege Quest uses these cookies to pair event data with personally identifiable information so it can later retarget patients on Facebook. The Plaintiffs also allege that Quest expressly warranted that it "will never conspire with a third-party to intercept usage data paired with personally identifiable information." The Plaintiffs filed their two-count Complaint on July 19, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Quest filed a motion to change venue and a motion to dismiss on Nov. 22, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on Jan. 6, 2023. On Sept. 22, 2023, Judge Thurston in the District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Quest's motion to transfer venue to this Court and declined to consider Quest's motion to dismiss in light of the transfer decision (Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00892 JLT SKO, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169351, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2023). On Jan. 4, 2024, this Court gave the parties an opportunity to update their briefs on the motion to dismiss. Quest filed its Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition on March 11, 2024, and Quest filed its reply on March 25, 2024. Count One of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges Quest violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") by aiding, agreeing with, and conspiring with Facebook to track and intercept the Plaintiffs' and class members' internet communications while accessing the General Website and MyQuest and aiding and assisting Facebook's eavesdropping with the intent to help Facebook learn some meaning of the content in the URLs and the content the visitor requested. Count Two alleges Quest violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA") by disclosing individually identifiable information regarding a patient's medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment to Facebook via a patient's Facebook ID and other Facebook Identifiers. Quest requests that the Court take judicial notice of, or deem incorporated into the Amended Complaint by reference, (1) Quest's Account Terms & Conditions, (2) Quest's Cookie Notice, (3) Quest's Privacy Notice, (4) Facebook's Terms of Service, (5) Facebook's Privacy Policy, and (6) Facebook's Cookie Policy. The Court will only take judicial notice of Quest's Cookie Notice, as the basis of the Plaintiffs' allegations center around the Defendant's cookie policy. The Court declines to extend judicial notice of Quest's Account Terms & Conditions, Quest's Privacy Policy, Facebook's Terms of Service, Facebook's Privacy Policy, and Facebook's Cookie Policy as they are not generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction and cannot be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. In its motion to dismiss, Quest first argues that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a lack of consent to its data collection practices because both the General Website and MyQuest include broad cookie disclosure language that covers the alleged improper data sharing. The Plaintiffs, in response, argue establishing consent is Quest's burden, which it fails to meet. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff clearly states that by warranting Quest will never conspire with a third-party to intercept usage data paired with personally identifiable information, the Defendant has failed to receive consent from visitors to intercept their communications. This is sufficient to meet their burden to plead that the Plaintiffs did not provide prior consent, Judge Martini holds. Therefore, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CIPA and CMIA claims on consent grounds. Quest next argues that the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim must fail because Facebook was a party to the communications at issue and, therefore, could not have eavesdropped. The Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim on these grounds. Quest argues that the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim fail because they do not plausibly allege that the "contents" of their communications were intercepted since ButtonClick, Microdata, and PageView information does not constitute content. Judge Martini opines that the information allegedly intercepted constitutes content under CIPA. Therefore, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim on content grounds. Quest's Motion to Dismiss Count One is denied. Quest also argues the Plaintiffs' CMIA claim must fail because none of the information allegedly disclosed or used constitutes "medical information." Here, Judge Martini notes, the Plaintiffs have not alleged that the type or results of tests were disclosed. Therefore, the Court will grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' CMIA claim. Count Two of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Amend is granted. Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' California claims fail because New Jersey Law applies. The Defendant refers to its Account Terms & Conditions' choice of law provisions requiring "resolution of any and all disputes related to this Agreement" be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Court declines to consider these provisions as at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must only consider the four corners of the Complaint, which contains no reference to the Account Terms & Conditions. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is granted and Count Two is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs will have leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/27avat3y from PacerMonitor.com. QUOTEWIZARD.COM: Bid to File Supplemental Authority OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mantha v. Quotewizard.com, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-12235 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 29, 2019), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order allowing motion for leave to file supplemental authority relevant to class certification. -- Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. -- Counsel must include -- Leave to file granted on (date of order) -- in the caption of the document. The nature of suit alleges violation of the statutory actions. QuoteWizard.com, LLC provides online insurance services.[CC] SANTANDER CONSUMER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA R. BARRY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00643-DII (W.D. Tex., June 10, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. Santander Consumer USA Inc. provides automotive financing services. The Company offers new car and used car loans, as well as auto and cash-back refinance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bissette Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DWAYNE BISSETTE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00381 (E.D.N.C., July 1, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant's unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bissette was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. provides security services. The Company offers services such as guard, patrol and inspection, access control, security console operators, alarm response, and specialized client requested services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com SENTINELONE INC: Court Tosses Securities Suit With Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the motion to dismiss with leave to amend in the lawsuit captioned IN RE SENTINELONE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-02786-HSG (N.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's putative securities class action filed against Defendants SentinelOne, Tomer Weingarten, and David Bernhardt. SentinelOne is a cybersecurity company that offers its products via subscription contracts, generally on terms of one to three years. The company recognizes revenue ratably over the course of a contract in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). It also tracks three non-GAAP "key business metrics," including Annualized Recurring Revenue ("ARR"). During the Class Period, the Defendants defined ARR as "the annualized revenue run rate of our subscription and capacity contracts at the end of a reporting period, assuming contracts are renewed on their existing terms for customers that are under contracts with us." On June 1, 2023, the Defendants announced that SentinelOne was adjusting both its previously reported ARR figures and ARR projections. Specifically, the Defendants disclosed that SentinelOne needed to make a "one-time adjustment to ARR of $27.0 million or approximately 5% of total ARR" to its previously reported ARR figures. The Defendants also announced that SentinelOne's projected ARR growth for the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2024, needed to be cut by roughly 25% and that its projected revenue for that fiscal year also needed to be reduced from $631-$640 million to $590-$600 million. The Defendants offered two explanations for these adjustments. First, they noted that due to changing macroeconomic factors, they needed to adjust the ARR calculations to remove amounts based on "consumption and usage," such as for excess-usage charges or other charges for additional services. Second, the Defendants disclosed that they recently discovered they had been double-counting ARR in certain circumstances. In response to the Defendants' revelations after close of the market on June 1, SentinelOne's stock price fell the following day by $7.28 per share, from $20.72 to $13.44 per share, or more than 35%. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of individuals, who purchased or otherwise acquired SentinelOne securities between June 1, 2022, and June 1, 2023, inclusive ("Class Period"), and who were damaged as a result of the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act ("Class"), including violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(Count 1) and Section 20(a) (Count 2). The Defendants request that the Court incorporate by reference or take judicial notice of Exhibits 1–20 to the Declaration of Marie C. Bafus. The Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the consensus estimate from the Declaration of John T. Jasnoch. The Defendants seek to incorporate Exhibits 1–15 and 18–20 from the Bafus Declaration into the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff does not contest incorporation by reference for Exhibits 1, 6–12 and 19, but opposes the remainder of the Defendants' request. The Court finds that Exhibits 1–15, 18, and 19 are quoted or referred to extensively in the Amended Complaint and grants the request to incorporate these documents by reference. The Court declines to incorporate by reference Exhibit 20. This document consists of a table reflecting SentinelOne's common stock closing prices from June 1, 2022, to Feb. 15, 2024. Although the Plaintiff makes allegations about SentinelOne's stock prices, the Amended Complaint does not specifically refer to the table in the exhibit. Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of all the exhibits in the Bafus Declaration for the purpose of considering what was disclosed to the market. In doing so, the Court does not assume the truth of any of the facts asserted in those documents other than the stock price data. The Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of the consensus estimate provided in the Jasnoch Declaration. Jasnoch bases this consensus estimate on a review of three analyst reports covering the stock for the relevant quarters. The Plaintiff does not request judicial notice of the underlying analyst reports, and only requests judicial notice of the consensus estimate Jasnoch derives from the reports. The Defendants oppose the request. Because the consensus estimate provided by the Plaintiff's counsel is subject to factual dispute, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the estimate. In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the many of challenged statements fall under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") safe harbor and that the Plaintiff has failed to plead actionable misstatements or omissions or a strong inference of scienter. The Court is not convinced that the definition of ARR necessarily precluded the inclusion of variable overage fees, rendering the ARR definition false. However, given the weakness of the scienter allegations, the Court grounds its decision to dismiss based on the Plaintiff's failure to allege a strong inference of scienter. Accordingly, the Court need not decide for purposes of this motion whether the Plaintiff adequately alleged falsity as to the ARR definition. In support of scienter, the Plaintiff points to the Defendants' acknowledgements that the ARR metrics were inaccurately determined; inadequately supported confidential witness testimony suggesting that double-counting occurred (and was remedied) before the Class Period; allegations of individual trading without a reference point to determine if such trading was suspicious; and allegations that do not permit the Court to impute knowledge of falsity under the core operations doctrine. Weighing these allegations holistically, the Court still cannot make the "strong inference" that the Defendants took these actions with an intent to defraud investors for their own benefit. In all, the inferences the Court could draw from the limited allegations relating to scienter are not as compelling as competing innocent inferences. Judge Gilliam opines that the more convincing theory is that the Defendants failed to catch certain accounting errors and at most might unintentionally have misled investors by defining ARR with less than ideal clarity. As such, the Section 10(b) claim fails. The Court grants the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim with leave to amend. Because the Plaintiff does not adequately plead a Section 10(b) claim, Judge Gilliam finds his Section 20(a) claim fails. The Court grants the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim with leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Since the Court cannot conclude that amendment would be futile, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 28 days of the date of this Order. When preparing an amended complaint, the Plaintiff is further ordered to prepare a statement-by-statement chart of the information required by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(1) and (2) that specifically identifies: (a) each statement or action alleged to have been false or misleading, (b) the reasons the statement or action was false, misleading, or deceptive when made, and (c) if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, all facts on which the belief is formed. The chart should clearly identify which statements or omissions are attributable to which the Defendants and include a detailed statement of the facts giving rise to a strong inference that each Defendant acted with the required state of mind. The Plaintiff should also summarize their allegations regarding what each Defendant knew with regards to the statement or omission and when they knew it. Such a chart should be included within any amended complaint or attached to any amended complaint. For guidance on the format for such a chart, the Court directs the Plaintiff to review In re NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig., 18-cv-07669-HSG, Dkt. No. 149-2. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhp7zak3 from PacerMonitor.com. SHINOLA/DETROIT LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Brown Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHINOLA/DETROIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04891 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.shinola.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. On April 23, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase a watch (The Derby watch). Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Shinola/Detroit, LLC retails discretionary products. The Company offers men's and women's bags, watches, straps, jewelry, bicycles, and gifts, as well as provides online services. Shinola/Detroit serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com STAPLES THE OFFICE: Torres Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALISSA TORRES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE‚ LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; STAPLES‚ INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2415642, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 27, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01352 to the proceeding. The Complaint contains 10 causes of action against Defendants alleging violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. Staples the Office Superstore‚ LLC retails office supplies. The Company offers chairs, printers, calculators, monitors, laptops, desktops, papers, hard drives, and envelops. Staples the Office Superstore serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tritia M. Murata, Esq. David P. Zins, Esq. Frances J. Choi, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: TritiaMurata@dwt.com DavidZins@dwt.com FrancesChoi@dwt.com STRONG GLOBAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Fundamental Global ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is investigating Strong Global Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: SGE), relating to its proposed merger with Fundamental Global Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Strong Global Entertainment shareholders will receive 1.5 shares of common stock per share of Strong Global stock they own. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SUMMIT HEALTH: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Stewart FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DESHANEE STEWART and SEVARIA WILLS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. SUMMIT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a CITYMD, and CITY PRACTICE GROUP OF NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a CITYMD, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04073-ER (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part Summit's motion to dismiss certain claims. Plaintiffs Deshanee Stewart and Sevaria Wills bring this putative class action against Summit Health Management, LLC, d/b/a CityMD, and City Practice Group of New York, LLC (collectively, "Summit"). The Plaintiffs allege that Summit violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") by failing to compensate them for the number of hours they worked and discrimination against them on the basis of race. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all current and former patient care and service representatives ("PCRs") employed by Summit in New York State on or after the date six years before the Plaintiffs' first Complaint was filed on May 16, 2023 (the "Class"). Summit Health and City Practice Group of New York are foreign limited liability companies. In 2019, Summit Health merged with City Practice Group of New York. Summit owns and manages over 30 CityMD urgent care facilities throughout New York City. Summit's principal place of business is located at 150 Floral Avenue, in New Providence, New Jersey. Summit is moving to dismiss the claims alleging (1) uncompensated off-the-clock work, (2) uncompensated short breaks, (3) nonneutral rounding, (4) failure to provide proper wage notices and statements, and (5) employment discrimination. Claims for uncompensated off-the-clock work, uncompensated short breaks, and improper wage notices and statements are brought on behalf of the entire Class. Claims for non-neutral rounding are brought only on behalf of Wills and a subclass of PCRs hired before May of 2019 ("Subclass"). Claims for employment discrimination are brought only on behalf of Stewart. Summit contends that the wage-and-hour claims based on allegations of uncompensated off-the clock work, including pre- and post-shift work and short breaks, must be dismissed for failure to plead with sufficient specificity. Judge Ramos finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations that they were subject to the same uncompensated, post-shift work--"twice a week" for "10-15 minutes a day"--is sufficient to plausibly state their claims. Although Stewart and Wills have alleged regularly working over 40 hours a week for specific periods of time, Judge Ramos holds that Wills fails to allege facts showing that she regularly took uncompensated short breaks during those periods. In fact, she fails to allege that she took any short breaks at all. Plaintiff Stewart, in contrast, alleges that during the week of Oct. 9, 2021, Summit failed to compensate her for a short break lasting less than of 20 minutes during a week she is recorded as working over 42 hours. Judge Ramos points out that this allegation is sufficiently specific to state an overtime compensation claim pursuant to the FLSA. Accordingly, Judge Ramos holds that the motion to dismiss is denied as to Stewart and Wills' pre- and post-timing-shaving claim, as well as Stewart's claim for uncompensated short breaks. The motion to dismiss is granted as to Will's claim for uncompensated short breaks. Plaintiff Wills asserts that she and the Subclass were undercompensated as a result of Summit's purported policy of one-directional rounding. Judge Ramos finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a policy that favors the employer and systematically undercompensates employees. Consequently, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of undercompensated work due to one-directional rounding is denied. The Court also holds, among other things, that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's wage and notice claim pursuant to the WTPA is granted, and Summit's motion to dismiss Wills' NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims is denied. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Summit's motion to dismiss. The parties are directed to appear for a conference on Aug. 9, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 30. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3v3ttm2x from PacerMonitor.com. SUTTON FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ASHER BRONSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTON FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04116-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke. Sutton Funding LLC is an entity within the Barclays Group. The company provides banking services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St. Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Facsimile: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Pre-Class-Cert. Bids Adjourned to Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCIANO v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA - COLLEGE RETIREMENT EQUITIES FUND (TIAA-CREF), et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06726 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 8, 2015), the Hon. Judge Robert Kirsch entered an order: -- The deadline for any pre-class-certification motions is adjourned to Oct. 31, 2024. -- The Plaintiff and defendant TIAA-CREF are directed to continue to meet and confer regarding the collection and review of C&B data, and all parties are directed to meet and confer regarding general pretrial scheduling issues, consistent with the discussion during the status conference. -- No later than Aug. 26, 2024, the parties shall file via CM/ECF a joint letter that apprises the Court of the status of the collection and review of C&B data, and an agreed-upon amended pre- trial schedule. -- If all parties cannot agree on such a schedule, the letter shall state each party's position. The Court will take appropriate action upon receipt of the letter. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). TIAA-CREF is an American financial services organization.[BN] TENNESSSEE: Lawrence Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John K. Lawrence et al., v. Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC), et al., Case No. 1:24-mc-00031-CEA-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff is a prisoner incarcerated at Bledsoe Correctional Complex. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated his Constitution and civil rights. Tennessee Department operates safe and secure prisons and provides effective community supervision in order to enhance public safety. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C0zlB8 at no extra charge.[CC] TESLA INC: Insurance Class Action Review Set in October 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that Tesla has been granted additional time to prepare its defense in a class action lawsuit alleging overcharging for insurance. The case, which claims Tesla inflated insurance premiums based on inaccurate crash warnings, is set to be reviewed for class-action status in October 2025, Judge Michael Markman of Alameda Superior Court in Oakland has decided. A Tesla customer initiated the lawsuit last year, representing drivers from 11 states, asserting that the company's insurance premiums were unjustly raised due to "false" crash alerts rather than actual driving behaviors. The complaint states that Tesla's insurance policies, directly sold to customers, breached California's unfair competition law and violated driver contracts. At a recent hearing, Tesla's attorney, Min Kang, explained the delays in gathering necessary information to build a defense, citing the involvement of multiple states and the departure of a key employee. Kang mentioned, "Just last week we lost our main contact at the company," highlighting the complexities involved in the process. Despite Tesla's denial of any wrongdoing, the company faced setbacks last year and in June when it failed to dismiss several claims in the case. The lawsuit points to Tesla's use of real-time driving data to determine insurance premiums, which are based on a "safety score" incorporating metrics like hard braking, aggressive turning, and forward collision warnings. Many drivers reported receiving unwarranted collision warnings, adversely impacting their safety scores and, consequently, their insurance rates. Tesla's venture into the insurance market has been a prominent move by CEO Elon Musk. Initially launched in California, Tesla Insurance promised premiums up to 30% lower than traditional insurers. The company claims it can offer competitive rates by leveraging its deep understanding of its vehicles' technology and safety features. Tesla's history with insurance began with the InsureMyTesla program in Australia and Hong Kong 2016, which expanded into North America in 2017 through partnerships with Liberty Mutual and Aviva. However, this initiative did not meet Musk's expectations, prompting the creation of Tesla Insurance in 2019. This program uses real-time driving data to offer personalized rates, aiming to provide a more compelling option for Tesla owners. The company recently reported hitting over half a billion dollars in premiums. Insurance behemoth, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffet, told his shareholders at the time that he thought Tesla's insurance plan was a bad idea. He said: "The success of the auto companies getting into the insurance business is probably as likely as the success of the insurance companies getting into the auto business. I'd bet against any company in the auto business [getting into insurance]." In response to industry skepticism, Tesla's move to self-insure was met with mixed reactions. Critics questioned the company's ability to accurately price insurance, while others, like Ian Sweeney from Trov, saw potential benefits in integrating insurance with Tesla's technological advancements. "First of all, when Tesla first came into the industry, they didn't actually keep the risk themselves; they were just a distribution channel," Adam Denninger, global industry leader for insurance at Capgemini told IBA. "What you've seen for a long time is that a lot of technology companies coming into the industry on the distribution side -- offering new agent experiences, new mechanisms of gathering data, even occasionally doing the underwriting piece as well -- all have had a similar experience. They lost a lot of money." "[These companies] came in thinking that the technology was the hard part, and thinking insurance is this old, slow backwater industry," Denninger said. "[They thought] it's not that complicated, and they could solve it. But they realized [insurance] was pretty complicated, and it's difficult to do it without losing your shirt. I think that's what happened to Tesla." In a bid to address high premium costs, Tesla recently hired Allen Laben, a former GEICO executive, as the head of insurance partnerships. Laben's role focuses on collaborating with insurance companies and collision shops to reduce the overall cost of Tesla ownership. [GN] THINX INC: Faces Espinal Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THINX INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04867 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.thinx.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, during Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 18, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Ultra soft high-waisted Thinx panties from Defendant and to view the information on the website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Thinx Inc. is a New York–based company that manufactures women's apparel products. The Company offers panty, bra, and period-proof underwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal TIFFANY AND CO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04889 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant’s website, www.tiffany.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. On April 23, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase a bracelet (Interlocking Circles Chain Bracelet). Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tiffany and Company is an American luxury jewelry and specialty design house headquartered on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TOM'S PET: Faces Solis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOM'S PET SUPPLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04541 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.tomspetsupply.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. On March 15, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase dry dog food. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, he was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tom's Pet Supply, Inc. is a family-owned and operated pet store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Enriquez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROY ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SELECT WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case. 7:24-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 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 Plaintiff Enriquez was employed by the Defendant as a construction foreman/field operator/pumper. Trinity Environmental Management, LLC provides oilfield waste services to the oil and gas industry throughout the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fernando M. Bustos, Esq. Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq. Brandon C. Callahan, Esq. Benjamin E. Casey, Esq. BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 1980 Lubbock, TX 79408-1980 Telephone: (806) 780-3976 Facsimile: (806) 780-3800 Email: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com bcasey@bustoslawfirm.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Hilliard Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The case is captioned Kendra Hilliard, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No. 3:24-cv-00596-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 11, 2024). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). TrueAccord Corp. is a third-party debt collection company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 S.E. 6th St, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com - and - Gerald D Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com UNITED STATES: Henkel Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ---------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE HENKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01676-ABJ (D.C., June 10, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. United States Department of Education operates as a government agency which promotes student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 Facsimile: (202) 379-9749 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com UNITED STATES: Montana-Dakota Seeks Review of Final EPA Rule ------------------------------------------------------------ MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO. is filing a petition for the Court to review the final rule of the United States Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register at 89 Fed. Reg. 39798 in the lawsuit entitled Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents, Case No. EPA-89FR39798. The appellate case is captioned Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 24-1227, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 1, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO. is represented by: Megan H. Berge, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 700 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-7700 - and - Jonathan Mark Little, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 229-1489 Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are represented by: Eric Gerig Hostetler, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 23986 L'Enfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026 - and - Elliot Higgins, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 150 M Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 598-0240 - and - Chloe Hamity Kolman, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 UNITED WATER: Seeks Leave to Allow Expert to Testify Via Zoom ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, ET AL., V. UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed/ex parte motion for leave to allow expert John Kind to testify via Zoom at the Class Certification Hearing currently scheduled to begin on Sept. 23, 2024. Counsel for UWS found out for the first time on June 24, 2024 that Dr. Kind had a scheduling conflict that would prevent him from testifying in person at the Class Certification Hearing. Dr. Kind scheduled his personal trip to Poland over a year ago, which was prior to Dr. Kind entering into an engagement letter with counsel for UWS on March 18, 2024. Counsel for Plaintiffs were first made aware of Dr. Kind's conflict on July 1, 2024 during Dr. Kind's deposition, roughly four hours into the deposition through testimony elicited from Dr. Kind by plaintiffs' counsel. The Plaintiffs will not suffer any disadvantage or prejudice because Dr. Kind will be testifying in real-time via Zoom and will be available for cross-examination. UWS asserts that the filing of this motion for leave will not cause any undue delay and does not involve any bad faith or dilatory motive. UWS submits that allowing Dr. Kind to testify in real-time via Zoom will assist the Court in properly adjudicating the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs still reserve and maintain their right to challenge and attempt to exclude or limit Dr. Kind. United provides residential and commercial water treatment solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVOtJT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John E.W. Baay II, Esq. J. Michael Digiglia, Esq. Nicholas S. Bergeron, Esq. GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC Hancock Whitney Building 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 561-0400 Facsimile: (504) 561-1011 E-mail: jbaay@glllaw.com mdigiglia@glllaw.com nbergeron@glllaw.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Be Well Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Be Well Integrative Health Partners, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare, Inc., Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00337 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02369-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aubrey B. Harwell , III, Esq. Simon Levitsky, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Email: tharwell@nealharwell.com slevitsky@nealharwell.com - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, PC 6518 Hwy 100 Ste 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Phone: (615) 515-3393 Fax: (615) 515-3395 Email: charles@cfbfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: H. Lee Moffitt Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute Hospital, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare, Inc., Optum Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00661 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02392-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aubrey B. Harwell, III, Esq. Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq. Simon Levitsky, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Email: tharwell@nealharwell.com dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com slevitsky@nealharwell.com - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, PC 6518 Hwy 100 Ste 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Phone: (615) 515-3393 Fax: (615) 515-3395 Email: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Brendan S. Thompson, Esq. Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Ave., Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: brendant@cuneolaw.com charlesl@cuneolaw.com Christian Hudson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Email: chudson@cuneolaw.com - and - David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq. John W. Barrett, Esq. Richard Runft Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North Lexinton, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Miller & Martin 150 4th Ave N Ste 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com - and - Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: McCollum Sues Over 12% Decline of Stock Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- PORTIA MCCOLLUM, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Plaintiff v. ANDREW P. WITTY, STEPHEN HEMSLEY, CHARLIE BAKER, TIMOTHY P. FLYNN, PAUL R. GARCIA, KRISTEN L. GILL, MICHELE J. HOOPER, F. WILLIAM MCNABB, III, VALERIE MONTGOMERY RICE, JOHN H. NOSEWORTHY, and BRIAN THOMPSON, Defendants, and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02643 (D. Minn., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made or permitted the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning UnitedHealth's firewall policy between March 14, 2022 and February 27, 2024. Specifically, the Individual Defendants made or caused the UnitedHealth to make false and misleading statements, and omitted material facts, in that UnitedHealth never established proper firewalls between Optum and UnitedHealthcare as required by its own policy, and as it told the court in the antitrust action, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and investors it would do. Despite assurances to the contrary, there was never a meaningful technological separation between Optum and UnitedHealthcare that prevented the sharing of customer sensitive information (CSI). As a result, the Individual Defendants caused the Company's public statements to be materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of UnitedHealth stock dropped 12 percent, from a closing price of $525.32 per share on February 26, 2024, to a closing price of $513.42 per share on February 27, 2024. The price of UnitedHealth stock continued to decline over the days, closing at $498.28 per share on February 28, 2024, over $27 lower than the price on February 26, 2024, says the suit. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a multinational healthcare and wellbeing company, with its principal executive offices located in Minnetonka, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Altman, Esq. ALTMAN LAW, PLLC 6701 West 23rd Street St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Telephone: (612) 335-3700 Facsimile: (612) 928-2842 Email: adam@altmanlf.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Herbert W. Mondros, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com hwm@rl-legal.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 UOFL HEALTH: Blandford Suit Remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RHONDA BLANDFORD, Plaintiff, v. UOFL HEALTH, INC. and UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE PHYSICIANS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00192-DJH (W.D. Ky.), Judge David J. Hale of the Kentucky, Louisville Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to remand to Jefferson Circuit Court. The matter arises from allegations that Defendants UofL Health, Inc., and University of Louisville Physicians, Inc., improperly leaked patients' private information. Plaintiff Rhonda Blandford initiated this class-action lawsuit in Kentucky state court on behalf of herself and a class comprising of all citizens of Kentucky whose personal identifying information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) was collected and transmitted by the Defendants to an unauthorized party, claiming that the Defendants failed to properly inform their patients that the PII and/or PHI was being transferred. Ms. Blandford asserts several state-law claims, including negligence (Count I); negligence per se (Count II); invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion (Count III); breach of implied contract (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI); violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count VII); and violations of Ky. Rev. Stat. Section 365.732, which concerns mandated data-breach disclosures (Count VIII). The Defendants removed the action to this Court, arguing that subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)--the federal-officer removal statute. In the alternative, the Defendants assert that "this action is removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331." Ms. Blandford seeks remand, maintaining that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking and seeking an award of attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The Court heard oral argument on the motion on May 8, 2024. After careful consideration, the Court will remand the matter but deny Blandford's request for attorney fees. As healthcare providers, UofL Health, Inc., and University of Louisville Physicians, Inc., collect and store highly sensitive PII and PHI. The federal government's Promoting Interoperability Program (PIP) encourages this practice: under PIP, providers receive incentive payments if they can reach a certain level of engagement with their electronic health record use through a patient portal. Thus, providers collect patients' and visitors' names, addresses, birth dates, insurance information, medical record numbers, patient account numbers, physician names, dates of services, diagnoses, treatment information, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers, storing the information on their patient portal to facilitate PIP compliance. To optimize individual engagement with the patient portal and fulfill PIP's stated objective, the Defendants put a piece of code known as the Meta Pixel on their website and patient portal. The Meta Pixel helps website owners measure the effectiveness of their advertising by understanding the actions people take on the owner's website. While treating Plaintiff Rhonda Blandford's minor daughter, the Defendants obtained the child's PHI and PII for patient-portal purposes and allegedly allowed the Meta Pixel to transfer the information "to Facebook," a third party, without consent or authorization. Ms. Blandford subsequently instituted this class-action suit against the Defendants in state court, asserting Kentucky statutory claims and common-law claims of negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Defendants, then, removed the case to this Court, arguing that removal is proper under both the federal-officer removal statute and the substantial-federal-question doctrine. Blandford now moves for remand and requests attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The Defendants first argue that jurisdiction exists under the federal-officer removal statute, Section 1442(a)(1), which permits removal of state-court suits against the United States or any agency thereof or any officer of the United States or of any agency thereof. Like the defendant in Christ Hospital, Judge Hale opines that the Defendants here fail to identify any contract; they participate in PIP voluntarily; and they fail to provide evidence that the government would establish an online health interface if they chose not to participate, citing Doe v. Christ Hosp., Nos. 1:23-CV-27; 1:23-CV-31; 1:23-CV-87, 2023 WL 4757598, at *8 (S.D. Ohio July 26, 2023). Thus, Judge Hale holds, there is insufficient "evidence of a principal/agent relationship," and removal pursuant to Section 1442(a)(1) is inappropriate. In sum, the Defendants were not acting under a federal officer; therefore, Section 1442(a) does not provide a ground for removal here. Ms. Blandford also requests an award of attorney fees under Section 1447(c). Judge Hale finds an award of attorney fees is inappropriate here because the Defendants' argument for removal was fairly supportable. Accordingly, Judge Hale rules that: (1) Blandford's motion to remand is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to her request for remand. It is denied as to her request for attorney fees under Section 1447(c); and (2) This case is remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) and stricken from the Court's active docket. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5dmwbd8h from PacerMonitor.com. VERA WHOLE: Spencer Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SHANNON SPENCER, Plaintiff v. VERA WHOLE HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00337-MJP (W.D. Wash.), Senior District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss and remands the matter to the King County Superior Court. Plaintiff Shannon Spencer filed the class action in King County Superior Court against Vera Whole Health and related entities to pursue claims that the Defendants violated the pay transparency requirements of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). The Defendants removed the action to this Court and have moved to dismiss, while Spencer asserts that the matter was improperly removed. The Plaintiff lives in Washington and applied for an IT Service Desk Analyst position at the Defendants' Seattle office. Spencer alleges the posting for the job opening did not disclose the wage scale or salary range to be offered. He alleges that he and the members of a proposed class of similarly-situated individuals lost valuable time applying for jobs with the Defendants for which the wage scale or salary range was not disclosed. Mr. Spencer alleges that as a result of his and Class members' inability to evaluate the pay for the position, negotiate that pay, and compare that pay to other available positions in the marketplace, Class members were harmed. But Spencer alleges only that he applied for the job, not that he was qualified for the position, that he received any specific response, or that he received an interview offer. The Court finds that Spencer lacks standing because he has failed to identify a concrete injury from the Defendants' failure to provide statutorily-required salary information. Although the EPOA protects concrete interests of job applicants, the Court finds that the alleged violation Spencer identifies did not cause an actual harm or present a material risk of harm to that interest. First, the Court finds that the salary disclosure requirement in the EPOA was established to protect concrete, non-procedural rights for job applicants and employees. Second, Spencer has failed to show how the lack of disclosure caused him an actual harm or material risk of harm consistent with the EPOA. Judge Pechman points out that Spencer has failed to identify a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. The Court finds that Spencer has failed to allege an injury to a concrete interest sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. The Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and it may not preside over this matter. The Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and remands this matter to the King County Superior Court. The Court denies the Motion to Remand as moot. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r33dme7 from PacerMonitor.com. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Court Grants Bid to Add Plaintiff in Kusnier Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add Montgomery Brantley as a named plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MARK KUSNIER and ROBERT SCHEELE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. VIRGIN GALACTIC HOLDINGS, INC., MICHAEL A. COLGLAZIER, GEORGE WHITESIDES, MICHAEL MOSES, RICHARD BRANSON, and CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03070-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit is a putative class action against Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., and Individual Defendants alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). Judge Ross has previously ruled on two motions to dismiss the action, both times granting the Defendants' motion in part and denying it in part. The Plaintiffs, individuals who purchased Virgin Galactic securities during the class period, move to amend their complaint for the third time to add Montgomery Brantley as a named Plaintiff in the action. Virgin Galactic is a commercial space company founded in 2004 by Defendant Richard Branson. The Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") details numerous mishaps in the development of Virgin Galactic's commercial space program. Of particular relevance here, during a test flight in February 2019, Virgin Galactic's spaceship suffered "critical damage" that was "so significant" that Virgin Galactic's head of safety remarked, "I don't know how we didn't lose the vehicle and kill three people." The damage was so extensive that the spaceship was immediately grounded. The near disaster of this test flight eventually became public through a Washington Post article published on Feb. 1, 2021. Prior to that revelation, however, Mr. Branson sold approximately $123 million in Virgin Galactic shares on Oct. 25, 2019. On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff Shane Lavin initiated this action against Virgin Galactic and Individual Defendants, alleging various forms of securities fraud. Following appointment of lead plaintiffs and counsel, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in December 2021. The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleged, among other things, that Mr. Branson violated the Exchange Act when he traded Virgin Galactic shares while in possession of material, non-public information. The Court dismissed the FAC in part and granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Plaintiffs, then, filed a Second Amended Complaint, which included separate counts for insider trading against Mr. Branson under Section 20A and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Judge Ross sustained the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) insider trading claim against Mr. Branson as to the October 2019 sales; however, Judge Ross dismissed the Plaintiffs' corresponding Section 20A claim because they did not allege that they had traded Virgin Galactic shares contemporaneously with Mr. Branson's October 2019 sales, as required under the statute. In February, the Defendants submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference regarding an anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) insider trading claim against Mr. Branson should be dismissed as to the October 2019 sales because, as with the corresponding Section 20A claim, the Plaintiffs did not allege purchases contemporaneous with those sales. The Plaintiffs requested a pre-motion conference regarding an anticipated motion to add Mr. Brantley as a named plaintiff. As indicated in the Plaintiffs' letter and accompanying documentation, Mr. Brantley purchased Virgin Galactic securities on Oct. 25, 2019, contemporaneously with Mr. Branson's sales. Because Mr. Brantley's addition as a plaintiff would likely moot the Defendants' motion, Judge Ross stayed briefing on that motion and directed the parties to brief the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, now before the Court. The Defendants object to Mr. Brantley's addition as a plaintiff on the grounds that (a) his Section 10(b) and Section 20A claims are futile, and (b) the amendment would unfairly prejudice the Defendants. Judge Ross finds neither argument is convincing. Judge Ross has determined that Mr. Brantley's Section 10(b) claim is not time barred, and, in a previous opinion, Judge Ross held that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged the remaining elements of their insider trading claim as to Mr. Branson's October 2019 sales. As such, Mr. Brantley's Section 10(b) claim is viable, and the Defendants' argument is, therefore, moot. Judge Ross concludes, accordingly, that Mr. Brantley's Section 20A claim is not futile. Here, Judge Ross notes, the Plaintiffs have proposed an amendment that would cure the pleading defects at issue. And although the Plaintiffs' delay in identifying an additional plaintiff, who traded contemporaneously with Mr. Branson is perplexing, Judge Ross finds that the Defendants have not shown that it rises to the level of "bad faith." Accordingly, Judge Ross concludes that the Defendants have not established that they would be prejudiced by the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment. For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Judge Ross, therefore, does not reach the Plaintiffs' alternative arguments that amendment is proper pursuant to Rule 20, Rule 24, or the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4zap8nw7 from PacerMonitor.com. WALGREEN PHARMACY: Class of Employees Certified in Lemons Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled TAYLOR LEMONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES EASTERN, LLC, and WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES WESTERN, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00511-MO (D. Or.). The Defendants (jointly "Walgreens") are subsidiaries of Walgreens Co. Plaintiff Taylor Lemons began working for one of these subsidiaries in October 2014 and became an employee of Walgreens Midwest around Jan. 1, 2016. In early February 2019, the Plaintiff gave a one-month notice of resignation. He left Walgreens Midwest on March 1, 2019, and received his final paycheck by direct deposit on March 21, 2019. He alleges that ORS 652.140 required Walgreens to supply his final paycheck on the next business day after he left his employment, which would have been March 4, 2019. Therefore, the Plaintiff alleges that he is owed a penalty of $3,347.20 pursuant to ORS 652.150. Each Walgreens location is managed by a Store Manager who are all instructed on Walgreens' final paycheck policy. Store Managers report to District Managers who are responsible for ensuring compliance with policies, including the final paycheck policy. Walgreens' policy says that whenever possible, final payment of wages for team members who are involuntarily separated from Walgreens should be made on the date of separation. The policy says that otherwise, wages are due no later than the next regular payday, except for particular states. For Oregon, the policy says that wages "must be paid no later than the end of the next business day following separation." The Plaintiff originally identified two classes. The first consisted of the Plaintiff and similarly situated class members, who worked for Walgreens Western or Walgreens Eastern in Oregon on Dec. 31, 2015, became employed by Walgreens Midwest on Jan. 1, 2016, and did not timely receive their final paycheck as required by ORS 652.140. Judge Mosman dismissed this claim in January 2022. The second class was the Walgreens Midwest late payment class. This class consists of the Plaintiff and similarly situated class members, who left their employment any time after Jan. 1, 2016, and did not timely receive their final paycheck as required by ORS 652.140. Judge Mosman left this claim, finding that the allegation that Walgreens Midwest has a policy of paying final paychecks at the next scheduled pay period instead of on time under ORS 652.140 was sufficient to plead a class claim. The Plaintiff moves to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class action consisting of all employees of Walgreens, who were terminated between April 6, 2018, through April 6, 2021. The Plaintiff also requests the appointment of Taylor Lemons as class representative and Carl Post and the attorneys at the Law Offices of Daniel Snyder as class counsel. Oral argument was held on April 23, 2024. At oral argument, it became clear that additional discovery was needed to resolve questions about the elements of commonality and superiority. Judge Mosman instructed the parties to conduct limited additional discovery and submit supplemental briefs. The Plaintiff submitted his supplemental brief on May 31, 2024, and the Defendant filed its brief in response on June 14, 2024. In summary, Judge Mosman reduced the Plaintiff's class to members, who received their final paycheck six or more days after termination and who did not abandon or walk off their job. This will limit the need for individualized inquiry, and any outstanding factual questions are insufficient to overcome commonality. For the reasons given in the Opinion & Order, the Court grants the Motion to Certify in part. The Court certifies a class consisting of all employees of Walgreens, who were terminated between April 6, 2018, through April 6, 2021; who did not abandon or walk off their job; and who received their final paycheck six or more days after their termination date. The Court appoints Taylor Lemons as class representative and Carl Post and the attorneys at the Law Offices of Daniel Snyder as class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4rt6v5me from PacerMonitor.com. WALGREENS BOOTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of until September 10, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (NASDAQ: WBA) securities between October 12, 2023 and June 26, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have of the Walgreens class action lawsuit. Captioned Bhaila v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 24-cv-05907 (N.D. Ill.), the Walgreens class action lawsuit charges Walgreens and certain of Walgreens' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Walgreens class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-walgreens-boots-alliance-inc-class-action-lawsuit-wba.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Walgreens class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 10, 2024. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Walgreens is a global company that delivers retail and pharmacy, and healthcare services. The Walgreens class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Walgreens' projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations; and (ii) Walgreens' pharmacy division was not equipped to handle the ongoing challenges in Walgreens' industry and would require significant restructuring to create a sustainable model. The Walgreens class action lawsuit further alleges that on June 27, 2024, Walgreens announced third quarter 2024 results below expectations and lowered fiscal year 2024 projections. The complaint further alleges that Walgreens' CEO, defendant Timothy C. Wentworth, noted that Walgreens continues "to face a difficult operating environment, including persistent pressures on the U.S. consumer and the impact of recent marketplace dynamics which have eroded pharmacy margins." On this news, the price of Walgreens stock fell more than 22%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Walgreens securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Walgreens class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Walgreens class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Walgreens class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Walgreens class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. Over the last decade, our Firm has been ranked #1 on the ISS Securities Class Action Services law firm rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In the last four years, Robbins Geller recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm during that time. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 edfr3info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] WALT DISNEY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Kelly ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA KELLY; and MARILYN PAONE, v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01919-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. 2. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs and then to close the file. According to the comnplaint, Disney's advertisement of the Platinum Pass as having "no blockout dates" was not unfair because, all passholders could have opted for refunds and avoided any injury from Disney's changes. Nor was it deceptive because, Disney was contractually permitted to restrict park capacity and all passholders knew this possibility when they bought their passes. As Disney's advertisement was neither deceptive nor unfair as a matter of law, Disney is entitled to summary judgment on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") claim. This breach of contract case involves Disney World's Platinum Pass, the highest-tier annual pass, and the reservation system Disney implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of the plaintiffs held a Platinum Pass in March 2020, when Disney World temporarily shut down during the pandemic. The Plaintiffs sued Disney for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the FDUTPA. Walt Disney operates amusement parks and kids parks. A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVI7BI at no extra charge.[CC] WASTE MANAGEMENT: Unlawfully Collects Biometrics, Mallette Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE MALLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05736 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. The Defendant utilizes a biometric terminal and biometric scanning software to collect the thumbprint scans of their employees, including the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are exposed to serious and irreversible privacy risks, says the suit. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. is waste management company located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Harrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01158-L (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- extending the deadline to move for class certification by six months, to Feb. 28, 2025, and -- directing the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference immediately so discovery may commence. In the alternative, should the Court grant a motion to stay discovery, Plaintiffs respectfully request an extension of time of six months following the date the Court rules on the Defendants' motions to dismiss to move for class certification.. The extension of time is necessary for Plaintiffs to conduct discovery on facts pertinent to class certification and develop a sufficient record for the Court to conduct a rigorous analysis of certification issues as required. This case arises from a targeted cyberattack of the Defendant information technology network systems”), which exposed sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff, and at least 2,429,175 putative class members, stored in it. The Data Breach occurred between April 18, 2023, and April 23, 2023, and Defendant began notifying individuals whose Private Information was compromised on May 8, 2024. The Plaintiff, David Harrell, filed his complaint initiating this action on May 15, 2024, and his operative Amended Complaint on June 4, 2024. The Plaintiff Harrell brings claims for: (i) negligence/negligence per se, (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) breach of fiduciary duty, seeking actual, compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages as well as equitable and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to implement specific remedial measures for its inadequate data security practices. WebTPA is a third-party administrator for claims adjudication for certain products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=51XOgk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid to Intervene in Ordosgoitti Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brian C. Buescher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska denies the motion for permissive intervention in the lawsuit styled GLIVER ORDOSGOITTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and WERNER LEASING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00421-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.). The case is before the Court on the pro se "Supplemental Complaint" filed by non-party Carlton Xavier Mathews. Mr. Mathews states in his "Supplemental Complaint" that he moves the Court and files a supplemental complaint requesting to be added as a party in class action lawsuit. Mr. Mathews asserts that the Defendants violated Nebraska Seller-Assisted Marketing Plan Act. He says he was also a victim in this cause, as well as other plaintiffs. He seeks to be compensated, as well as other class members in this class action lawsuit. Giving liberal construction to Mr. Mathews' pro se "Supplemental Complaint," the Court construes it to be a motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B). Judge Buescher finds that Mr. Mathews meets the substantive requirements of the Rule because he alleges that he suffered the same violation of the law as the other plaintiffs in this action; that he is a "victim" like the other plaintiffs; and that his claim is the same as and seeks the same compensation as the other plaintiffs. However, he does not meet the procedural requirement of a "timely motion" to intervene. On March 24, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants Werner Enterprises and Werner leasing on Named Plaintiff Ordosgoitti's putative class-action claims. Subsequently, on Nov. 29, 2022, the Court entered an Order for Dismissal on Stipulation of the named parties dismissing this action with prejudice. Thus, at this time, there is no action in which Mr. Mathews could intervene, and his request to do so is untimely. Accordingly, the Court rules that the pro se "Supplemental Complaint" filed by non-party Carlton Xavier Mathews, construed as a motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B), is denied as untimely. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/r4em58t4 from PacerMonitor.com. WEST COAST SAND: Pineda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Coast Sand and Gravel, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Diego Pineda, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. West Coast Sand and Gravel, Inc., WC, Logistics, Inc., Case No. BCV-24-102218 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 1, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." West Coast Sand & Gravel -- http://wcsg.com/-- has been providing California (and now Phoenix too) with quality products and services since 1968.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com WEST VIRGINIA: Bids to Dismiss Sheppheard v. Gov. Justice Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Irene C. Berger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley Division, grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss in the lawsuit titled THOMAS SHEPPHEARD, et al., Plaintiffs v. JAMES C. JUSTICE, JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00530 (S.D.W. Va.). The Court has reviewed Defendant Mark Sorsaia's Motion to Dismiss, the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Mark Sorsaia's Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant Mark Sorsaia's Motion to Dismiss, and the Reply in Support of Defendant Mark Sorsaia's Motion to Dismiss. In addition, the Court has reviewed Governor Justice's Combined Motion to Dismiss and to Transfer Division, Governor Justice's Memorandum of Law Supporting His Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Governor Justice's Combined Motion to Dismiss and to Transfer Division, and Governor Justice's Reply Supporting His Motion to Dismiss. The Court has also reviewed the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, as well as all attached exhibits. The Plaintiffs, Thomas Sheppheard, Tyler Randall, and Adam Perry, next friend and guardian of minor plaintiff J.P., initiated this action with a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed on Aug. 8, 2023. They named James C. Justice, Jr., and Mark Sorsaia as Defendants in their respective official capacities as the Governor of West Virginia and the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Homeland Security. At all relevant times, Mr. Sheppheard was incarcerated in the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Mr. Randall was incarcerated in the Southwestern Regional Jail, and Plaintiff J.P. was housed in the Donald R. Kuhn Juvenile Center. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of all currently incarcerated persons housed in West Virginia state prisons, jails and juvenile centers, allege that the Defendants have failed to alleviate pervasive conditions of overcrowding, understaffing, and deferred maintenance at all such facilities for over a decade. As a result, they allege that West Virginia inmates have suffered inhumane conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to their health and safety in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs sue Governor Justice and Secretary Sorsaia in their official capacities, ostensibly as the state officials with ultimate authority over the maintenance and operation of West Virginia's correctional facilities. The Complaint contains one cause of action for Eighth Amendment Violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Conditions of Confinement). The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify a class of all individuals currently incarcerated at any correctional facility within the state of West Virginia, and to declare that the Defendants' actions and/or inactions violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, among other requests. Although Secretary Sorsaia and Governor Justice separately presented their respective grounds for dismissal, Judge Berger says both Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action because they cannot establish that their alleged injuries are fairly traceable to either Defendant's conduct or that their injuries would be redressed by a favorable decision against either Defendant. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue this action against Secretary Sorsaia. The Plaintiffs allege that Secretary Sorsaia "is charged with providing support, oversight, and guidance to the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation." However, this general duty does not provide a sufficient "causal connection" between the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and Secretary Sorsaia's conduct. Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs' claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement is traceable to actual or perceived legislative inaction, Judge Berger finds that they cannot satisfy the element of standing as to Secretary Sorsaia. Thus, Judge Berger holds, it is speculative, at best, that an order enjoining Secretary Sorsaia from engaging in unconstitutional practices and compelling him to "implement and enforce policies, procedures, and practices" to alleviate the alleged overcrowding and to "make all necessary structural and/or infrastructural repairs, hazard abatements, financial investments, and personnel changes/additions" to remedy understaffing and deferred maintenance would redress the Plaintiffs' claimed injuries. Therefore, dismissal is appropriate as to Secretary Sorsaia. For the same reasons they lack standing to sue Secretary Sorsaia, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action against Governor Justice. The Plaintiffs point to the Governor's pardon and budget powers as evidence of his direct control over West Virginia's correctional facilities. However, Judge Berger holds neither is sufficient to establish a "causal connection" between his conduct and the injuries alleged, nor can either ensure that an order against the Governor is likely to remedy the alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. As an initial matter, Judge Berger notes that the Governor's pardon power is discretionary and the Court cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an officer. Thus, to the extent the Plaintiffs suggest Governor Justice can remedy the alleged overcrowding by using his discretionary pardon power, the Court cannot order such relief. As the Court noted with regard to Secretary Sorsaia, the text of the Complaint suggests that the Plaintiffs' injuries are traceable to and redressable by the independent action of the state Legislature and Commissioner of DCR, neither of which are parties to this matter. Thus, to the extent the Plaintiffs rely on Governor Justice's general law enforcement powers and duties as governor, they have not established the requisite "causal connection" between the Governor's official conduct and their alleged injuries, and it remains "merely speculative" that such injuries would be redressed by a favorable decision against the Governor. Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action against the named Defendants, the Court does not address the remaining grounds for dismissal presented by the individual Defendants. Wherefore, after thorough review and careful consideration, the Court orders that Defendant Mark Sorsaia's Motion to Dismiss be granted. The Court further orders that Governor Justice's Combined Motion to Dismiss and to Transfer Division be granted. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/947yyknv from PacerMonitor.com. WHEELING HOSPITAL: Tripp Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY TRIPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHEELING HOSPITAL, INC. D/B/A WHEELING HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00121-JPB (N.D.W. Va., June 26, 2024) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act, seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The complaint alleges that Defendant's practice of failing to relieve nurses and technicians of their duties during meal periods, while simultaneously using timekeeping software to auto deduct meal periods from the total time paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting for meal periods which nurses/technicians were not free to take without interruption), had the effect of depriving nurses and technicians of overtime compensation due to them under the FLSA in each workweek in which they worked more than 40 hours, and straight-time compensation at their respective contractual hourly rate(s) in weeks in which they worked fewer than 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant from September 1, 2005 to October 8, 2021 as a nurse. Wheeling Hospital, Inc. is a 223 bed hospital in Wheeling, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Zachary Stewart, Esq. CAREY & STEWART, PLLC 3169 Main Street Weirton, WV 26062 Telephone: (304) 914-3577 Facsimile: (304) 914-4951 E-mail: pzs@careystewart.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com WHITWORTH UNIVERSITY: Court Signs Protective Order in Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington grants the parties' Stipulated Motion for Protective Order in the lawsuit titled In re Whitworth University Data Breach, Case No. 2:23-cv-00179-SAB (E.D. Wash.). Defendant Whitworth University and the Named Plaintiffs move for a stipulated protective order in this putative class action stemming from the cybersecurity incident that occurred on or about July 29, 2023. The incident involved personally identifiable information, including student numbers and social security numbers, and other sensitive information, some personal health information as defined in 45 C.F.R. 105, and other confidential, proprietary, and or private information. The discovery in this case relates to the cybersecurity incident, the protected information, Whitworth's response, and other confidential, proprietary, or private information including for example pricing and terms of with security and responsive vendors. Given the nature of this class action, the Court finds that good cause exists to enter the Protective Order. Accordingly, the Court grants the parties' Stipulated Motion for Protective Order, and enters the Protective Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 1, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3a59kd from PacerMonitor.com. Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com -- Brian Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Samuel Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Turke & Strauss LLP, for Plaintiff Patrick Loyola. Jason Dennett -- jdennett@tousley.com -- Kaleigh Boyd -- kboyd@tousley.com -- Kim Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- Samuel Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Turke & Strauss LLP, for Plaintiff Rachel Wilson. Samuel Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Turke & Strauss LLP, for Plaintiff Danielle Wyman. David Liu -- david.liu@fmglaw.com -- David Spellman -- dspellman@buchalter.com and Andrea Bernarding, for Defendant Whitworth University. WILLIAM LUDOVICO: Scheduling Order Entered in Browntree Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KING BAKARI BROWNTREE a/k/a EMMANUEL BLANGO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. WILLIAM LUDOVICO, JR., et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00212-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Pleadings and Joinder The Court will set certain deadlines for the parties to file amended pleadings and join parties after resolving Defendants' motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 89 and 98. -- Damages Analysis Any party with a claim or counterclaim for damages shall serve a damages analysis on the other parties, in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), on or before Sep. 3, 2024. -- Discovery Deadlines Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged by Sept. 3, 2024. All discovery will be completed (not propounded) by March 27, 2025. -- Class Certification Motions The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due on or before Mar. 27, 2025. -- Joint Status Reports of the Parties. A joint status report of the parties shall be filed on or before Jan. 6, 2025. A second joint status report of the parties shall be filed on June 3, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7XQx3 at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIAMSBURG RECYCLING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Air Pollution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Blair Sabol, writing for Live5News, reports that a major step forward for neighbors of an Andrews-based biosolid recycling facility, a Charleston law firm has stepped up to represent nearby property owners at no cost upfront in a new class action lawsuit. The suit covers all neighbors within a 10 mile radius of Williamsburg Recycling LLC, the subject of a Live 5 Investigation which revealed numerous violations by the facility despite remaining open. The business processes human waste byproduct, also known as sewage sludge, mostly derived from Plum Island, run by Charleston Water System. Inspectors from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control have previously found piles of human waste byproduct sitting out in the elements and a horrible stench, which neighbors claim have negatively impacted their day to day lives. "We have a history of, particularly in this state, putting corporations and profit over people. And that's what this is, it's basically polluting for profit," attorney Roy Willey with the Anastopoulos Law Firm said. The firm has also countersued owner Suzanne Conway after the business sued neighbor Travis Hughey for intentional interference with an existing contract and trespass, claims which Hughey has denied. The suit claims there are $5 million in damages due to a "loss of enjoyment of property" from the "noxious" smell that consistently emanates from the property. Lawyers allege that if the facility was run the way it was supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue. "They are just normal people. They don't have millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on a legal case. We've decided to take the case because we think it's important, we think it's important to the people of Williamsburg County and we're going to seek justice for them, and hopefully make this stop," Willey said. "Either shut the plant down or bring it into compliance so it is not polluting the air where these people live." Charleston Water System also sent a letter in May warning the facility it would break its contract if they're not in compliance within 90 days. The agency is not aware of any changes so far. The business has until the end of August to provide official state documents proving they are following the rules. Conway has not responded to requests for comment regarding the court filing. [GN] WOLF APPLIANCE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Bankhurst Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN BANKHURST, PAMELA ANDERSON, JONATHAN ZANG, and JESSE KARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., and SUB-ZERO GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss. In this proposed class action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants manufacture and sell defective gas stoves. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have both refused to redesign their stoves to reduce harmful emissions and failed to warn consumers that their products pose risks of asthma and other illnesses. The Plaintiffs assert 11 claims, which arise under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and numerous other state laws related to warranty, contract, and consumer protection. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on the grounds that the state statutory and common law claims are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and that without predicate state claims, the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim fails as well. The Court concludes that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that EPCA's preemption provision bars any of the Plaintiffs' claims and denies the motion to dismiss. A wholesale ban on the sale of the Defendants' gas stoves or a requirement that they redesign their products might run afoul of the EPCA by significantly affecting the amount of natural gas consumed by their products, but the Defendants have not yet made that showing, Judge Peterson opines. And merely requiring a warning would not have any direct effect on the quantity of gas used in stoves at their point of use in consumers' kitchens. Judge Peterson points out that the Defendants have failed to show that a reduction in pollutant emissions necessarily requires a corresponding reduction in gas consumption. Hence, Judge Peterson denies the motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 2, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yhfed3eb from PacerMonitor.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***