/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240724.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 24, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 148
Headlines
3M CO: Dixon Toxic Chemicals Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
A&A SERVICES: T.D. Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
ACCELLION INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Brown Due Nov. 4
ADVANCED MARKETING: Reidt Seeks More Time to File Class Status Bid
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Wellpath's Bid For Summary Judgment Granted
ALS LIEN: Appeals Ruling in Doskocz Suit to Cal. Supreme Court
ARBOR REALTY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Faces Class Suit Over Gambling Rules Violations
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 15, 2025
AT&T INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach
BASF CORP: $312.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 1
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy's Bid for Class Certification Tossed
BOEING COMPANY: Court Sets Oct. 3 as Claims Bar Date
BOYNE USA: Hornbeck, Demaria-McKay Allege Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BUG TUSSEL: Fails to Pay Workers Proper OT, Tolar Says
CENCORA INC: Hollis Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: May Face Suit Over Repeated Power Failures
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Santa Rosa Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Shelor Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Through the Forest Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Unity Medical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
CITIZEN WATCH: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Palm Suit
CONCEALED COALITION: Schor Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONNECTED VENTURES: Faces J.S. Suit Over Private Info Disclosure
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Forstrom and Moore Sue Over Data Breach
DAIRYLAND USA: Orbetta Bid for FLSA Conditional Status Partly OK'd
EVOLVE BANK: Colby Sues Over Private Data Breach
EVOLVE BANK: Quiates Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
EVOLVE BANK: Shevchenko Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
EVOLVE BANK: Starling Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
EVOLVE BANK: Stiritz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
EXPERIAN INFO: Pena Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal
FCA US: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Pistorio Granted in Part
FRESH INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Claims
FUTURE MOTION: Court Narrows Claims in Product Liability Suit
GEISINGER HEALTH: Bidgood Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
GENERAL MOTORS: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
HIYA HEALTH PRODUCTS: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTUIT INC: Garite Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
IOWA: Sample Suit Seeks Class Certification
IOWA: Winters Suit Seeks Class Certification
ISAAC OUAZANA: Layani Bid to Substitute Party Tossed
JOHN BURLEW: Plaintiff's Bid for Preliminary Injunction Granted
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Conway and Rogers Sue Over 2024 Mule Engine Defect
L&J TRANSPORTATION: Perry Seeks Conditional Class Certification
LAS PRINCESAS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Collective Actions
LEPRINO FOODS: Class Notice Withdrawn as Moot in Dominguez Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Extension to File Class Cert Opposition Sought
LIVANOVA USA: Chaudhry Files Suit in S.D. Texas
LIVANOVA USA: Podroykin Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Vacates all Class Cert Deadlines in Lacoste
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in GCERS vs BOA Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Harrison County vs BOA Gets Initial OK
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Interest Rate Suit Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Janvelin v. BoA Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Kansas v. BoA Gets Initial Nod
NAVAJO EXPRESS: Ramey BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
NESTED BEAN: Otto and Hawes Sue Over Deceptive Product Marketing
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents Confused on Train Derailment Suit Deal
PATELCO CREDIT: Poluk Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
PEORIA, IL: Residents Sue Over Inaccessible Sidewalks
PRO-VIGIL INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid OT
QVC INC: Faces Valencia Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RMG ACQUISITION: $11.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 18
ROYAL BANK: $1.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 17
SANDOZ INC: $265MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 17
SEASTAR MEDICAL: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 6
SERITAGE GROWTH: He et al. Sue Over Securities Law Violations
SHIRTWHOLESALER.COM: Valencia Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
SUREFOX NORTH: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
TERADATA CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 13
TETHER HOLDINGS: Faces New Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
TOMS RIVER'S PARK: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Mirai Suit Over Electric Vehicles' False Ads
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Starks Suit Over Bagels' False Ads
TWITTER INC: Parties' Bid to Extend Class Cert Bid Filing Tossed
UNITED SERVICES: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal
US STAR TRUCKING: Kovach Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee
VESTIS SERVICES: Ramos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
VIRGINIA: Puryear Files Suit For Being Detained Past Release Dates
ZARA REALTY: Ramadhar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
*********
3M CO: Dixon Toxic Chemicals Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Michael Jerome Dixon et al., Plaintiffs v. 3M
Company et al., Case No. 1-cv-2024-902027.00, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 1, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-00869-AMM to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged conduct in designing,
manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous
film-forming foam that contained harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory M. Taube, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 322-6000
Facsimile: (404) 322-6050
E-mail: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com
A&A SERVICES: T.D. Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
T.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. A&A SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SAV-RX, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00264-RFR-MDN (D. Neb., July 1, 2024) is an action brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all other individuals similarly
situated against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard
the protected health information(PHI) and personally identifiable
information(PII) of thousands of individuals who are customers of
the company.
According to the complaint, this action pertains to Defendant's
unauthorized disclosures of the Plaintiff's PII from approximately
October 3, 2023 to May 24, 2024. The Defendant disclosed
Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' PHI and PII to
unauthorized persons as a direct and/or proximate result of
Defendant's failure to safeguard and protect their PHI and PII. The
Plaintiff and the Class will have to incur costs to pay a
third-party credit and identity theft monitoring service for the
rest of their lives as a direct result of the Data Breach, says the
suit.
A & A Services, LLC d/b/a Sav-Rx is headquartered in Fremont,
Nebraska and is a company providing pharmacy services and goods
across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
ACCELLION INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Brown Due Nov. 4
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc.
(ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order setting the following deadlines for Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification:
Event Deadline
Deadline to File Motion for Class Nov. 4, 2024
Certification and Designation of
Opening Class Certification Experts
with Reports.
Deadline to File Opposition to Motion Dec. 11, 2024
for Class Certification and Designation
of Rebuttal Class Certification Experts
with Reports.
Deadline to File Reply in Support of Jan. 24, 2025
Motion for Class Certification and Reply
Class Certification Experts Reports.
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Feb. 6, 2025, or
the
Court's first
available date
thereafter.
Accellion provides content governance, compliance, and protection
platform.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IIXG4b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Simon S. Grille, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbus, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
- and -
Krysta K. Pachman, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Kevin R. Downs, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kdowns@susmangodfrey.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq.
ACCELLION, INC.
1510 Fashion Island Blvd, Suite 100
San Mateo, CA 94404
Telephone: (415) 515-4724
E-mail: camilo.apurcell@kiteworks.com
- and -
Fred Norton, Esq.
Bree Hann, Esq.
Janelle Sampana, Esq.
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 906-4900
E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com
bhann@nortonlaw.com
jsampana@nortonlaw.com
ADVANCED MARKETING: Reidt Seeks More Time to File Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA REIDT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. ADVANCED MARKETING
AND PROCESSING, INC. d/b/a PROTECT MY CAR and DIGITAL MEDIA
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00234-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time to file her Motion for Class Certification and granting a
scheduling conference with the Court so that the Court may set a
revised schedule.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court reset the deadlines in this
matter to provide the plaintiff with sufficient time to engage in
discovery from DMS, consult with an engage any necessary experts
and prepare her motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court hold a scheduling conference
with all parties to set dates for this matter moving forward.
This is the plaintiff's first request for an extension of time in
this matter.
The Plaintiff has been diligent in the prosecution of this matter,
including in adding DMS as a defendant, and issuing discovery
requests to Defendant, after the motion to compel arbitration was
resolved. Plaintiff requires additional time to engage in discovery
with respect to DMS, class certification issues, and liability
issues.
On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her class action complaint
against the Defendant.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Court set a schedule for discovery and trial
on the issue of whether the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her
claims.
On April 16, 2024, the parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report.
The parties proposed new dates for the Court's consideration in the
Rule 26(f) Report. The Plaintiff also noted that PMC testified that
Digital Media Solutions, LLC placed the calls at issue in the case
and that the Plaintiff intended to file an Amended Complaint to add
DMS as a defendant.
On June 17, 2024, the Plaintiff served her first set of written
discovery on DMS.
Advanced Marketing is a company that provides warranty, automotive
engineering, property insurance and more.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uLv2MH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, No. 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Wellpath's Bid For Summary Judgment Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,
v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order:
-- granting Wellpath's motion for summary judgment; and
-- granting Wellpath's administrative motion to seal.
The Court will enter judgment following dismissal of Plaintiffs'
claims against the County and Aramark. This Order disposes of
Docket Nos. 427, 433, 434, 435, 439, and 473.
In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to proffer evidence sufficient
to support a finding in their favor on their individual Monell
claim against Wellpath. Despite the many years this case has
proceeded, and the considerable leeway the Court has given
Plaintiffs, they have failed to identify evidence sufficient to
support a finding in any Plaintiff's favor on the Monell claim.
While the evidence Plaintiffs have proffered might have created a
dispute of fact as to whether the care they were provided on
particular occasions fell below the standard of care, that is not
the claim they brought. Since they have failed to offer evidence
that supports a finding a Wellpath custom or policy or pattern and
practice was the moving force behind any the Plaintiff's challenged
individual treatment decisions, Wellpath's motion for summary
judgment must be granted.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in November 2019
alleging they are subject to unlawful, inhumane, and
unconstitutional treatment at the Santa Rita Jail.
The Plaintiffs, 12 current or former detainees at Santa Rita Jail,
bring individual Section 1983 claims against Wellpath, the private
entity contracted to provide medical care at the Jail.
The Plaintiffs have not identified evidence sufficient to support
a finding a Wellpath policy or practice caused their alleged
injuries.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1XmXPS at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALS LIEN: Appeals Ruling in Doskocz Suit to Cal. Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALS LIEN SERVICES, et al. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
Teresa Doskocz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALS Lien Services, et al., Defendants, Case
No. MSC1701486, pending in the Superior Court of Contra Costa
County.
The appellate case is captioned Doskocz vs. ALS Lien Services, Case
No. S285706, in the Supreme Court of California, filed on June 28,
2024.
As previously reported, Plaintiff Teresa Doskocz originally filed
this class action in federal court against defendant ALS Lien
Services (ALS) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.; FDCPA) and
California's unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200 et seq.; UCL) related to ALS's collection of unpaid
assessments on behalf of homeowner associations (HOAs).
After the parties stipulated that the federal case would be
dismissed and refiled in state court, Doskocz was granted leave to
amend her complaint to add allegations that law firm
SwedelsonGottlieb and individuals Sandra Gottlieb and David
Swedelson (collectively, SG defendants) were alter egos of ALS. The
state court also granted Doskocz's motion to bifurcate trial and
proceed first on her equitable UCL cause of action. At the
conclusion of the bench trial, the court found that ALS had
violated the FDCPA and entered judgment in favor of Doskocz on her
UCL cause of action. It also found the SG defendants jointly and
severally liable for restitution and class counsel fees as alter
egos of ALS.
ALS then sought reversal of the judgment by arguing that the trial
court (1) erred in adopting a ruling by the federal judge in the
original action, (2) erred in ruling that ALS violated the FDCPA,
and (3) abused its discretion in granting Doskocz's motion to
bifurcate. The SG defendants also challenged the judgment, arguing
that the trial court (1) lacked substantial evidence on its alter
ego findings, (2) abused its discretion in granting Doskocz leave
to amend her complaint, and (3) abused its discretion in awarding
attorney fees to class counsel.
On May 20, 2024, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1,
California, affirmed the state court ruling, and rejected each
argument brought by ALS. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent TERESA DOSKOCZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Justin T. Berger, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Defendants-Appellants ALS LIEN SERVICES, et al., are represented
by:
Steven Scott Nimoy, Esq.
SOLTMAN, LEVITT FLAHERTY & WATTLES
90 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 300
- and -
Dan Leroy Longo, Esq.
MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
801 South Grand Avenue, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
ARBOR REALTY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: ABR) resulting from
allegations that Arbor may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So what: If you purchased Arbor securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20777 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email philkim@rosenlegal.com
or case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
What is this about: On July 12, 2024, Reuters published an article
entitled "U.S. DOJ probing Arbor Realty over loan practices,
Bloomberg report." This article stated that "Arbor Realty Trust is
being probed by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in New York months after short sellers attacked the
lender's practices and disclosures, Bloomberg News reported on
Friday." It further stated that in "2023, short sellers, including
Viceroy Research and NINGI Research, published reports alleging
that Arbor Realty Trust, which invests in a diversified portfolio
of structured finance assets, had a distressed loan book. Viceroy
Research claimed that Arbor's underlying collateral for the loans
is vastly overstated, adding that the loans do not qualify for
refinancing anywhere and are nearing maturity. NINGI Research
accused the company of concealing a 'toxic' real estate portfolio
of mobile homes with 'a complex web' of real and fake holding
companies for over a decade."
On this news, the price of Arbor stock went down by nearly 17% on
July 12, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Faces Class Suit Over Gambling Rules Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Samios and Primrose Riordan, writing for afr.com, reports that
Aristocrat Leisure, the ASX-listed poker machine and online gaming
giant, misled technology platforms and broke local gambling rules
in promoting its popular "social casino" apps, according to a class
action lawsuit brought against it in the Federal Court.
While better known for its dominance of the gaming machine sector,
Aristocrat has been growing its free-to-play online casino products
such as Lightning Link and Heart of Vegas. The lawsuit alleges the
company misled technology firms by saying they were complying with
laws when gaining approval to have their apps made available to
Australian customers. [GN]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order extending the
Scheduling Order, as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed
Date
Deadline to File Motion for Sept. 13, 2024 Jan. 15,
2025
Class Certification
Deadline to Oppose Motion Nov. 20, 2024 Mar. 21,
2025
for Class Certification
Deadline to File Reply on Jan. 15, 2025 May 15, 2025
Motion for Class
Certification
Deadline to Complete Oct. 14, 2024 Feb. 28,
2025
Deposition of Plaintiff's
Experts Regarding Class
Certification
Deadline to Complete Dec, 20, 2024 Apr. 28,
2025
Deposition of Defendant's
Experts Regarding Class
Certification
Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails,
and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b1MLQn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Alan Gudino, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason H. Wilson, Esq.
Kirby Hsu, Esq.
WILLENKEN LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 955-9240
Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
E-mail: jwilson@willenken.com
khsu@willenken.com
- and -
Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
Nicholas H. Pennington, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
669 River Drive, Suite 201
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
Telephone: (201) 857-6778
Facsimile: (610) 371-7938
E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com
nicholas.pennington@stevenslee.com
AT&T INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Kan of PC Mag reports that AT&T's massive hacking incident,
which impacts nearly all of its wireless customers, has prompted a
class-action lawsuit that demands the carrier compensate users.
Florida-based Dina Winger filed on Friday, July 12, in a Texas
district court, according to Bloomberg, which first spotted the
complaint.
The lawsuit is demanding AT&T pay damages to affected consumers
since the data breach threatens to expose them to an increased risk
of fraud and identity theft. That's because the hackers were able
to steal call and text records, along with phone numbers, for as
many as 109 million AT&T customers. In addition, the hackers had
access to AT&T users' cell-site location data, although no customer
names were included in the stolen information.
"This is the second massive data breach that AT&T has announced in
2024," Winger's lawsuit notes. In March, an archive of AT&T made
the rounds online, which sparked its own flood of class-action
lawsuits.
"AT&T has not been transparent about the nature and extent of data
security lapses impacting its customers," the lawsuit adds.
Winger's complaint is also seeking nationwide relief and demands
that the court force AT&T to bolster its cybersecurity practices.
AT&T declined to comment on the lawsuit. But there's evidence the
carrier actually paid the hackers to delete the stolen data.
According to Wired, AT&T forked over $370,000 in Bitcoin back in
May to a member of the hacking group ShinyHunters, which stole the
carrier's data from an unsecured cloud storage account at
Snowflake. [GN]
BASF CORP: $312.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group announced that a settlement has been reached with
BASF Corporation ("BASF" or "Defendant") in a class action lawsuit
brought involving All Active Public Water Systems in the United
States of America that have one or more Impacted Water Sources as
of May 15, 2024.
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement, available for
review at www.PFASWaterSettlement.com.
Active Public Water System means a Public Water System whose
activity-status field in SDWIS states that the system is "Active."
Impacted Water Source means a Water Source that has a Qualifying
Test Result showing a Measurable Concentration of PFAS.
Public Water System means a system for the provision to the public
of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed
conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen (15) service
connections or regularly serves an average of at least twenty-five
(25) individuals daily at least sixty (60) days out of the year,
consistent with the use of that term in the Safe Drinking Water
Act, 42 U.S.C Sec. 300f(4)(A) and 40 C.F.R. Part 141. The term
"Public Water System" includes (i) any collection, treatment,
storage, and distribution facilities under control of the operator
of such system and used primarily in connection with such system,
and (ii) any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not
under such control which are used primarily in connection with such
system. Solely for purposes of this Settlement Agreement, the term
"Public Water System" refers to a Community Water System of any
size or a Non-Transient Non-Community Water System that serves more
than 3,300 people, according to SDWIS, the owner and/or operator of
such Public Water Systems, or any Person (but not any financing or
lending institution) that has legal authority or responsibility (by
statute, regulation, other law, or contract) to fund or incur
financial obligations for the design, engineering, installation,
operation, or maintenance of any facility or equipment that treats,
filters, remediates, or manages water that has entered or may enter
Drinking Water or any Public Water System. It is the intention of
this Agreement that the definition of "Public Water System" be as
broad, expansive, and inclusive as possible.
What does the Settlement provide?
BASF has agreed to pay $312,500,000.00 (the "Settlement Amount"),
subject to final approval of the Settlement by the Court and
certain other conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement.
BASF shall additionally pay $4,000,000 (the "Initial Payment") to
cover costs incurred by the Notice Administrator in the course of
executing the Notice Plan. Together, these payments from BASF
constitute the "Settlement Funds." In no event shall BASF be
required under the Settlement Agreement to pay any amounts above
the Settlement Funds. Any fees, costs, or expenses payable under
the Settlement Agreement shall be paid out of, and shall not be in
addition to, the Settlement Funds. Each Class Member that has not
excluded itself from the Class will be eligible to receive a
settlement check(s) from the Claims Administrator based on the
Allocation Procedures developed by Class Counsel, which are subject
to final approval by the Court as fair and reasonable and whose
administration is under the oversight of the Special Master.
What Are My Options?
YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT. Eligible Claimants must file
a Claims Form to be eligible to receive a payment under the
Settlement. You can submit your Claims Form online at
www.PFASWaterSettlement.com, or you can download, complete, and
mail your Claims Form to the Claims Administrator at AFFF Public
Water System Claims, P.O. Box 4466, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821.
The deadline to submit a Phase One Action Fund Claims Form is sixty
(60) calendar days after the Effective Date.
If you meet the Settlement Class definition and are an Eligible
Claimant, regardless of whether you file a Claims Form or receive
any distribution under the Settlement, unless you timely opt out as
described below, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment or other final disposition related to the Settlement,
including the Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and
will be precluded from pursuing claims against BASF separately if
those Claims are within the scope of the Release.
YOU CAN OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT. Eligible Claimants who do not
want to participate in the Settlement and receive a settlement
check, you may exclude yourself, or "opt out" from the Class by
completing and submitting a Request for Exclusion. The Request for
Exclusion form will be available online and may be submitted
electronically; if it is submitted via paper copy it must be served
on the Opt Out Administrator no later than October 15, 2024.
Requests for Exclusion may be withdrawn at any time before the
Final Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 1, 2024.
YOU CAN OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT. Any Eligible Claimant that has
not successfully excluded itself ("opted out") may object to the
Settlement. Any Eligible Claimant that wishes to object to the
Settlement or to an award of fees or expenses to Class Counsel must
file a written and signed statement designated "Objection" with the
Clerk of the Court and provide service on BASF's Counsel and Class
Counsel no later than September 15, 2024. No Eligible Claimant who
has submitted a Request for Exclusion may object, and any
Objections submitted by any Eligible Claimant that later excludes
itself shall be deemed withdrawn.
The Court's Final Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold the Final
Fairness Hearing in the U.S. Court House for the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina, located at 85
Broad Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29401, on November 1,
2024. At that time, the Court will determine, among other things,
(i) whether the Settlement should be granted final approval as
fair, reasonable, and adequate, (ii) whether the Released Claims
should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, (iii) whether the Settlement Class should be
conclusively certified, (iv) whether Settlement Class Members
should be bound by the Release set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, and (v) the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be
awarded to Class Counsel, if any. The Final Fairness Hearing may be
postponed, adjourned, or continued by Order of the Court without
further notice to the Class.
This notice is only a summary.
For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement
Agreement, visit www.PFASWaterSettlement.com or call
1-855-714-4341.
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy's Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MURPHY, v. BEAUMONT
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and SHANNON ALLEN, Case No.
1:22-cv-00135-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Crone entered
an order denying Murphy's motion for class certification.
-- All of Murphy's class allegations in his Third Amended
Complaint
are stricken.
Murphy's class allegations are unable to withstand a "rigorous
analysis" as required, and, as a result, Murphy has failed to prove
each of Rule 23(a)'s four requirements. Hence, because Murphy is
unable to comply with Rule 23(a), the court need not determine
whether he can satisfy the demands of Rule 23(b)(2), the Court
said.
That is, Murphy's individualized claims, which are far more
inflammatory, overshadow his class claim such that he would be
unable to represent (and protect) the rights of the putative class
adequately.
Mr. Murphy began working for BISD in January 2019. Murphy was
employed as a carpenter, and his first year of employment was
relatively uneventful. Near the end of March 2020, however, in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, BISD closed its doors and began
instructing students virtually. At that same time, BISDs Board of
Trustees delegated to Allen the authority and discretion to make
compensation decisions regarding those employees who continued to
work during the closure. Mr. Murphy contends that Allen's
compensation decisions were in direct contravention of BISD's
longstanding premium-pay policy.
Beaumont Independent is a U.S. public school district serving
Beaumont in Southeast Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CFgeca at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOEING COMPANY: Court Sets Oct. 3 as Claims Bar Date
----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-21140
In the Matter of
The Boeing Company,
Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-21141
In the Matter of
Dennis A. Muilenburg,
Respondent.
PLAN NOTICE OF BOEING FAIR FUND
TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who
purchased or acquired The Boeing Company common stock listed on a
U.S. exchange and registered with the Commission and traded under
the symbol BA (the "Security") during the period between November
28, 2018 and October 17, 2019, inclusive, ("Relevant Period").
If you fall within the group above, you must submit a completed
Claim Form with the necessary documentation so that it is
postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, received) by October 3,
2024 (the "Claims Bar Date"), to be considered for eligibility to
receive a Distribution Payment from the Boeing Fair Fund.
Purpose of this Plan Notice
The purpose of this Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Boeing Fair Fund described
herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the Boeing Fair
Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set
forth in this Plan Notice and in the Plan of Distribution (the
"Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"
or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together with this Plan Notice, are
being mailed to all known Preliminary Claimants1 who are identified
as Preliminary Claimants by the Commission-appointed Fund
Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims
Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq"). Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice, and
the Claim Form are available on the Boeing Fair Fund website at
www.BoeingFairFund.com and through the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/boeing.htm.
PLEASE READ THIS PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Background
On September 22, 2022, the Commission issued two separate, but
related Orders instituting and simultaneously settling
cease-and-desist proceedings against the Respondents. In the
Orders, the Commission found that the Respondents failed to
exercise reasonable care in making statements to the public
following two fatal accidents (the Lion Air Flight 610 and
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302) involving its new 737 MAX line of
aircraft. Those failures resulted in Respondents making materially
misleading statements to investors in Boeing's November 27, 2018
press release about the Lion Air crash and in Muilenburg's public
statements in April 2019 following the Ethiopian Airlines crash. By
failing to exercise reasonable care to ensure those statements
provided all facts necessary to make those statements to investors
not misleading under the circumstances, Boeing and Muilenburg
violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of
1933. In their respective Orders, the Commission ordered Boeing and
Muilenburg to pay $200,000,000 and $1,000,000 in civil money
penalties, respectively, to the Commission. In each of the Orders,
the Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a)
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties paid can be
distributed to harmed investors, and further ordered that the funds
may be combined with any other distribution or Fair Fund arising
out of the same facts that are the subject of the Order.
The Respondents have paid in full. In accordance with the Orders,
the $201,000,000 paid by the Respondents has been combined and
comprises the Fair Fund. The Fair Fund has been deposited in a
Commission-designated account at the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair Fund.
Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology
To qualify for a payment from the Boeing Fair Fund, you must
satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail
in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at
www.BoeingFairFund.com and on the Commission's public website at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/boeing.htm. You can
also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund Administrator
at 1-855-526-1427 or by emailing info@BoeingFairFund.com. The
eligibility criteria include the following:
* You must have purchased or acquired The Boeing Company common
stock, listed on a U.S. exchange and registered with the Commission
and traded under the symbol BA during the Relevant Period.
* Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss
as calculated under the Plan and your Distribution Payment must
equal or exceed $10.00.
Claim Forms
A CLAIM FORM IS BEING MAILED TO ALL PRELIMINARY CLAIMANTS KNOWN TO
THE FUND ADMINISTRATOR. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A CLAIM FORM OR
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CLAIM FORMS, FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW UNDER
"ADDITIONAL INFORMATION."
THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM AT THE ADDRESS BELOW IS OCTOBER
3, 2024 -- ALSO REFERENCED HEREIN AS THE "CLAIMS BAR DATE". PLEASE
NOTE: THIS IS A "POSTMARKED" DEADLINE. IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A
COMPLETED CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 3, 2024, YOU
WILL BE BARRED FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE BOEING FAIR FUND.
THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN PARTS II–III OF THE
CLAIM FORM.
Boeing Fair Fund
Fund Administrator
PO Box 5899
Portland, OR 97228-5899
Claim Determinations
The Fund Administrator will send a Claim Status Notice within 90
days of the Claims Bar Date to any Preliminary Claimants who
submitted a deficient Claim Form. The Claim Status Notice will
provide the reason(s) for the deficiency and in the event the claim
is denied, the Claim Status Notice will state the reason(s) for
such denial. The Claim Status Notice will also notify the
Preliminary Claimant of the opportunity to cure any deficiency,
request reconsideration, or dispute the determination made by the
Fund Administrator and provide instructions regarding what is
required to do so.
Within one hundred fifty (150) days of the Claims Bar Date, the
Fund Administrator will complete all claims determinations and send
a Determination Notice to all Preliminary Claimants who timely
submitted a Claim Form notifying the Preliminary Claimant of its
eligibility determination. The Determination Notice will constitute
the Fund Administrator's final ruling regarding the eligibility
status of the claim. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes
of the recognized loss calculation pursuant to the procedures
outlined in the approved Plan of Distribution.
Additional Information
Additional information regarding the Boeing Fair Fund may be found
at www.BoeingFairFund.com. Additional Claim Forms and Plan Notices
may also be downloaded at the Boeing Fair Fund's website. You may
obtain additional information or request copies of Claim Forms and
Plan Notices by calling the Boeing Fair Fund's toll-free number at
1-855-526-1427, or by emailing info@BoeingFairFund.com.
PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.BOEINGFAIRFUND.COM FREQUENTLY FOR
UPDATES.
BOYNE USA: Hornbeck, Demaria-McKay Allege Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA HORNBECK and CATHY DEMARIA-MCKAY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOYNE USA,
INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., BOYNE MOUNTAIN RESORT, LLC, THE
MOUNTAIN GRAND LODGE & SPA, LLC, BOYNE HIGHLANDS RESORT, LLC, and
HEATHER HIGHLANDS INN, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00682 (W.D. Mich.,
July 1, 2024) arises from various realty purchase opportunities at
three Michigan resorts owned by Boyne USA: the Boyne Mountain
Resort, The Highlands at Harbor Springs, and the Inn at Bay Harbor.
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive
fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment/constructive trust,
and declaratory judgment.
According to the complaint, Boyne has exclusive control over the
rental of realty in the rental management program. However, Boyne
used that control to improperly siphon revenue that should be
shared with realty owners. Moreover, Boyne used the control it
granted to itself through the Master Deed and the Rental Management
Agreement to impose both excessive management fees and costs on
realty owners, including costs of insurance, maintenance, upkeep
and repair, and remodeling, says the suit.
Headquartered in Petoskey, MI, Boyne owns and operates ski and golf
resorts in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
Macy G. Perry, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
idiel@midwest-law.com
mperry@midwest-law.com
- and -
Ben Alke, Esq.
John G. Crist, Esq.
CRIST, KROGH, ALKE & NORD, PLLC
209 S. Willson Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 255-0400
E-mail: balke@cristlaw.com
jcrist@cristlaw.com
- and -
J. Devlan Geddes, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Tierney, Esq.
Henry J.K. Tesar, Esq.
GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER, P.C.
35 N. Grand
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 587-0618
E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com
jtierney@goetzlawfirm.com
htesar@goetzlawfirm.com
BUG TUSSEL: Fails to Pay Workers Proper OT, Tolar Says
------------------------------------------------------
TOMIKA TOLAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUG TUSSEL WIRELESS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 24-cv-812 (E.D. Wis., July 1, 2024) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The complaint alleges that Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in December 2021 as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Inside Sales
working primarily at Defendant's Green Bay, Wisconsin location.
Bug Tussel Wireless, LLC provides wireless telecommunication
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
CENCORA INC: Hollis Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENCORA, INC. and THE LASH GROUP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02863 (E.D. Pa.. July 1, 2024) arises
Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals'
personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health
information including consumers' first names, last names, dates of
birth, health diagnoses, medications, and prescriptions.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data
security measures, and their breach of duties to handle PII and PHI
with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI
has been accessed by malicious threat actors and exposed to an
untold number of unauthorized individuals. While Cencora initially
disclosed the data breach in a public filing in February 2024, it
revealed very little information. To date, it is still unknown just
how many individuals' PII and PHI was implicated as a result of the
data breach. Additionally, despite becoming aware of unauthorized
access to its systems on February 21, 2024, the Defendants did not
begin notifying affected individuals until late May 2024.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf and the Class, brings claims
for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory judgment,
seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief
Cencora is a pharmaceutical company that provides services related
to drug distribution, specialty pharmacy, consulting, and clinical
trial support. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612)341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: May Face Suit Over Repeated Power Failures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Taylor, writing for Click2Houston.com, reports that the
Buzbee Law Firm announced that it will file a class-action case
Monday, July 15, against Centerpoint Energy on behalf of several
Houston area restaurants.
The class-action lawsuit claims negligence, gross negligence, and
other violations of law for CenterPoint Energy's repeated failures
to restore power to those businesses.
More than 2.6 million customers and businesses were left without
power for several days after Hurricane Beryl hit Southeast Texas on
July 8.
The case also alleges that CenterPoint Energy failed to do the
following:
-- Failed for years to invest in infrastructure;
-- Failed to adequately inspect, maintain, and upgrade
equipment;
-- Failed to adequately train its personnel;
-- Failed to have a competent storm plan in place; and
-- Failed to adequately respond to the storm once it impacted the
area.
All Houston area restaurants listed in the lawsuit lost power
initially due to Hurricane Beryl, but the loss has continued due to
the incompetence and utter dereliction of Centerpoint Energy, the
statement read.
Tony Buzbee stated that the problems with CenterPoint Energy will
likely continue "despite the accusations and condemnation from all
levels of government."
"Imagine, if the restaurants filing this case were to conduct their
businesses in the way that Centerpoint has done, these restaurants
would be out of business," Buzbee said in the statement.
The law firm made it clear this case is not about money -- but
about forcing the energy company in court to do what the
administrative, legislative, and executive systems have failed to
require.
Once the lawsuit has been confirmed, a file-stamped copy will be
released to the public. Buzbee also stated that more lawsuits are
expected to come. [GN]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Santa Rosa Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Santa Rosa Orthopaedic Medical Group,
Incorporated, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00499 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-02383-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:
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
Kevin J. Boutin, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
kboutin@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq.
Ruston Pritchard, Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
Hancock Whitney Center
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Phone: (504) 525-8100
Fax: (504) 584-5249
Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
- and -
Murray B. Wells, Esq.
WELLS AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
81 Monroe Ave., Suite 400
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 507-2521
Fax: (901) 507-1791
Email: wells@thewellsfirm.com
- and -
Stephen Barnett Murray, Esq.
MURRAY LAW OFFICE
909 Poydras St Ste 2150
New Orleans, LA 70112-4000
Phone: (504) 525-8100
Email: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
- and -
Thomas E Loeser, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 970-8181
Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.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: Shelor Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mary Shelor, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00340 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-02371-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:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
kboutin@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Ste 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.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
- and -
Jeffrey S Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.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: Through the Forest Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Through the Forest Counseling Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Change
Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00387 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-02378-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:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Samhita Collur, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 981-4800
Fax: (415) 981-4846
Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
scollur@girardsharp.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Matthew Edward McGraw, Esq.
Seth Marcus Hyatt, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
Email: mmcgraw@barrettjohnston.com
shyatt@barrettjohnston.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: Unity Medical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Unity Medical Center Manchester also known as:
Coffee Medical Group, LLC, Russellville Hospital, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Change Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00612 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-02386-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:
Aubrey B. Harwell, III, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Samhita Collur, Esq.
Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq.
Simon Levitsky, Esq.
NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 244-1713
Email: tharwell@nealharwell.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
scollur@girardsharp.com
dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com
slevitsky@nealharwell.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
- 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 -
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.
Don Barrett, 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
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
CITIZEN WATCH: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Palm Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PALM VALLEY MUSIC LLC, v.
CITIZEN WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a BULOVA, Case No.
1:24-cv-01637-CM-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the
relevant discovery deadline set by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
-- Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on
any
defendant previously served with the summons and complaint,
must
serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all
defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such
service
with the Court.
Citizen Watch is an electronics company primarily known for its
watches.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=50J6y0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONCEALED COALITION: Schor Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concealed Coalition,
Inc. The case is styled as Stephen Schor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Concealed Coalition,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04666 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Concealed Coalition -- https://concealedcoalition.com/ -- provides
concealed carry permit training and certification to citizens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
CONNECTED VENTURES: Faces J.S. Suit Over Private Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONNECTED VENTURES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04992 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant has installed a "tracking pixel" on its
website, which hosts the videos for streaming. This tracking pixel
surreptitiously sends consumers' viewing activities to third-party
providers like Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta or Facebook). Moreover,
the Defendant violated the VPPA by knowingly disclosing the
personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the class
members to Meta without their consent. Meta, in turn, uses
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video consumption habits to
build profiles on consumers and deliver targeted advertisements to
them, among other activities, says the suit.
Connected Ventures LLC owns and operates Dropout TV, a
subscription-based comedy streaming website featuring various skits
and shorts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Forstrom and Moore Sue Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAY FORSTROM and ALYSON N. MOORE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS,
LTD., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02604 (D. Minn., July 1, 2024)
seeks to address Defendant's unlawful and widespread unauthorized
practice of disclosing Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally
identifiable information and personal health information to third
parties.
During or around June 2024, the Plaintiffs were notified by
Defendant via letter dated June 18, 2024 of the Data Breach
occurring on or around February 12, 2024 and the impact to their
private information. Moreover, Defendant waited over four months
before reporting the data breach to the Department of Health and
Human Services, and before sending Notice to affected patients. The
Defendant breached its duty to protect the sensitive private
information entrusted to it, failed to abide by its own Privacy
Policy, and failed to provide sufficiently prompt notice after
learning of the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, bring claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of an
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment,
seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
Headquartered in Eden Prairie, MN, Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. is
a Minnesota business corporation provides radiology services to the
healthcare community, including outpatient imaging services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
DAIRYLAND USA: Orbetta Bid for FLSA Conditional Status Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICIO ORBETTA, DELROY
HARRIOT, and GOSNELL BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. DAIRYLAND USA CORPORATION and THE
CHEF'S WAREHOUSE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09000-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge John Cronan entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
action certification but does not permit the full extent of
equitable tolling sought by the Plaintiffs.
The Court permits as presumptively non-time-barred opt-in claims
that accrued between Jan. 4, 2020, and Feb. 2, 2021.
In addition, the Court authorizes the sending of notice to only CDL
B drivers who worked out of the Warehouse during that time frame
(i.e., Jan. 4, 2020, to Feb. 2, 2021).
The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a new proposed
notice consistent with this Opinion and Order.
The parties shall submit the new proposed notice within two weeks
of this Opinion and Order.
The Defendants are further ordered to provide the Plaintiffs with a
computer-readable list of names, last known addresses, telephone
numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment
for all persons that worked as CDL B drivers out of the Warehouse
between Jan. 4, 2020, and Feb. 2, 2021.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the motion pending at
Docket Number 157.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the named Plaintiffs are
similarly situated to other CBL B drivers who worked as delivery
drivers out of the Warehouse, but does not find that they are
similarly situated to Non-CDL delivery drivers.
The Plaintiffs Mauricio Orbetta, Delroy Harriot, and Gosnell Butler
bring this wage-and-hour action under federal and state law,
seeking unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage,
statutory damages, and other relief from the Defendants. Thus far,
fifty-two individuals have opted into this action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) in connection with the Plaintiffs' overtime
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are current and former delivery drivers for
Dairyland.
Dairyland is a food distribution company that operates a warehouse
located at 240 Food Center Drive in the Bronx.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=awglPx at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVOLVE BANK: Colby Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COLBY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02461-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., July 1, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated Evolve customers' names, Social
Security Numbers, dates of birth, account information and/or other
personal information, which was accessed by unauthorized party on
June 25, 2024.
On or about June 26, 2024, Evolve posted an official notice of a
cybersecurity incident on its website. On or about June 27, 2024,
Evolve and its partners also sent out data breach emails to
individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the
hacking incident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, third party breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and California
Consumer Protection Act, and declaratory judgment this Court deems
proper.
Headquartered in Memphis, TN, Evolve is a financial services
provider that serves tens of thousands of customers in Tennessee
and nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
EVOLVE BANK: Quiates Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA QUIATES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00114-KGB (E.D. Ark., June 28, 2024) is a class
action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members'
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network.
With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other
similarly situated customers in the massive and preventable
cyberattack announced by Defendant on June 26, 2024, in which
cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected
network servers, accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept
unprotected, and released the illegally obtained PII on the dark
web.
As a result, Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off
this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members
have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is
and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief, says the suit.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a financial institution with its principal
place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Poynter, Esq.
Daniel Holland, Esq.
Scout Snowden, Esq.
Clay Ellis, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
4924 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone: (501) 812-3943
E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
daniel@poynterlawgroup.com
scout@poynterlawgroup.com
clay@poynterlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
EVOLVE BANK: Shevchenko Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTON SHEVCHENKO, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02458 (W.D. Tenn., June 29, 2024) arises out of Defendant's
failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy
Plaintiff's and the putative class members' sensitive personally
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 on June 18, 2024, to compromise
Defendant's network that, upon information and belief, contained
Plaintiff's and other individuals. The PII compromised in the Data
Breach included certain personal information of customers whose PII
was maintained by Defendant, including Plaintiff. The data breach
was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate
and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect individuals' PII with which it was hired to protect, says
the suit.
Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals
whose PII was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for
its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and
negligence per se, (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract,
(iii) unjust enrichment and (iv) breach of fiduciary duty.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a national financial services institution
recognized as a global leader in the payments and
banking-as-a-service industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
EVOLVE BANK: Starling Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------
TRACY E. STARLING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00549-JM (E.D. Ark., June 28, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information of potentially several
hundred thousand individuals and businesses.
According to the complaint, on or before June 26, 2024, the
Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on
or around June 23, 2024. The Defendant determined that, during the
data breach, a ransomware gang accessed and/or acquired the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, the
Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access
and intrusion, says the suit.
The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a
continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and
remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other
equitable relief, the suit asserts.
Evolve Bank & Trust is an Arkansas chartered bank and trust with a
principal place of business in West Memphis, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AK 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
EVOLVE BANK: Stiritz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL STIRITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, an Arkansas
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00550-JM (E.D. Ark., June
28, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs and Class
Members' name, Social Security Number, date of birth, account
information and/or other personal information.
On June 26, 2024, the Defendant identified it was subject to a
cyberattack. The Defendant investigated the data breach and
confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's systems
that day and had access to files.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' personal information that it
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate
notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information
was likely accessed by an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed.
Because of the data breach, the private information of Plaintiff
and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown
and unauthorized third party. The Plaintiff and Class Members have
a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and
remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other
equitable relief, says the suit.
Evolve Bank & Trust is an Arkansas chartered bank and trust with a
principal place of business in West Memphis, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martha Tucker Ayres, Esq.
TABLE LAW PLLC
Markham Executive Center
10201 W. Markham St., Suite 311
Little Rock, AR 72205
Telephone: (501) 491-0300
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta,
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
EXPERIAN INFO: Pena Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in
Interest to JOSE PENA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her application for leave
to file certain materials under seal in connection with the
Plaintiff's Amended Reply in further support of her motion for
Class Certification.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff makes this application because Defendant
has designated certain information, identified in the Declaration
of John Soumilas, as "confidential" or "highly confidential"
pursuant to the protective order in place in this matter.
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mj8evF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Erika A. Heath, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
eheath@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
- and -
Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
Facsimile: (323) 967-7775
E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com
FCA US: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Pistorio Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD PISTORIO, et al.,
v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Sean Cox entered an order granting in partand denying in
part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The motion is granted to the extent that the Court grants summary
judgment in favor of Defendant FCA as to the following claims:
-- Count 12, wherein Plaintiff Gerritsen and the Bagley's assert
an
Implied Warranty Claim under California law;
-- Count 27, wherein Plaintiff Randall Courtney asserts a claim
for
Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices
Act;
-- Count 28, wherein Plaintiff Randall Courtney asserts a
negligent
misrepresentation claim under Illinois law;
-- Count 37, wherein Plaintiff Paul Murdock's asserts an Implied
Warranty Claim under Pennsylvania law; and
-- Counts 39 & 40, wherein Plaintiff Paul Murdock asserts fraud
and
omission-based claims under Pennsylvania law.
The motion is denied in all other respects.
The Court agrees with FCA that the Court should grant summary
judgment in its favor as to these two counts due to Plaintiffs'
failure to oppose its challenge. FCA accurately quoted the above
cases, that support its legal argument. And by failing to respond
to FCA's argument, Courtney has waived these issues.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendant
FCA on July 7, 2020. At this juncture, the operative complaint is
Plaintiffs' 177-page "Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint"
filed on Aug. 12, 2021 (the "CACAC").
The Plaintiffs describe the nature of the action "a consumer class
action concerning FCA's failure to disclose material facts
regarding a safety defect in the Class Vehicles sold to consumers
and FCA's failure to fulfill its warranty obligations with respect
to that defect."
They allege that "FCA manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold
the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles'
Uconnect infotainment system was defective.
Specifically, the Uconnect system is designed and/or manufactured
with screens, including their operating software and routing
modules, that suffer from freezing, loss of back up camera
functionality, loss of navigation system functionality, black
screens, repeated unintentional reboots, and general lack of
operation.
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4KywfM at no extra
charge.[CC]
FRESH INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fresh, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04919 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Fresh for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website, https://www.fresh, 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.
Plaintiff Suarez has made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Fresh.com. He tried to purchase an eye cream on May 17, 2024, but
he was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the
many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers
have caused Fresh.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently
usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons. Because of
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,
the goods, benefits and services of Fresh.com, Plaintiff and the
class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and
particularized and actual and is a direct result of Defendant's
conduct, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Fresh's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Fresh, Inc. is a beauty care company that produces body and skin
care products, make-up, fragrances, and home accessories.[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
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
FUTURE MOTION: Court Narrows Claims in Product Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Future Motion, Inc. Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 5:23-md-03087-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting in part
and denying in part motion to dismiss and denying motion to strike
as follows:
1. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and
denied
in part.
a. Counts 1 and 5 (claims for breach of express warranty) are
dismissed without leave to amend.
b. All remaining Counts are dismissed with leave to amend
such
that the Plaintiffs may more adequately allege a defect.
c. Counts 7–9 are dismissed with leave to amend to the
extent
that they rely on a fraudulent omission theory for failure
to
allege Defendant's knowledge of a defect.
d. Counts 7–10, 18, 21, 24, and 28 are dismissed with leave
to
amend failure to allege reliance.
e. Count 4 is dismissed with leave to amend for the
Plaintiffs
to clarify their requested remedies.
f. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to
the
arguments to dismiss based on the issues of
misrepresentations and breach of implied warranty.
2. Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied without prejudice to
the
Defendant raising these issues at class certification.
3. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint consistent with
this
Order within 30 days. The Plaintiffs may request an extension
of
time if needed to facilitate settlement discussions.
In this putative class action and multi-district litigation ("MDL")
member case, the Plaintiffs allege that the Onewheel electronic
motorized skateboard has a design defect that causes the board to
nosedive, throwing riders off the board, and that the Defendant
fraudulently promoted Onewheels as "toys" without adequately
warning users of the safety risks. The Court held a hearing on the
motions on May 23, 2024
The Court finds that Defendant's motion to strike is premature and
will deny the motion without prejudice to Defendant raising these
issues at class certification.
The Defendant has failed to identify any flaws in the CCAC, which
the Court views in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, that
would show that the class allegations are "redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous" to justify the generally disfavored
remedy of striking such allegations from the CCAC.
The Onewheel is a self-balancing, battery-powered electric
skateboard that has a single wheel that is fixed to the center of
the board and spans the board’s width and approximately onethird
of its length. The Onewheel uses an electric motor housed inside
the wheel, a rechargeable lithium battery housed in one side of the
rider platform, and a control module housed in the other side of
the platform.
Future Motion provides electric vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nnb2Nh at no extra
charge.[CC]
GEISINGER HEALTH: Bidgood Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geisinger Health, et
al. The case is styled as Amanda Bidgood, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geisinger Health, Nuance
Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01088-MWB (M.D. Pa., June
28, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Geisinger Health System -- https://www.geisinger.org/ -- is a
regional health care provider to central, south-central and
northeastern Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J. Biscontini, Esq.
THE BISCONTINI LAW FIRM
The Park Office Building
400 Third Avenue, Ste. 315
Kingston, PA 18704
Phone: (570) 283-7777
Email: peter@biscontinilaw.com
- and -
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
GENERAL MOTORS: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Zachary Smith, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Onstar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-06516 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on July 2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02937-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eishenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
HIYA HEALTH PRODUCTS: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hiya Health Products
LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Capitol Technology
University Corporation A/K/A Capitol Technology University, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05064-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hiya -- https://hiyahealth.com/ -- is a daily kids multivitamins
and minerals company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
INTUIT INC: Garite Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GARITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTUIT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-03960 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data of its current and former
customers.
On or about February 27, 2024, the Defendant discovered that it was
hacked but finally disclosed the data breach to victims in March
2024. However, Defendant's breach notice obfuscated the nature of
the breach and the threat it posed--refusing to tell its victims
how many people were impacted, how the breach happened on
Defendant's systems, when the breach first occurred, or when Intuit
discovered the data breach. Moreover, the Defendant failed its
duties when its inadequate security practices caused the data
breach, says the suit.
Headquartered in Mountain View, CA, Intuit, Inc. is a financial
technology company that offers services such as TurboTax, Credit
Karma, QuickBooks, and Mailchimp. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com
IOWA: Sample Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dustin Sample, et al., v.
State of Iowa et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00234-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for class certification.
Iowa, a Midwestern U.S. state, sits between the Missouri and
Mississippi rivers. It's known for its landscape of rolling plains
and cornfields
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uHHQ69 at no extra
charge.[CC]
IOWA: Winters Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey Winters, et al.,
v. State of Iowa et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00233-RGE-HCA (S.D.
Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification.
Iowa, a Midwestern U.S. state, sits between the Missouri and
Mississippi rivers. It's known for its landscape of rolling plains
and cornfields.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0adLI4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ISAAC OUAZANA: Layani Bid to Substitute Party Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gerard Layani, et al., v.
Isaac Ouazana, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00420-SAG (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to substitute party and suggestion of death of
the Plaintiff Henya Karniel.
The Court said that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Court that
Ms. Gelis is the legal representative of the decedent or that she
is the successor of the estate.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have made an insufficient showing that
Ms. Gelis is a proper party to be substituted under Rule 25(a)(1).
There is no indication here that Ms. Gelis was personally served
with the suggestion of death of Ms. Karniel. When the Plaintiffs'
counsel became notified of Ms. Karniel's death, he should have
filed a suggestion of death with the Court and personally served it
on Ms. Gelis. Because the record lacks any evidence that this
occurred, the Court must deny the motion to substitute party, the
Court added.
The Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action on Feb.
19, 2020, alleging that the Defendants engaged in a wide-ranging
scheme to defraud investors via the sale and management of various
properties in Baltimore City, in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Maryland state law.
On Jan. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved to certify Case the class
and notified the Court in their accompanying memorandum that one of
the named Plaintiffs, Henya Karniel, had passed away.
On April 17, 2024, this Court denied the motion to certify class
and issued an amended scheduling order setting forth a post-class
certification discovery deadline of July 16, 2024.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 12, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=93cEE1
at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHN BURLEW: Plaintiff's Bid for Preliminary Injunction Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE DOE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN BURLEW, in his
official capacity as Daviess County Attorney, and on behalf of all
County Attorneys in their official capacities, Case No.
4:24-cv-00045-GNS (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg Stivers entered
an order as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted. The
Defendant John Burlew and all County Attorneys in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky are preliminarily enjoined from
enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce,
or otherwise requiring compliance with KRS 17.544. The
requirement of security under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) is waived
due to the strong public interest involved.
2. Plaintiff's emergency motion for temporary restraining order
is
denied as moot.
3. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.
The first two preliminary injunction factors both strongly weigh in
favor of granting the preliminary injunction to maintain the status
quo pending the resolution of this matter and are dispositive of
the issue. Accordingly, the Court declines to consider the
remaining factors and grants Doe’s motion for a preliminary
injunction
Doe asserts two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of
his constitutional rights under the First Amendment. In particular,
Doe claims that the challenged law violates his right to speak
anonymously and is unconstitutionally overbroad.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nM1kVs at no extra
charge.[CC]
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Conway and Rogers Sue Over 2024 Mule Engine Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRET CONWAY and JENNIFER ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP.,
U.S.A. AND KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES (USA), INC. DBA KAWASAKI HEAVY
INDUSTRIES MOTORCYCLE & ENGINE, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01452
(C.D. Cal., July 1, 2024) arises from Kawasaki's misrepresentations
of, and concealment, suppression, and failure to disclose the
serious flaws in the 2024 Mules' engines.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of express warranty, breach of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and for violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law,
and Florida's Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Headquartered in California, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells motorcycles, ATVs,
side by sides and watercraft, including 2024 Mules and related
accessories throughout the US. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
breed@kaplanfox.com
colivares@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Marc A. Wites, Esq.
Thomas Rogers, Esq.
WITES & ROGERS
4400 North Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
Telephone: (954) 933-4400
E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com
trogers@witeslaw.com
L&J TRANSPORTATION: Perry Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORYAL PERRY, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. L&J TRANSPORTATION
COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01538-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification on an expedited basis and
authorizing the Plaintiffs to issue notice of this action to all
delivery drivers who worked for L&J in the United States during the
past three years and were classified as independent contractors.
The Plaintiff contends that the Court should grant his motion for
conditional certification and allow notice to issue to other
delivery drivers who have worked for L&J during the past three
years and who were classified as independent contractors because
the Plaintiff has met his burden of making a modest factual showing
that the Defendants have a common policy of:
(1) classifying delivery drivers as independent contractors;
and
(2) making deductions from delivery drivers' pay, which
brought
delivery drivers' pay below minimum wage in some workweeks.
In connection with conditional certification, Plaintiff is entitled
to discover the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, and dates of employment of similarly situated delivery
drivers to inform them of this pending action.
The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for L&J, delivering
various freight for L&J's clients in Pennsylvania, Indiana,
Florida, and Texas. Although the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers working for L&J were classified as independent contractors,
they were in fact employees of L&J for purposes of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
L&J provides delivery services to various companies in Pennsylvania
and throughout the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pnsv5m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP
50 Millstone Road
Building 300, Suite 202
East Windsor, NJ 08520
Telephone: (609) 469-2110
E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com
LAS PRINCESAS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Collective Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALBERTO HERNANDEZ
LARA, ISMAEL LORENZO PEREZ, LEONEL SANTIAGO GOMEZ, and URIEL
HERNANDEZ ESPINOZA, v. LAS PRINCESAS CORPORATION, MARTHA ZEFERINO
JOSE, TANKARD FARMS, LLC, and THE TANKARD NURSERIES INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00346-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying two Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective actions pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for
persons who, in any pay period falling within the three
chronological years immediately preceding the date on which
this
action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date
on
which final judgment is entered in this action, and who
timely
file a written consent to be a party pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), and who are:
A. Workers who may opt in to this action pursuant to 29
U.S.C.
section 216(b) who were brought to the U.S. as H-2A
workers
by the Defendant Las Princesas Corporation and who worked
for
one or more of the Defendants between May 29, 2021, and
the
present (FLSA Reimbursement Collective Action); and
B. Employees of one or more of the Defendants who held H-2A
visas and were not compensated at the minimum wage rate
during some workweeks because they were required to kick
back
part of their wages for illegal meal charges (FLSA
Underpayment Collective Action);
2. Directing Defendants to provide, within two weeks after entry
of the Court's Order, an Excel document or other computer
readable file containing the full names, date(s) of
employment,
employer ID, passport number, U.S. and Mexico addresses, cell
and WhatsApp numbers (U.S. and Mexico), and date of birth of
all
putative collective action members;
3. Approving the distribution of the attached Notice and Consent
to
Join forms by Collective Plaintiffs by U.S. mail, text (or
similar messaging application), WhatsApp, Facebook, and
website
posting. See Collective Action Notice, and Consent to Join
Form;
and
4. Directing Defendants to post the notice in English and
Spanish
at all employer-provided housing under the ownership or
control
of any of the Defendants, and ordering Defendants to provide
the
notice to current employees with their paychecks within two
weeks after entry of the Court’s Order; and
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EXlqXD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
Marisa L. Baer, Esq.
Jason B. Yarashes, Esq.
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Telephone: (434) 977-0553
Facsimile: (434) 977-0558
E-mail: rmcfarland@justice4all.org
marissa@justice4all.org
jasony@justice4all.org
- and -
Carol Brooke, Esq.
Clermont Ripley, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 856-2144
Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
clermont@ncjustice.org
- and -
Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
KAKALEC LAW PLLC
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 705-8730
Facsimile: (646) 759-1587
E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Class Notice Withdrawn as Moot in Dominguez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominguez v. Leprino Foods
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 12, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order granting the
Parties' stipulation regarding the Belaire putative class notice
which should be stayed or withdrawn as moot in light of the pending
class certification motion.
-- The parties jointly requested a temporary stay of the order to
allow the parties to meet and confer over the timing and/or
necessity of the Belaire notice.
-- After consideration, the Court will grant the parties' request
for
a temporary stay of the stipulation's deadlines, including the
deadline for Defendant to provide putative class member
information to the settlement administrator that is currently
set
for July 14, 2024.
-- The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding any
changes
that should be made to the Bellaire stipulation and notice and
shall file a joint status report or stipulation by no later
than
July 26, 2024.
The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on July 12, 2024.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Extension to File Class Cert Opposition Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLAIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting proposed
deadlines as follows:
-- The Defendant's deadline to file its Aug. 19, 2024
Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification shall be
extended from July 29, 2024, to:
The Plaintiff's deadline to file her Reply in Support of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be extended from
Sept. 10, 2024, to Oct. 1, 2024.
This continuance is not sought for any improper purpose or delay
and is solely due to Mr. Schwartz's technical difficulties and for
the Defendant to have a sufficient amount of time after Mr.
Schwartz's deposition to receive his deposition transcript and
incorporate any relevant testimony into its Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
On July 11, 2024, the Parties met and conferred concerning the
availability of Mr. Schwartz and counsel and agreed to re-notice
his deposition for July 31, 2024, which was Mr. Schwartz's next
mutually available date. The next mutually available date is 20
days from the originally scheduled deposition.
On Feb. 21, 2024, this Court issued an Order Granting Joint Motion
to Amend Scheduling Order Regulating Putative Class Discovery and
Other Pre-Trial Proceedings.
On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiff also submitted an expert report from
Allan I. Schwartz in support of this motion.
Liberty offers auto, vehicles, properties, life, and small business
insurance.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIy49I at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
STE 700, 600 W Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-4005
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
Andrew Hatchett, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
E-mail: rachel.lowe@alston.com
tiffany.powers@alston.com
andrew.hatchett@alston.com
- and -
Michael K. Farrell, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
Key Tower
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
E-mail: mfarrell@bakerlaw.com
LIVANOVA USA: Chaudhry Files Suit in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LivaNova USA, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Katherine Chaudhry, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LivaNova USA, Inc.,
Case No. 4:24-cv-02506 (N.D. Tex., July 2, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
LivaNova, PLC -- https://www.livanova.com/en-us -- is an
Italian-American medical device manufacturer based in the UK.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
LIVANOVA USA: Podroykin Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR PODROYKIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVANOVA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-02482 (S.D. Tex., July 1, 2024) is a class action against
LivaNova for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated LivaNova patients'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information, including names, addresses, date(s) of birth, Social
Security numbers, medical information, and health insurance
information, from criminal hackers.
On November 19, 2023, unusual activity was detected on some of the
Defendant's computer systems. In response, the Defendant launched
an investigation. LivaNova's investigation revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained
sensitive patient information, and that such access took place on
or around October 26, 2023. Yet, LivaNova waited seven months to
notify the public that they were at risk, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address
LivaNova's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private
information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members
of the types of information that were accessed, and that such
information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
confidence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and
declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff also brings violations of
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
LivaNova USA, Inc. based in Houston, Texas, is a subsidiary of a
global medical technology company that serves patients through its
network of affiliate hospitals and medical facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Vacates all Class Cert Deadlines in Lacoste
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNA LACOSTE, an
individual, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; ALEX
VILLANUEVA, DEPUTY SHERIFFS NATHAN DEBOOM, AARON ESCOBEDO, JOSE
HURTADO, MIKAH LOPEZ; CHARLES L. McDANIEL; JUAN MEZA, MICHAEL
MILESKI, RAMON MUNOZ, ROVERT OKAMOTO; JOSE RAMIREZ, MARK REYES,
ADRIAN RUIZ, SPENCER ZAGURSKI, and Does 1 through 10, all sued in
their individual capacities, Case No. 2:23-cv-04917-DMG-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order approving joint
stipulation to vacate dates and deadlines:
1. Vacating all dates and deadlines, including the Oct. 8, 2024
final pretrial conference and Nov. 5, 2024 trial; and
2. Directing the parties to meet and confer and file a Joint
Status
Report within 10 days after the issuance of the Ninth
Circuit's
mandate on the interlocutory appeal of this Court's April 3,
2024 class certification order in Berg, et al. v. County of
Los
Angeles, et al., CV 20-7870-DMG (PDx).
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides correctional
programs, disaster services, environmental services, holiday
assistance, and law enforcement services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CFrqD9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in GCERS vs BOA Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-04089 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an
order resolving outstanding scheduling disputes in light of the
Court's orders granting preliminary approval to the settlement
agreements that would resolve the class actions in this
proceeding:
1. The Class Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file a
motion
for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is denied as
moot and without prejudice to renewal in the event that the
class settlements are not finally approved.
2. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order
bifurcating
the trial between a liability phase and a damages phase is
denied without prejudice to renewal.
The Court concludes that it is premature at this stage to
decide
whether an ultimate trial should be bifurcated. The issue of
bifurcation may be revisited following the completion of
expert
discovery and the resolution of summary judgment and Daubert
motions.
3. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order staying
expert discovery on damages pending the disposition of trial
on
liability is denied.
The interest of efficiency would not be served by postponing
expert discovery on damages until after a full round of
summary
judgment and Daubert briefing on liability, particularly
given
that there is likely to be some degree of overlap in evidence
and testimony regarding liability and damages.
Accordingly, with respect to the Platform Plaintiffs that is, in
Case Numbers 16-CV-3542, 16-CV-2858, and 18-CV-5361—the deadlines
in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are
currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class
certification shall be calculated from the date of this order.
Thus, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than eight
and one-half (8.5) months from the date of this order, and the
Platform Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no
later than 60 days from the date of this order.
The Genesee County Suit is incorporated in INTEREST RATE SWAPS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL 2704.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x25opx at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Harrison County vs BOA Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison County,
Mississippi et al v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-04561 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an
order resolving outstanding scheduling disputes in light of the
Court's orders granting preliminary approval to the settlement
agreements that would resolve the class actions in this
proceeding:
1. The Class Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file a
motion
for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is denied as
moot and without prejudice to renewal in the event that the
class settlements are not finally approved.
2. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order
bifurcating
the trial between a liability phase and a damages phase is
denied without prejudice to renewal.
The Court concludes that it is premature at this stage to
decide
whether an ultimate trial should be bifurcated. The issue of
bifurcation may be revisited following the completion of
expert
discovery and the resolution of summary judgment and Daubert
motions.
3. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order staying
expert discovery on damages pending the disposition of trial
on
liability is denied.
The interest of efficiency would not be served by postponing
expert discovery on damages until after a full round of
summary
judgment and Daubert briefing on liability, particularly
given
that there is likely to be some degree of overlap in evidence
and testimony regarding liability and damages.
Accordingly, with respect to the Platform Plaintiffs that is, in
Case Numbers 16-CV-3542, 16-CV-2858, and 18-CV-5361—the deadlines
in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are
currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class
certification shall be calculated from the date of this order.
Thus, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than eight
and one-half (8.5) months from the date of this order, and the
Platform Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no
later than 60 days from the date of this order.
The Harrison Suit is incorporated in INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION MDL 2704.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IA2sX7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Interest Rate Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-md-02704 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order resolving outstanding
scheduling disputes in light of the Court's orders granting
preliminary approval to the settlement agreements that would
resolve the class actions in this proceeding:
1. The Class Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file a
motion
for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is denied as
moot and without prejudice to renewal in the event that the
class settlements are not finally approved.
2. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order
bifurcating
the trial between a liability phase and a damages phase is
denied without prejudice to renewal.
The Court concludes that it is premature at this stage to
decide
whether an ultimate trial should be bifurcated. The issue of
bifurcation may be revisited following the completion of
expert
discovery and the resolution of summary judgment and Daubert
motions.
3. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order staying
expert discovery on damages pending the disposition of trial
on
liability is denied.
The interest of efficiency would not be served by postponing
expert discovery on damages until after a full round of
summary
judgment and Daubert briefing on liability, particularly
given
that there is likely to be some degree of overlap in evidence
and testimony regarding liability and damages.
Accordingly, with respect to the Platform Plaintiffs that is, in
Case Numbers 16-CV-3542, 16-CV-2858, and 18-CV-5361—the deadlines
in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are
currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class
certification shall be calculated from the date of this order.
Thus, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than eight
and one-half (8.5) months from the date of this order, and the
Platform Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no
later than 60 days from the date of this order.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ab9g4l at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Janvelin v. BoA Wins Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Javelin Capital Markets
LLC et al., v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an
order resolving outstanding scheduling disputes in light of the
Court's orders granting preliminary approval to the settlement
agreements that would resolve the class actions in this
proceeding:
1. The Class Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file a
motion
for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is denied as
moot and without prejudice to renewal in the event that the
class settlements are not finally approved.
2. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order
bifurcating
the trial between a liability phase and a damages phase is
denied without prejudice to renewal.
The Court concludes that it is premature at this stage to
decide
whether an ultimate trial should be bifurcated. The issue of
bifurcation may be revisited following the completion of
expert
discovery and the resolution of summary judgment and Daubert
motions.
3. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order staying
expert discovery on damages pending the disposition of trial
on
liability is denied.
The interest of efficiency would not be served by postponing
expert discovery on damages until after a full round of
summary
judgment and Daubert briefing on liability, particularly
given
that there is likely to be some degree of overlap in evidence
and testimony regarding liability and damages.
Accordingly, with respect to the Platform Plaintiffs that is, in
Case Numbers 16-CV-3542, 16-CV-2858, and 18-CV-5361—the deadlines
in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are
currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class
certification shall be calculated from the date of this order.
Thus, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than eight
and one-half (8.5) months from the date of this order, and the
Platform Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no
later than 60 days from the date of this order.
The Javelin Suit is incorporated in INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION MDL 2704.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.[CC]
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nEnC1E at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Kansas v. BoA Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kansas City, Missouri
Employees' Retirement System v. Bank Of America Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04005 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul
Oetken entered an order resolving outstanding scheduling disputes
in light of the Court's orders granting preliminary approval to the
settlement agreements that would resolve the class actions in this
proceeding:
1. The Class Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file a
motion
for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is denied as
moot and without prejudice to renewal in the event that the
class settlements are not finally approved.
2. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order
bifurcating
the trial between a liability phase and a damages phase is
denied without prejudice to renewal.
The Court concludes that it is premature at this stage to
decide
whether an ultimate trial should be bifurcated. The issue of
bifurcation may be revisited following the completion of
expert
discovery and the resolution of summary judgment and Daubert
motions.
3. The Platform Plaintiffs' letter motion for an order staying
expert discovery on damages pending the disposition of trial
on
liability is denied.
The interest of efficiency would not be served by postponing
expert discovery on damages until after a full round of
summary
judgment and Daubert briefing on liability, particularly
given
that there is likely to be some degree of overlap in evidence
and testimony regarding liability and damages.
Accordingly, with respect to the Platform Plaintiffs that is, in
Case Numbers 16-CV-3542, 16-CV-2858, and 18-CV-5361—the deadlines
in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are
currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class
certification shall be calculated from the date of this order.
Thus, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than eight
and one-half (8.5) months from the date of this order, and the
Platform Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no
later than 60 days from the date of this order.
The Kansas Suit is incorporated in INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION MDL 2704.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.[CC]
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8LHWSu at no extra
charge.[CC]
NAVAJO EXPRESS: Ramey BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN RAMEY, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVAJO EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2024CH04259, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois Chancery Division, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 1,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-05541 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges one count against the Defendant,
his former employer, on behalf of himself and all individuals whose
biometric data Defendant collected or stored in Illinois. The
Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the following two requirements
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act: Section 14/15(a)
of the Act by failing to develop and/or make public its written
retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric identifiers and biometric information; and Section
14/15(b) of the Act by collecting, capturing, obtaining and storing
Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric identifiers and/or
information without providing a written release.
Navajo Express, Inc. provides transportation services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joel S. Neckers, Esq.
Juan S. Ramirez, Esq.
Tate J. Wines, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
E-mail: neckers@wtotrial.com
ramirez@wtotrial.com
wines@wtotrial.com
NESTED BEAN: Otto and Hawes Sue Over Deceptive Product Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Otto and Amy Hawes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nested Bean, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11706 (D. Mass., July 1, 2024) arises
from Defendant's alleged unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent
business practices in connection with the marketing and sale of its
products.
According to the complaint, Nested Bean advertises that its "Cuddle
Pad" creates the "Cuddle Effect" which mimics realistic human touch
by making an infant feel pressure in places where people naturally
hold them. It claims that this effect soothes infants and makes
them sleep faster and longer without interruption. Despite Nested
Bean's claims, however, the medical community has for some time
expressed concern over the use of these products. In April 2024,
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission finally
released a statement warning parents about the dangers of these
products. In response, many retailers such as Target and Amazon
pulled these products and competing offerings from their shelves
and issued recalls and offered refunds for the products previously
sold through their stores. However, Nested Bean, the original
manufacturer of weighted sleep aids for infants and among the
largest sellers today, nevertheless continues to market and sell
its products as safe, says the suit.
Nested Bean manufactures, markets, and sells weighted sleep
products for infants and toddlers, including pajamas, swaddles, and
sleep sacks. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 274-9420
E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
Alex Lee, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
alee@caffertyclobes.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents Confused on Train Derailment Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Desirae Gostlin, writing for Spectrum News, reports that in East
Palestine, the community is still dealing with the aftereffects of
a train derailment there more than a year ago.
A class action lawsuit has been settled on behalf of residents, but
some lingering confusion remains about that settlement.
"My group at the firm practices in mass catastrophe litigation,"
said Adam Gomez, an attorney with Grant & Eisenhofer who worked on
the East Palestine Class action settlement.
He said he's heard criticism from the community that the
$600-million settlement reached with Norfolk Southern is too low.
"We are subject to certain requirements for proof, especially on
damages when you bring a civil lawsuit and when you bring a civil
lawsuit in federal court, where this is," said Gomez.
He said the appeals process could have taken years if the class
action had not settled.
"What that results in is seven, eight, nine, 10 plus years of
litigation. Typically, cases don't get stronger over time, they get
weaker," said Gomez.
Gomez has also heard criticism surrounding why the settlement was
reached before the NTSB hearings were finished.
"For the last year, we have been investigating and taking discovery
on all of the information that came out during the NTSB hearing.
Nothing that was reported by the NTSB in terms of its factual
findings was new to us. In fact, we had developed a lot of that
information," said Gomez.
People who have already taken money from Norfolk Southern for some
damages will be getting less from the settlement than if they had
not taken that money.
"Those folks that we've heard from think it's unfair that they are
getting an offset for that, but there's also a large number, even a
majority of people who didn't take money from Norfolk Southern but
endured those same kinds of expenses," said Gomez.
Anyone who lives within 20 miles of the derailment who did not opt
out of the class action settlement is considered a part of the
class. Class action members have until Aug. 22 to file a claim.
[GN]
PATELCO CREDIT: Poluk Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN POLUK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-03962-DMR (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2024) is a class action
against Defendant Patelco Credit Union for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class
Members' personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant's information network.
With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause her
and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on June 29, 2024,
by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately
protected network and accessed the Private Information which was
being kept under-protected.
According to the complaint, while Defendant claims to have
discovered the breach as early as June 29, 2024, the Defendant did
not begin informing victims of the data breach until June 30, 2024,
and failed to inform victims when or for how long the data breach
occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were
wholly unaware of the data breach until they received letters from
Defendant informing them of it.
As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party
seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative
Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their
information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and
other equitable relief.
Patelco Credit Union is a non-profit corporation with a principal
place of business located in Dublin, California. Patelco is the
22nd largest credit union serving Northern California, particularly
the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
PEORIA, IL: Residents Sue Over Inaccessible Sidewalks
-----------------------------------------------------
Three longtime Peoria-area residents have filed a lawsuit filed in
July against the city of Peoria, mirroring a similar disability
discrimination case filed in Pekin about five years ago.
The three plaintiffs named in the suit claim the city is in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, saying the city received federal financial assistance
and has the responsibility of "providing access to public
facilities, programs, services and activities. The city is
responsible for constructing, maintaining, repairing, and the
regulation of, the system of pedestrian rights-of-way within the
city."
Named as defendants are the city itself, members of the City
Council and City Manager Patrick Urich.
According to the complaint, in the 34 years since the ADA's
passage, the city "has consistently failed to meet its obligations
to fix these accessibility issues," forcing the plaintiffs to
"navigate hazardous conditions or avoid public spaces altogether."
City of Pekin responds to lawsuit claiming ADA violations
Jennifer Sender, an attorney with Chicago-based Hughes Socol Piers
Resnick & Dym, said her clients' have disabilities and rely on
wheelchairs and scooters, and are looking to have access to all the
places people without disabilities would have access to.
"So, they can go to church, the federal courthouse, access parks
just like every other resident of Peoria," she said.
Sender also said her clients are longtime residents of Peoria and
they want to be able to safely travel the sidewalks.
"We have one client who has to rely on paratransit or her neighbors
in order to get around because the sidewalks in her neighborhood
are just too dangerous to try and access," Sender said.
Sender said the city would have 30 years to put something in place
to make sure the city streets will be accessible.
"We know it can't be done overnight, so we would expect to work
with the city to identify their funding capabilities, federal
grants in order to identify all of the accessibility issues, and a
timeline for completing that," she said.
East Peoria attorney Carl Reardon said he expects the results of
this lawsuit to be similar to one filed in Pekin several years
ago.
"My best guess is that the city has been expecting this lawsuit for
some time after we settled the Pekin lawsuit and I believe the city
will want to work things out," he said.
Peoria has about 8,000 residents with disabilities while Peoria
County has another 4,000 residents. The suit aims to ensure the
city is accessible for these residents and visitors, the attorneys
said.
We have reached out to the city of Peoria for comment and have yet
to receive a response. [GN]
PRO-VIGIL INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASON SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO-VIGIL, INC., a Texas corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01838-MDB (D. Colo., July 1, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order by
failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees required
overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field service
technician in Colorado. He began his employment on December 12,
2022 and left his employment with Defendant on August 7, 2023.
Pro-Vigil, Inc. provides security systems, surveillance,
monitoring, and related client services for businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
3773 Cherry Creek
North Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (720) 699-3000
Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
E-mail: mkuhn@ll.law
aswan@ll.law
sengelson@ll.law
QVC INC: Faces Valencia Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QVC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04913
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a civil rights action against
Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant's website, www.qvc.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 7, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase a smart cutting machine (Cricut Maker 3). 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 the 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.
QVC, Inc. offers online shopping services. The Company provides
dresses, blazers, shoes, handbags, jewelry, beauty, kitchen and
food, home and garden, electronics, and other related
products.[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
RMG ACQUISITION: $11.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Robbins LLP issued a statement
regarding the Romeo SPAC Stockholder Settlement:
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SHUHUAN YU, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
RMG SPONSOR, LLC, MKC INVESTMENTS LLC,
ROBERT S. MANCINI, PHILIP KASSIN,
D. JAMES CARPENTER, W. GRANT GREGORY,
CRAIG BRODERICK, W. THADDEUS
MILLER, and STEVEN P. BUFFONE,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2021-0932-NAC
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO HELD RMG ACQUISITION CORP. CLASS A COMMON STOCK
ON THE CLOSE OF THE MARKET ON DECEMBER 23, 2020, EITHER OF RECORD
OR BENEFICIALLY, AND WHO DID NOT REDEEM ALL OF THEIR SHARES,
INCLUDING THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, SUCCESSORS,
TRANSFEREES, AND ASSIGNS
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the
Delaware Rules of Civil Procedure, that: (i) the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class
action on behalf of a class of all Persons who held RMG Acquisition
Corp. ("RMG") Class A common stock as of the close of the market on
December 23, 2020, either of record or beneficially, and who did
not redeem all of their shares, including their heirs,
successors-in-interest, successors, transferees, and assigns (the
"Class"), except for certain Persons excluded from the Class as
defined in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and
Right to Appear ("Notice"), which is available as described below;
and (ii) Plaintiff and Defendants in the Action have reached an
agreement to settle the Action for $11,990,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved it will resolve all
claims in the Action. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary
Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement, and Release dated June 17, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"), and the Notice, copies of which can be obtained at
www.RomeoSPACStockholderSettlement.com.
A hearing will be held on October 18, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice Chancellor, at the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice
Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, for the
purpose of determining: (i) whether to finally certify the Class
for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) whether Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and
whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class
Representative for the Class and Plaintiff’s Counsel should be
finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Class; (iii) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and in
their best interests; (iv) whether the proposed Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with
prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation
should be entered; (v) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of
the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should
therefore be approved; (vi) whether and in what amount any Fee and
Expense Award to Plaintiff’s Counsel should be paid out of the
Settlement Fund, including any service award to Plaintiff to be
paid solely from any Fee and Expense Award; (vii) to hear and rule
on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Plaintiff’s Counsel’s application for a Fee
and Expense Award, including any service award to Plaintiff; and
(viii) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
If you held RMG Class A common stock as of the close of the market
on December 23, 2020, either of record or beneficially, and did not
redeem all of your shares, your rights may be affected by the
settlement of this Action. If you have not received a detailed
Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release ("Proof of
Claim"), you may obtain copies (as well as a copy of the
Stipulation) by writing to Romeo SPAC Stockholder Settlement,
Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 301170,
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170, or by downloading this information at
www.RomeoSPACStockholderSettlement.com. If you are a member of the
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must either submit a Proof of Claim online at
www.RomeoSPACStockholderSettlement.com by October 30, 2024, or by
mail to be received no later than October 30, 2024, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.
The Class is a non-"opt-out" class pursuant to Delaware Court of
Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Class
Members will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered to the
Register in Chancery (electronically by File & ServeXpress, by
hand, by first-class U.S. mail, or by express service) and served
on counsel for the Parties at the addresses below, and sent by
email, such that it is received no later than October 4, 2024:
Court:
Register in Chancery
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
500 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Erik W. Luedeke
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
eluedeke@rgrdlaw.com
Gregory E. Del Gaizo
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com
David M. Sborz
Andrews & Springer LLC
4001 Kennet Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com
Counsel for Defendants:
Jason C. Hegt
Latham & Watkins LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
jason.hegt@lw.com
William M. Lafferty
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
wlafferty@morrisnichols.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY,
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you
have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel
for Plaintiff at the addresses listed above, call 1-800-449-4900,
email settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com, or go to the following website:
www.RomeoSPACStockholderSettlement.com.
DATED: July 1, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROYAL BANK: $1.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
If You Are a U.S. Headquartered Lending Institution That Owned,
Held, Purchased, or Sold a Loan or Interest in a Loan With Interest
Payable to You at a Rate Based Upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, Which Rates
Adjusted At Any Time Between August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010, You
May Be Eligible for a Payment from a Settlement Totaling
$1,900,000
There is a Settlement with The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc
(n/k/a NatWest Group plc), British Bankers' Association, BBA
Enterprises Ltd., BBA Trent Ltd. (f/k/a BBA LIBOR Ltd.),
Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. (f/k/a Coöperatieve Centrale
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.), Lloyds Banking Group plc and HBOS
plc (together, "Lloyds"), The Norinchukin Bank, Portigon AG (f/k/a
WestLB AG), Westdeutsche Immobilien Servicing AG (f/k/a
Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG), and Royal Bank of Canada
(collectively, "Settling Defendants") that impact lending
institutions headquartered in the United States, including its
fifty (50) states and United States territories, that originated
loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned loans, owned
interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in loans,
sold loans, or sold interests in loans with interest rates based
upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rates adjusted at any time between
August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.
The litigation alleges that certain banks (see list of Defendant
banks on settlement website) unlawfully suppressed U.S. Dollar
LIBOR, which caused lending institutions to lose money in
connection with loans they held and their loan transactions.
Plaintiffs assert claims for common-law fraud and conspiracy to
commit fraud. Settling Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing.
The Court denied a motion to dismiss the fraud claims asserted by
the plaintiffs, the Court has denied the plaintiff The Berkshire
Bank's motion to certify a litigation class, and the Court of
Appeals has denied the plaintiff's petition to review the Court's
denial of class certification prior to a final judgment. At the
time this Class Settlement was reached, the plaintiffs were
continuing to pursue their individual claims.
Am I included?
You are included in the Settlement if you (lending institution)
are:
* Headquartered in the United States; and
* Originated loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned
loans, owned interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased
interests in loans, sold loans, or sold interests in loans with
interest based upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rate adjusted at any
time between August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.
What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement will create a $1,900,000 Settlement Fund that will
be used to pay eligible Class Members who submit valid claims.
How can I get a payment?
You must submit a proof of claim to get a payment. You can submit a
proof of claim online or by mail. The deadline to submit a proof of
claim is September 12, 2024. You are entitled to receive a payment
if you have a qualifying U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based loan. At this
time, it is unknown how much each Class Member who submits a valid
claim will receive.
What are my rights?
Even if you do nothing, you will lose your right to sue Settling
Defendants for the alleged conduct and will be bound by the Court's
decisions concerning the Settlement. If you want to keep your right
to sue Settling Defendants you must exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class by September 26, 2024. If you stay in the
Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement by September 26,
2024.
The Court will hold a hearing on October 17, 2024, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's
request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.
For more information about the Settlement, visit
www.LendersLiborSettlements.com or call 1-833-609-9716.
SANDOZ INC: $265MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased certain named generic pharmaceutical drugs
directly from certain pharmaceutical manufacturers from May 1, 2009
through December 31, 2019, your rights may be affected by a
proposed class action settlement.
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
You were previously sent a notice about settlements with (1) Sun
Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. ("Sun"), (2) Taro Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A. Inc. ("Taro"), (3) Apotex Corp. ("Apotex"), (4) Breckenridge
Pharmaceutical Inc. "Breckenridge"), and (5) Heritage
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Satish Mehta
("Heritage"). The purpose of this notice is to alert you of a
proposed additional settlement in a Lawsuit brought by Direct
Purchasers ("Settling Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs" or "DPPs") of
certain generic drugs (the "Named Generic Drugs"). The Lawsuit is a
group of direct purchaser class actions coordinated under the civil
docket In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 2:16-MD-02724 (E.D. Pa.). The Lawsuit claims that generic
drug manufacturers violated antitrust laws, harming competition and
causing Settlement Class Members to overpay for the Named Generic
Drugs. The Settling Defendants deny liability as alleged in the
Lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right. No trial has been
held.
An additional settlement has been reached between the DPPs and
Settling Defendants Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Settling Defendants are alleged to have violated the antitrust laws
relating to the sale of the Named Generic Drugs. The proposed
settlement does not resolve any of the claims of the DPPs against
the remaining Defendants. The Lawsuit against the remaining
Defendants is ongoing.
The Court has certified a Settlement Class comprised of:
All persons or entities, and their successors and assigns, that
directly purchased one or more of the Named Generic Drugs from one
or more Current or Former Defendants in the United States and its
territories and possessions, at any time during the period from May
1, 2009 until December 31, 2019.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Current and Former
Defendants and their present and former officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, judicial
officers and their personnel, and all governmental entities.
The Court has preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement
between the Settling Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the respective
Settling Defendants. To resolve the DPPs'
claims against Settling Defendants, the proposed Settlement will
provide for a $265,000,000.00 payment by Sandoz Inc. and Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc. This payment will comprise the "Settlement
Fund." The Settlement Fund may be reduced by up to $31,800,000.00
(to $233,200,000.00), or increased by a maximum of $62,351,850.00
(to $327,351,850.00) under certain circumstances, as explained in
the Settlement Agreement. Attorneys' fees, expenses and service
awards may be deducted from these amounts, with Court approval.
The attorneys intend to ask for attorneys' fees of (1) up to
one-third of this Settlement Fund and (2) the entirety of any funds
set aside by Court Order for fee petitions from any of Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs' previous Settlements. Settlement Class
Counsel will also ask now, as part of the Final Approval of this
settlement, for an amount not to exceed a total of $2 million for
reimbursement of past and future expenses, including costs of
administering this settlement, plus service awards in the amount of
$20,000 for each of the four named plaintiffs. If you decide not to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not have to
pay these fees, costs, and expenses out of your own
pocket. If the Court grants Settlement Class Counsel's requests,
these amounts would be deducted from the Settlement Fund.
Any application by Settlement Class Counsel for reimbursement of
expenses, service awards, and attorneys' fees will be filed with
the Court and made available for download and/or viewing on or
before November 22, 2024 on
GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com, as well as at the office
of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106-1797, during normal business hours.
If you are a Settlement Class Member (and have not excluded
yourself), you can object to all or any part of the proposed
Settlement and/or the application for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of costs and expenses, and/or service awards to the
Class Representatives. You can give reasons why
you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider
your views.
To object to the Settlement, you must send a letter via First-Class
U.S. Mail saying that you object to the Settlement in the Direct
Purchaser Lawsuit in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:16-MD-02724 (E.D. Pa.). Your objection
must be postmarked on or before October 8, 2024.
The Court has scheduled a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement, the plan for allocating the Settlement Fund to
Settlement Class Members, any requests by the attorneys for
reimbursement of expenses out of the Settlement Fund, payment of
service awards to the Settling Plaintiffs, and any request by
attorneys for payment of attorneys' fees, (the "Final Fairness
Hearing"). The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for March 17,
2025, at 10:30 a.m. ET, before Judge Cynthia M. Rufe at the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Courtroom 12-A, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
If you have questions about this case or want additional
information, you may call 877-315-0583, or visit
GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com. This notice is only a
summary of the proposed Settlement and is qualified in its entirety
by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Copies of the Settlement
Agreements are on public file with the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106. The Settlement Agreement is also available
on the settlement website:
GenericDrugsDirectPurchaserSettlement.com. You
may also call the Claims Administrator at 877-315-0583 with
questions.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS
SEASTAR MEDICAL: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation (NASDAQ:
ICU, ICUCW) securities between October 31, 2022 and March 26, 2024.
SeaStar was originally a special purpose acquisition company
functioning under the name LMF Acquisition Opportunities, Inc.
Legacy SeaStar was a medical technology company developing
extracorporeal therapies to reduce the consequences of excessive
inflammation on vital organs. On October 28, 2022, the companies
merged.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation (ICU) Misled Investors
Regarding its Business Prospects
The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
failed to disclose that:
(i) SeaStar and/or Legacy SeaStar had deficient compliance
controls and procedures related to the HDE Application;
(ii) accordingly, there were deficiencies with the HDE
Application, the FDA was unlikely to approve the HDE Application in
its present form, and the SCD's regulatory prospects were
overstated;
(iii) the Company had downplayed the true scope and severity of
deficiencies in its financial controls and procedures, while
overstating Defendants' efforts to remediate the same;
(iv) accordingly, SeaStar had failed to properly account for
the classification of certain outstanding warrants and the Prepaid
Forward Agreement;
(v) as a result, SeaStar was likely to restate one or more of
its previously issued financial statements; and
(vi) accordingly, SeaStar's post-merger business and financial
prospects were overstated.
On May 9, 2023, SeaStar announced it had received a letter from the
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the FDA, rejecting
the Company's HDE application for its pediatric Selective
Cytopheretic Device for the treatment of hyperinflammation. On this
news, SeaStar's stock price fell $0.77 per share, or almost 40% per
share, to close at $1.17 per share on May 10, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 27, 2024, SeaStar announced it
would restate its financial statements for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022, as well as for the interim periods ended March
31, 2023, June 30, 2023, and September 30, 2023. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell again, to close at $0.71 per share on
March 27, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation. Shareholders who want
to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions
with the court by September 6, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against SeaStar Medical Holding
Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
SERITAGE GROWTH: He et al. Sue Over Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZHENGXU HE, TRUSTEE OF THE HE & FANG 2005 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SERITAGE GROWTH PROPERTIES, ANDREA OLSHAN, and JOHN
GARILLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05007 (S.D.N.Y., July 1,
2023) accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs He et al. bring this class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Seritage
securities between July 7, 2022 and May 10, 2024, inclusive.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal controls
regarding the identification and review of impairment indicators
for investments in real estate; (2) that, as a result, the Company
had overstated the value and projected gross proceeds of certain
real estate assets; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis, says the suit.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Seritage operates as a real estate
investment trust. Its Class A Common shares trade on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "SRG."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
rdawson@glancylaw.com
SHIRTWHOLESALER.COM: Valencia Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHIRTWHOLESALER.COM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04911 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.bulkapparel.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 7, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase sweatpants. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however,
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. 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.
SHIRTWHOLESALER.COM, Inc. offers T-shirts and apparrell wholesale
via Internet.[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
SUREFOX NORTH: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
WANLYS MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUREFOX NORTH
AMERICA INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04933 (S.D.N.Y., June 28,
2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's failure to pay her and others
similarly situated for all hours worked per week in excess of 40 at
the rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates
of pay, failure to pay all wages on a timely basis, and failure to
furnish proper wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security guard from
March 15, 2023 until present.
Surefox North America Inc. is a security company that employs
security personnel at various locations throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
TERADATA CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set August 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Teradata Corporation (NYSE:TDC)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/teradata-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=90752&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Teradata Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders
who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
February 13, 2023 and February 12, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) under Teradata's
expanded business model, which involved engagement with additional
customer business units and decisionmakers, transactions with the
Company's customers took longer to finalize; (ii) Teradata thus
overstated its ability to close customer transactions within their
intended timeframes under its expanded business model; (iii)
Teradata failed to timely close several customer transactions that
it had factored into its outlook for 2023 Annual Recurring Revenue
(ARR) growth; (iv) as a result, the Company was unlikely to meet
its full year 2023 total and public cloud ARR expectations; and (v)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Teradata stock during the
relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/teradata-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=90752&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
TETHER HOLDINGS: Faces New Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Ligon, writing for CoinDesk, reports that plaintiffs in an
ongoing class action lawsuit against Tether and Bitfinex have filed
a new, slimmed-down complaint accusing the crypto companies of
manipulating the crypto markets and violating antitrust laws.
The second amended complaint, filed in the Southern District of New
York (SDNY) on Monday, July 15, accuses Tether and its sister
crypto exchange Bitfinex of operating a "sophisticated scheme to
artificially inflate the price of cryptocurrencies" by pushing
Tether’s dollar-backed stablecoin, USDT, into the cryptomarket
without it being fully backed by U.S. dollars, therefore "creating
the illusion of increased demand" for cryptocurrencies,
"facilitating trading of [cryptocurrencies] on credit and loaned
funds" and ultimately driving up crypto prices.
The complaint is the third to be filed in the same case, overseen
by U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla. The first complaint
was filed in 2019 and an amended complaint followed in 2020.
The case has had several hiccups, including the removal of the
original plaintiffs' counsel, crypto law firm Roche Freedman (now
called Freedman Norman Friedland), after video recordings of
attorney Kyle Roche appearing to admit to filing frivolous investor
lawsuits to help client, surfaced in 2022.
In the newest iteration of the complaint, attorneys for the
plaintiffs levied three causes of action against the defendants --
violating the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) via market
manipulation, monopolization, and agreement in restraint of trade
-- the latter two causes of action both alleged violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. It's a slimmed down version of the previous
complaints: the original complaint contained eight causes of
action, and the amended complaint contained 12.
The suit contained chat and deposition logs from the companies'
operators, allegedly admitting to manipulative actions.
"[Tether Chief Financial Officer Giancarlo] Devasini also
acknowledged at his deposition that issuing a substantial credit
line 'that is not backed by anything of an enormous amount of
money' would cause customers to 'use this fake money to buy an
enormous amount of Bitcoin and, therefore, the price will
increase,'" the suit said.
A spokesperson for Tether said the claims in the second amended
complaint, "as with the prior complaint" are "wholly without
merit."
"Ultimately, it is the facts and evidence that matters, not
plaintiffs' false and misleading allegations," the spokesperson for
Tether said. "We remain confident that we will prevail in this
litigation, and that plaintiffs' nonsensical conspiracy theories
will be rejected."
Last year, lawyers for Tether and Bitfinex filed a memorandum of
opposition against the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
for a second time, calling it "in reality a motion for leave to
start over" after the discovery process had concluded, but in June,
Failla ultimately granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
the second amended complaint.
The lead plaintiffs in this case are U.S.-based crypto traders
Matthew Script, Benjamin Leibowitz, Jason Leibowitz, and Pinchas
Goldshtein, though several other civil class action suits and their
plaintiffs have also joined the case.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to CoinDesk's request
for comment. [GN]
TOMS RIVER'S PARK: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Gaspa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Toms River's Park Avenue South, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-07497 (D.N.J., July 2, 2024), is brought arises from
Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible to
legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's website, https://parkavenuesouthboutique.com,
(the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
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. Defendants Website, and its online
information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar
location. Accessibility is all or nothing. A website is either
accessible or inaccessible. This lawsuit is aimed at providing
legally blind users like Plaintiff a full and equal experience.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, the Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for herself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The access barriers make it impossible
for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the
goods and services at https://parkavenuesouthboutique.com prior to
entering Defendant's physical location, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person.
Marlboro Diamond Castle, LLC, operates the Castlecouturenj.com
online showroom across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Mirai Suit Over Electric Vehicles' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Toyota
faces a proposed class action lawsuit that accuses the automaker of
concealing from consumers the refueling limitations of Toyota Mirai
hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles. Specifically, the 20-page
false advertising lawsuit claims the automaker has sold and leased
the Toyota Mirai, which comes in two trims and is exclusively
available in California, while touting that hydrogen refueling is
"available, seamless, and comparable to refueling with gasoline."
However, Toyota has allegedly failed to mention to drivers that
hydrogen fueling stations are often out of fuel or dysfunctional
thanks to broken equipment or internal issues that prevent them
from accepting the fuel cards provided by Toyota as an incentive
for purchasing the hydrogen-powered vehicles.
In addition, the company has concealed that filling up the Toyota
Mirai with hydrogen fuel -- which may be unavailable for days at a
time -- can take several hours and may result in the pump freezing
onto the vehicle, the case contends. According to the complaint,
drivers in such cases have often been forced to wait more than 30
minutes for the pump to warm up enough to be removed.
The filing asserts that the undisclosed refueling limitations have
rendered the Toyota Mirai "unsafe, unreliable and inoperable" and
forced consumers to travel long distances to find hydrogen fuel or
seek towing services or other transportation when their vehicles
are empty.
Moreover, the lawsuit takes issue with the $15,000 hydrogen fuel
card provided to Toyota Mirai owners, which the automaker purported
would last at least five years. As the suit tells it, thanks to the
skyrocketing price of hydrogen fuel, Mirai drivers' fuel cards have
been exhausted in far shorter periods than represented, leaving
them to cover the cost of their car's pricey fuel out of pocket.
The case goes on to allege that Toyota has also misrepresented the
Mirai's fuel capacity. In particular, the complaint says, the
automaker has stated that the second-generation Mirai XLE has a
fuel capacity of up to 402 miles per tank, while the Mirai Limited
gets approximately 357 miles per tank. Contrary to the
representations, the actual fuel capacities of the Mirai vehicles
are up to 100 miles less than drivers are led to expect, the filing
contests.
Just days after the lawsuit was filed, dozens of scientists,
engineers and academics penned an open letter asking the Paris
Olympics' organizers to replace the Toyota Mirai as the official
vehicle of the Games, claiming it undermines their commitment to
shrink the event's carbon footprint given most of the world's
hydrogen is still derived from fossil fuels.
The Toyota Mirai lawsuit looks to represent all California
residents who purchased or leased Toyota Mirai vehicles from 2021
to 2024. [GN]
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Starks Suit Over Bagels' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------
SHAIANNE STARKS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-05543 (C.D. Cal., June 28, 2024) is a class action
seeking redress for Defendant's false advertising of its "Gluten
Free" Almost Everything Bagels product in violation of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California's
Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's product contains gluten
when the label says the Product is "Gluten Free." The Defendant
knew or should have known that consumers would want to know that
the product contains gluten. The Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class have been deceived as a result of their reliance on
Defendant's material representations. This reliance has caused
economic harm to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
consumers of the Class, each of whom purchased Defendant's product,
says the suit.
Trader Joe's Company is an American chain of grocery stores
headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com
mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
kurt@crosnerlegal.com
TWITTER INC: Parties' Bid to Extend Class Cert Bid Filing Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adler v. Twitter, Inc.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01788 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 13, 2023), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an order denying the parties' request to
extend the class certification filing deadline.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
services.[BN]
UNITED SERVICES: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a
married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION ("USAA"), a
Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting this Application for leave to file under seal
pursuant
to Local Civil Rule 79-5.2.2(a) in its entirety; and
(2) sealing in their entirety Exhibits 6 and 31 to the
Declaration
of Jay Williams in Support of the Defendant's Memorandum in
Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
Exhibit 6 contains highly confidential business information which,
if disclosed, would harm and negatively impact Defendant's
competitive standing, as well as personally identifiable
information ("PII") of insureds that is required to be sealed by
Central District of California Local Civil Rule 5.2-1.
a
Exhibit 31 was filed under seal in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona and has not been unsealed.
Counsel for Plaintiff have stated that they do not have any
objection to sealing Exhibits 6 and 31.
The parties have also agreed that PII should be sealed in exhibits
containing other insureds' information. The Defendant does not have
permission to file Exhibit 31 publicly from the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona and out of an excess of
caution does not want to violate any orders or instructions from
the Roberts court.
This Application is based upon the attached Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, the Declarations of Barbara Gonzalez and Mallory
M. McMahon in Support of the Defendant's Application for Leave to
File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5.2.2(a), and any
documentary or oral evidence that may be introduced at or prior to
any hearing on the Application.
United Services provides insurance and banking products exclusively
to members of the military, veterans and their families.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mJeC0b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
John S. Purcell, Esq.
Douglas E. Hewlett, Jr., Esq.
Jay Williams, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Telephone: (213) 629-7400
Facsimile: (213) 629-7401
E-mail: john.purcell@afslaw.com
douglas.hewlett@afslaw.com
jay.williams@afslaw.com
US STAR TRUCKING: Kovach Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Star Trucking LLC.
The case is styled as Chase Kovach, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. US Star Trucking LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00289-CEA-JEM (E.D. Tenn., July 2, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
US Star Trucking LLC -- https://www.usstartruckingllc.com/ -- is
one of the country's top Auto Transport firms, specializing in the
shipping of privately owned vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Korolinsky, Esq.
AJK Legal
1580 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy, Suite 130
Sunrise, FL 33323
- and -
Chris Gold, Esq.
GOLD LAW, PA
350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
- and -
Christopher Kim Thompson, Esq.
THOMPSON LAW
4525 Harding Pike, Ste. 203
Nashville, TN 37205
Phone: (615) 620-4329
Fax: (615) 620-4488
Email: kim@thompsonslawoffice.com
VESTIS SERVICES: Ramos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LANA RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VESTIS SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV12167, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on June 28, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-05513 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class of persons
employed by Defendant: "All current and former non-exempt employees
of Defendant in the State of California who were paid overtime
wages at any time from May 14, 2023, through the present." She
alleges one cause of action for wage statement penalties based on
the alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements under
California Labor Code.
Vestis Services, LLC offers uniforms and workplace supplies.[BN]
Defendant Vestis Services, LLC is represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
- and -
Thomas Duda, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
Telephone: (650) 843-4000
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
E-mail: thomas.duda@morganlewis.com
VIRGINIA: Puryear Files Suit For Being Detained Past Release Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Mirshahi, writing for ABC 8News, reports that Virginia's
Department of Corrections is facing a federal class-action lawsuit
from a man who claims he was imprisoned more than a year past his
expected release date because it incorrectly applied a law -- a
case his attorney says could impact hundreds.
Leslie Puryear was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery,
burglary, use of a firearm in a felony, accessory after the fact
and attempted robbery. With his convictions suspended apart from
attempted robbery and use of a firearm charge, Puryear was
sentenced to 18 years in 2011.
Puryear was initially told he would be released within 60 days of
July 1, 2022, after earning credits to reduce his sentence under an
amended law that was set to take effect that allowed some
incarcerated people to earn credits at a faster rate, the lawsuit
alleges.
But he wasn't released until November 2023, because the department
incorrectly interpreted that the law excluded people with the type
of charges Puryear had, the suit claims, even after the Supreme
Court of Virginia had ruled they weren't.
"Despite the statute's unambiguous text and the Supreme Court of
Virginia's ruling, VADOC continued to detain people convicted of
inchoate offenses, including the proposed class here: people with
inchoate offenses convictions related to robbery and carjacking,"
the lawsuit alleges.
Puryear and others with similar convictions "remained in prison for
weeks or months after they were entitled to release, separating
them from their families, livelihoods, and communities," the suit
claims.
"It was devastating," Puryear told 8News last year, almost two
weeks after his release. "It was devastating to not only me but to
my loved ones as well because we had a lot of plans."
The number of people potentially affected is unclear, but Puryear's
legal team told 8News it could be dozens or hundreds.
Rebecca Livengood, an attorney at the civil rights law firm Relman
Colfax representing Puryear, pointed to the corrections department
announcing in December 2023 that it released 31 people in similar
situations and that over 150 people had similar convictions as
Puryear.
Livengood said they "will have to learn through discovery" what the
actual size of the class is, but it could be in the thirties on the
small end or potentially hundreds.
VADOC's average daily population dropped by more than 600 between
October 2023 and December 2023, per the lawsuit. This number, the
lawsuit alleges, potentially reflects the release of people who
were previously denied the credits they earned.
Virginia's earned sentence credit program allows certain
incarcerated people to earn credits to trim time off their
sentence. They take part in work and educational training programs
and must follow prison rules.
To earn his credits, Puryear completed mental health and job
readiness programs and more, including mentoring and coaching
others on how to resolve disputes, the lawsuit states. He was
considered "a leader and exemplar of good behavior" by other
incarcerated people and by prison staff and led group discussions
between incarcerated individuals and prison staff, per the suit.
A 2020 bill to expand how many credits an incarcerated person can
earn was set to take effect in July 2022, but budget language from
Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) that lawmakers approved limited who was
eligible for the enhanced credit program.
How the corrections department interpreted the law with the budget
language led to lawsuits challenging its policies towards granting
the credits.
This includes a case in which the Virginia Supreme Court ordered
the release of a man convicted of attempted aggravated murder after
finding his conviction for an attempted crime did not exclude him
from earning enhanced credits.
Citing this ruling, Puryear filed a petition challenging his
continued imprisonment. At first, VADOC sought to have the petition
dismissed by a judge before releasing Puryear on Nov. 9, 2023,
before the court weighed in on the motion to dismiss.
"VADOC said it would retroactively credit all such individuals with
expanded ESCs and release those eligible," the lawsuit states. "By
this time, however, much damage was done."
Virginia Supreme Court orders release of Steven Prease, who
challenged earned sentence credit rollback
Puryear filed the class-action lawsuit against the department's
current director, Harold Clarke, and former leader, Chadwick
Dotson, bringing the case forward on behalf of himself and others.
"VADOC's policy and practice of over-detention caused class
members, including Mr. Puryear, significant injuries, including but
not limited to the deprivation of their constitutional rights,
emotional distress, and loss of economic opportunity," the
class-action lawsuit claims.
Puryear missed out on his son's graduation and the birth of his
grandson, the lawsuit states. He also had a truck driver job lined
up when he was set to get out in July 2022, but it was no longer
available when he was out in November 2023, the lawsuit alleges.
"Instead, Mr. Puryear has been forced to work two lower-paying jobs
to support his family," the suit states. "The injury of loss of job
opportunities is common to the class members who experience
over-detention."
Clarke asked the then-Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D)
and current Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) for advisory
opinions on how to apply the changes to the earned sentence credit
law, per the lawsuit.
"In spite of twice seeking opinions on alleged ambiguities in the
statute, Defendant Clarke never sought an opinion about any of the
offenses relevant to Mr. Puryear or the class," the lawsuit
claims.
The lawsuit accuses VADOC of cruel and unusual punishment, false
imprisonment and violating due process for keeping Puryear and
others imprisoned and not granting them the sentence credits they
earned.
The suit seeks the court to allow the impacted class to
collectively sue, compensatory damages to be determined by a jury,
attorney fees and a declaratory judgment finding VADOC violated the
plaintiff's rights.
"I think suits like this are really critical for accountability,"
Livengood told 8News in an interview. "The Department of Correction
failed to implement a clear law that required release. And as a
consequence of that many people lost a significant part of the life
that they could have lived."
Spokespeople for VADOC and Attorney General Miyares' office
declined to comment on the pending litigation. [GN]
ZARA REALTY: Ramadhar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
INDRANAUTH RAMADHAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZARA REALTY HOLDING CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04589 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendant's systematic late and/or unpaid minimum and/or overtime
wages for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant intentionally, willfully
and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or policy of
violating the FLSA and NYLL including but not limited to: a)
failing to pay promptly, timely and completely Plaintiff and the
others the minimum wage for all hours worked in each discrete work
week; and b) failing to pay promptly, timely and completely
Plaintiff and the others one and one half times their regular rates
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week in each
discrete work week.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a full-time building
superintendent from March 2016 until June 14, 2024.
Zara Realty Holding Corp. is an apartment rental agency in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Telephone: (646) 393-9550
*********
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 ***