/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240726.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 150 Headlines 1ST SECURITY: Fails to Pay Guard's OT Wages, Mooring Says ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Levy Says AMERICAN FAMILY: Underpays Insurance Claims, Zubia Alleges ANN & ROBERT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges ARIAT INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says AT&T INC: Fails the Protect Employees', Patients' Info, Jones Says ATHLETIC GREENS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says ATLAS OIL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Heard Suit Says AVO MANAGEMENT: Disabled Can't Access Property, Brito Suit Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Weinraub Sues Over Excessive Insurance Charges BUILDING SERVICES: Miller Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA BYTEDANCE INC: Parties Seeks to Continue Zoom Class Cert Hearing CALERES INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Claims CARNIVAL CORP: Swearingen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 18 CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Manderbach Inc. Says CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks to Exclude Expert Opinions CERTEGY PAYMENT: Extension of Remaining Deadlines Sought CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Medina Says CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Trinity Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to D. Minn. CHARLES CONTRACTORS: Rios Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Masons CHIMNEY BOYS: Miller Seeks Unlawfully Retained Tips Under FLSA CIGNA GROUP: Faces Hecht Class Suit Over In-Network Maintenance CROCS RETAIL: Smith Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments Under NYLL CVS PHARMACY: Spiegel-Grim Sues Over Pretzel Twists' Yogurt Label DAVIESS COUNTY, KY: No Class Status for Sex Offender's Suit DIRECT GENERAL: Turizo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections DOCTORS CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wynn Alleges E.I. DU PONT: Class Cert. Opening Brief in Banks Set for August 19 EMTB LLC: Williams Alleges Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Taking of Tips ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Bid for Conditional Class Cert OK'd ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Parties Seek Oct. 14 Class Cert Bid Filing EVOLUTION MUSIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ramos Says EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Huff Says FAMOUS DAVE'S: Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds Okayed FRONTIER COMM: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, McHenry Says GOLD N' DIAMONDS: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. GORIS MINI: Fails to Properly Pay Cooks, Sanchez Suit Alleges GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Faces Golani Class Suit Over Leasebreak Fees HEARST TV: Saunders Bid to Compel Production of Documents Tossed HEARTLAND HOME: Atkins Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees HINGE OF STATEN ISLAND: Sanchez Suit Hits Unlawful Labor Practices HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Underpays Healthcare Providers, Frank Says INNOVAGE HOLDING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Opposition INNOVATIVE SERVICES: Faces Carreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wis. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Parties Seeks to Modify Class Cert Brief Sched JENNIFER BEHR: Karim Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website KASEYA HOLDINGS: Rodriguez Sues Over Discrimination, Mass Layoffs KENVUE INC: Band-Aid Bandage Contains Toxin PFAS, Badilla Alleges KREATION JUICERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Futrell Alleges LAKE PARK: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Feltzin Says LEO LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Tosses Turner Bid for Class Certification LITTLETON AUTO: Fredrickson, Ross Withdrawn as Attorneys LM MANUFACTURING: Underpays Forklift Drivers, Tannyhill Suit Says LORRAINE E. SCHWARTZ: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gyani Sues Over Deceptive "Be Planet" Campaign M.A. FORD: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Hays Claims MA.LI.DA. USA: Baum Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections MAJOR FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hernandez Suit Says MCKINSEY & CO: Faces San Miguel RICO Suit Over Opioids Sale MDL 2358: Rejection of Class Cert. Bid Up for Interlocutory Appeal MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in LD v. BoA Gets Initial Nod MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in PABFC v. BoA Gets Initial Nod MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Philadelphia vs BoA Wins Initial OK MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in PSTPRFC v. BoA Gets Initial OK MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Tera Group v. BoA Gets Initial OK MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in trueEX v. BoA Gets Initial Nod MDL 3014: Court Rules on Several Motions Over MSA MEDELA LLC: Infant Bottle Product Not BPA Free, Felsenthal Says MEDIBASE GROUP: De Santiago Sues Over Patients' Compromised Info MEDIBASE GROUP: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Girenko Says MERCURY FINANCIAL: Monaghan Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT: Damare Class Cert Bid Denied w/ Prejudice MIGUEL GOMEZ: Bryant Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge MONGODB INC: Faces Baxter Suit Over Drop in Share Price MORTGAGE RESEARCH: Warnock Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 14 NATIONAL FREIGHT: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Nov. 22 NEW ORLEANS ARCHDIOCESE: Disabled Kids' Lawsuit Exempt from Stay NEXTCARE HOLDINGS: Begay Sues Over Data Privacy Violations NICHOLS LUMBER: Faces Trujillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Says OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Seeks to Certify Hourly-Paid Employees Class PACIFIC MARITIME: Fowler Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Parties Seek Final OK of Settlement Deal PATELCO CREDIT: Warren Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info PAYCHEX INC: Stevenson Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info PBGS LTD: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Feltzin Says PEACEHEALTH: Faces Smith Discrimination Suit PEORIA, IL: Public Roads Inaccessible to Disabled, Yarbrough Says PERDUE FOODS: Parker Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia PERFECT THING II: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ramos Says PET CONCEPTS: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties PHILIPS NORTH: Perez Sues Over Mislabeled Avent Bottle Products PLAYA BOWLS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says PLAZA LA MER: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Feltzin Says PRAIRIE STATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tilley Alleges R.I.S. PROPERTIES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Feltzin Says REDBIRD CONTENT: Sequoia Sues Over Non Performance of Obligations REFRESH CLUB: Court Awards Pietrangelo $3K in Damages RETAIL ENERGY: Lyman Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona RICE DRILLING: Must Oppose Gregor Class Cert Bid by August 15 RIFLE LLC: DelaCruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RONIN STAFFING: Walker Sues Over Illegal Background Check SEVILLE WASH: Underpays Car Wash Attendants/Detailers, Sorto Says SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bowers Alleges SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Simpson Sues Over Income Share Agreement SPECIALIZED LOAN: Simon Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Claims STAT COURIER: Jemison Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification SUN TECHNICAL: Jimerson Suit Removed to S.D. California TEXAS CHILI: Ramirez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages TICKETMASTER LLC: Miller Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Parties Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal TIKTOK INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal TOYOTA MOTOR: Caluwe Sues Over Lack of Hydrogen Fuel Stations TWITTER INC: Adler Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid TWITTER INC: Turkal Suit Removed to N.D. California UHG I LLC: Court Dismisses Pochan Suit Over Classified Info UNITED STATES STEEL: Shaffer Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cole Alleges VALVE CORPORATION: Court Renotes Class Cert Bid to August 12 WALMART INC: Discloses Users' Video Habits to Facebook, Brown Says WHALECO INC: King Files TCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation ********* 1ST SECURITY: Fails to Pay Guard's OT Wages, Mooring Says --------------------------------------------------------- DARQUELL MOORING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1st SECURITY SERVICES OF OHIO, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01168 (N.D. Ohio, July 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's policies and/or practices with regard to the Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant typically required its security guard employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. The Plaintiff was required to perform "off-the-clock" duties, including continuing to secure a location while waiting for a relief security guard to appear for work, completing paperwork, and briefing the relieving security guard, the suit says. The time that Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards spent completing these pre-and post-liminary duties without pay was more than de minimis. In weeks when the Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards worked more than 40 hours (inclusive of time worked "off-the-clock"), which occurred frequently, this requirement resulted in a violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions under 29 U.S.C. section 207, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks all damages available under the law, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, recoverable costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which he may be entitled. The Plaintiff was a security guard employee of Defendant who worked in and around Cleveland, Ohio from July 2023 until October 2023. The Defendant is a security and facilities management company that provides uniformed security and mobile patrol services, asset protection management, event security, and electronic surveillance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street #700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Levy Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEVY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00404-FL (E.D.N.C., July 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard his and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information. Around mid-April 2024, an unauthorized party hacked into the Defendant's cloud storage vendor, Snowflake, Inc., and obtained the PII of current and former employees of the Defendant, and approximately 380 million customer profiles, including the Plaintiff's. The PII that was obtained by the hackers include, at a minimum, customers' names, emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses. Further exacerbating the injuries of the Plaintiff and the Class, as of the date of this filing, the Defendant has still never formally informed any customers of the nature and extent of the Data Breach. Instead, the Plaintiff learned his PII was compromised when he heard about the Data Breach through online articles and then, after attempting to log into his online account with the Defendant, he was alerted by Google that the account's password had been part of a data breach, which was frightening and unnerving, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant has offered insufficient assurances that all PII, passwords, or other personal data personal have been recovered or destroyed. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct as the PII collected and maintained is now in the hands of cyber criminals and other unauthorized third parties, the suit adds. The Defendant is a retailer of automotive parts with approximately 4,777 stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com emaginnis@carolinalaw.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Underpays Insurance Claims, Zubia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO ZUBIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I.; JANE DOES I-X; JOHN DOES I-X; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X; XYZ PARTNERSHIPS; and ABC LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION I-X, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01711-ASB (D. Ariz., July 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant chose to calculate actual cash value ("ACV") pursuant to the replacement cost less depreciation methodology, as opposed to a fair market value approach. According to the complaint, the Defendant's sole methodology for calculating the ACV of structural damage losses in Arizona, including the Plaintiff's Claim, was to estimate the cost to repair or replace the damage with new materials (replacement cost value, or "RCV"), and then to subtract depreciation. In adjusting the Plaintiff's Claim, the Defendant affirmatively and unilaterally chose to use this "replacement cost less depreciation" methodology to calculate the loss and to make its ACV payment. Defendant did not use any other methodology to calculate the Plaintiff's ACV payment or the payments of the putative class members. The Defendant's failure to pay the full cost of the future labor necessary to return the Insured Property and the putative class members' structures to the status quo ante left the Plaintiff and the putative class members under-indemnified and underpaid for their respective losses. The Defendant materially breached its duty to indemnify by withholding future labor costs associated with repairing or replacing the Insured Property in its ACV payments as "depreciation," thereby paying the Plaintiff less than what was supposed to be paid under the terms of the Policy, the suit asserts. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. specialize in personal and commercial property/casualty insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel J. Chapa, Esq. Arturo Gonzalez, Esq. CHAPA LAW GROUP, PC 3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1860 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 266-9006 Email: mchapa@chapalawgroup.com agonzalez@chaplawgroup.com efile@chapalawgroup.com ANN & ROBERT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- T.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by his parent and guardian, AMY MANZ, Plaintiff v. ANN & ROBERT H. LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05759 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information, from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago provides medical and surgical hospital services to children. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBER COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com ARIAT INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05225 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.ariat.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ariat International, Inc. retails footwear and apparels. The Company operates an online platform that offers t-shirts, shirts, hoodies, vests, shorts, skirts, sweaters, jackets, shoes, caps, belts, gloves, wallets, socks, scarves, tops, and accessories for men, women, and kids. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal AT&T INC: Fails the Protect Employees', Patients' Info, Jones Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01766-X (N.D. Tex., July 11, 2024) contends that AT&T failed to protect patients' and employees' Private Information from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack. In March 2024, AT&T publicly disclosed that it had suffered one of the largest and most consequential data breaches in U.S. history, compromising the sensitive personal information of approximately 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former AT&T customers. As a result of AT&T's failure to implement adequate data security practices, the Plaintiffs and millions of Class Members allegedly suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their uncompensated time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the diminution in value of their personal information from its exposure, and the present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. Plaintiff Jones is an individual who had her PII exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach. AT&T is a telecommunications company that provides wireless voice, messaging, and data services along with mobile phones and accessories.[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 - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com kpowell@tousley.com ATHLETIC GREENS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHLETIC GREENS (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05194 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://drinkag1.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Athletic Greens (USA), Inc. produces nutritional supplements. The Company provides a nutrition drink designed to remove the friction from covering the daily nutritional needs of a modern diet. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal ATLAS OIL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Heard Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT HEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLAS OIL COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-11797-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., July 11, 2024) seeks to hold Atlas responsible for the injuries inflicted on the Plaintiff and 500 similarly situated persons due to Atlas's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on May 5, 2024. The exfiltrated data included personal identifying information ("PII") like full names, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, payroll information, passports, driver's licenses, and "other identifying information." According to the complaint, Atlas failed to provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries. The identities of the Plaintiff and Class Members are in jeopardy -- all because of Atlas's negligence. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members will also likely suffer additional financial costs for purchasing necessary credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the lawsuit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief -- including improvements to Atlas's data security systems and employee cybersecurity training, future annual audits, and adequate identity and credit monitoring services funded by Atlas. Atlas is a Michigan-based oil company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com AVO MANAGEMENT: Disabled Can't Access Property, Brito Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and FRITANGA NAIARA CORP d/b/a FRITANGA XOLOTLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22696 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its property, as prohibited by the ADA. The Defendants' property has architectural barriers in parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. As a result of the aforementioned discrimination through repeated exposure to architectural barriers, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, discrimination, injury and damage, says the suit. Avo Management Services, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator located at 6905 W. 12th Avenue Hialeah, Florida. Fritanga Naiara Corp, doing business as Fritanga Xolotlan, is a commercial restaurant owner and operator located at 6905 W. 12th Avenue Hialeah, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com BANK OF AMERICA: Weinraub Sues Over Excessive Insurance Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WEINRAUB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80825 (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its breach of its duties as professional trustee of a trust containing residential real property. In the course of administering the trust of which Plaintiff is a beneficiary, BofA has allegedly engaged in a practice of overcharging the trust by selecting unnecessary and/or excessive insurance for the property. A professional trustee owes fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries of a trust it administers, and BofA's practice violates those duties, resulting in a breach of trust, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages he sustained as a result of BofA's breach of trust in obtaining excessive and exploitative insurance products. He also seeks injunctive relief to preclude this unfair practice going forward, plus recompense for the costs of this lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees. Bank of America, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esq. Christina H. Martinez, Esq PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 E-mail: srosenthal@podhurst.com cmartinez@podhurst.com - and - John G. Crabtree, Esq. Charles M. Auslander, Esq. Brian Tackenberg, Esq. CRABTREE & AUSLANDER, LLC 240 Crandon Boulevard Suite 101 Key Biscayne, FL 33149 Telephone: (305) 361-3770 E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com causlander@crabtreelaw.com btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com floridaservice@crabtreelaw.com BUILDING SERVICES: Miller Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MILLER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BUILDING SERVICES INC., MICHAEL A. GOMEZ, and VIVIAN GOMEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-04814 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff premium overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, the Defendants paid Plaintiff for all hours worked each workweek, including those worked after 40 hours per workweek, at his regular rate of pay, the suit asserts. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons who have worked for Defendants as custodial workers in the State of New York "on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned" as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a custodial worker since 2014. Building provides custodial and cleaning services for commercial customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com BYTEDANCE INC: Parties Seeks to Continue Zoom Class Cert Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG and ASHLEY VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC., and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order converting the in-person hearing noticed for Aug. 15, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. on Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification to a Zoom hearing to be held on Aug. 22, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for the Plaintiff has an existing commitment on that Aug. 15, 2024, that cannot be adjusted. The parties have met-and-conferred and agreed to request that the Court reschedule the Motion to Deny Class Certification to Aug. 22, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference, and that the present briefing schedule shall remain unchanged. ByteDance operates as a multinational internet technology holding company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eW6gWU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 697-1509 E-mail: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com khoward@stevenwilliamslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren M. Blas, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA, 90071-3197 CALERES INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Caleres, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03042 (E.D. Pa., July 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to make its website, https://www.allenedmonds.com, accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, on April 1, 2024 he made an attempt to purchase sneakers or a similar alternative from the Defendant. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff allegedly faced numerous accessibility issues while browsing the site, making the experience difficult and uncomfortable. Due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as the Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services the Defendant offers to the public on its Website, the suit asserts. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.2 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, the suit adds. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Gomberg is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Caleres is an American footwear company that owns and operates a variety of footwear brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Glanzberg, Esq. Robert Tobia, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C. 123 South Broad Street Suite 1640, Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 981-5400 E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com CARNIVAL CORP: Swearingen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ GARAMIAH SWEARINGEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00065-WLS (M.D. Ga., July 3, 2024) arises from Defendant's violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper and lawful minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiff Swearingen was employed by the Defendant as a fun expert since October of 2021 who is responsible for a number of duties, including, but not limited to: handling incoming calls relating to customers and guests experiencing technical issues; handling incoming sales calls from consumers interest in booking a cruise vacation; generally troubleshooting technical issues which occur on Carnival's computing platforms, such as the Carnival website, Travel Agent Portal, FunShops, online check-in, and the Pre-Sale portal. Carnival Corporation owns and operates a business specializing in entertainment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq. THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC 152 New Street, Suite 109B Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (404) 944-3128 E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08332 (D.N.J., Filed Nov. 30, 2015), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff will prepare and serve on Defense counsel (but not file with the Court) the moving papers by August 9, 2024. -- Thereafter, the Defense will prepare and serve on Plaintiff's counsel (but not file with the Court) the opposition papers by Oct. 11, 2024. -- The Plaintiff will file the moving, opposition, and reply papers with the Court by Oct. 18, 2024, and serve a copy of the reply papers on the Defense. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's request for additional time to move for class certification, as well as Defendant's opposition. The Court is satisfied that there is good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 for a final, modest extension of the deadline to move for class certification, and that further modifications of the briefing schedule can alleviate any prejudice to the Defense. However, Plaintiff is cautioned there will be no further extensions for any reason. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Cavalry is a debt collection agency.[CC] CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Manderbach Inc. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE D. MANDERBACH, INC. d/b/a MANDERBACH FORD; DLR AUTO GROUP LLC; SMITH COLLISION CENTER; and BROADWAY PRECISION COLLISION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05924 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2024) is an action arising out of the Defendant's failure to maintain adequate data security measures, which led to the foreseeable event of a data breach followed by the foreseeable injuries inflicted on the many automotive businesses that rely on the Defendant's dealer management system. According to the complaint, on June 18 and June 19, 2022, the Defendant suffered two cybersecurity incidents (the "Data Breaches"). For more than two weeks after the Data Breaches, automotive businesses like Plaintiffs, who use the Defendant's services, were unable to process sales and suffered delays in processing service requests and ordering parts, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary losses and irreparable reputational harm. CDK Global LLC provides integrated information technology and digital marketing solutions. The Company offers solutions that automate and integrate critical workflow processes from pre-sale targeted advertising and marketing campaigns to the sale, financing, insurance, parts supply, and repair and maintenance of vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Email: beth@feganscott.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Anthony Rogari, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com arogari@girardsharp.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Email: jshub@shublawyers.com CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks to Exclude Expert Opinions -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURORA ASTRO PRODUCTS LLC, PIONEER CYCLING & FITNESS, LLP, and those similarly situated, v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., SYNTA CANADA INT'L ENTERPRISES LTD., SW TECHNOLOGY CORP., OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON USA, LLC, NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTOELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., PACIFIC TELESCOPE CORP., COREY LEE, DAVID SHEN, SYLVIA SHEN, JACK CHEN, JEAN SHEN, JOSEPH LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON, LAURENCE HUEN, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Sept. 5, 2024, will move the Court for an order striking the declaration and excluding the opinions of Plaintiffs' expert Dr. J. Douglas Zona, Ph.D. in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, on the grounds that his report, and the opinions and analyses, are unreliable and irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and related authorities. The motion is based on the Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Court records and files in this action, and on such other argument and evidence as may be presented to the Court at or prior to the hearing on this Motion. As clearly evidenced by Kaplan's Report, Dr. Zona's opinions are not admissible because they are not based on reliable methodology. He failed to control for demand in his before-and-after regression analysis, a critical error that renders his findings unreliable. Dr. Zona's omission of a demand variable is a significant flaw in his methodology, as it can lead to omitted variable bias, where the regression results could attribute higher prices to the alleged anticompetitive conduct when, in fact, they are explained by changes in demand levels. Dr. Zona's customer-specific regression analysis is similarly flawed due to the exclusion of a demand variable and an unexplained adjustment to the prediction of but-for prices. Celestron offers telescope parts, optics, astrophotography, binoculars, spotting scopes, and digital microscopes. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oTmHEE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. John Maatta, Esq. Joshua Stambaugh, Esq. Lawrence J.H. Liu, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 E-mail: chris@frostllp.com john@frostllp.com josh@frostllp.com lawrence@frostllp.com - and - Shauna A. Izadi, Esq. IZADI LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 13155 Noel Rd, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75240 E-mail: sizadi@izadilegal.com CERTEGY PAYMENT: Extension of Remaining Deadlines Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY STACHEWICZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTEGY PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day extension on the fact discovery deadline and a similar extension on the corresponding deadlines. The Parties request that the Court enter an Order extending the remaining deadlines as follows: Event Current Requested Deadline Deadline Completion of fact discovery Aug. 2, 2024 Oct. 1, 2024 Defendant's deadline to Aug. 13, 2024 Sept. 13, 2024 designate trial experts Deadline to complete depositions Sept. 6, 2024 Oct. 6, 2024 of Defendant's experts. Deadline for Plaintiff to file Aug. 16, 2024 Oct. 15, 2024 motion for class certification Defendant to file opposition Sept. 16, 2024 Nov. 15, 2024 to class certification Deadline to file reply in Oct. 4, 2024 Dec. 3, 2024 support of class certification Deadline to file dispositive Nov. 15, 2024 Dec. 17, 2024 motions The parties are working diligently on discovery in this purported nationwide class action. To date, both parties have completed document productions and provided responses to written discovery. In addition, Certegy has issued multiple third-party subpoenas for both document productions and third-party depositions, with the parties in the process of reviewing those responses. In addition, the parties have held multiple meet and confer conferences to discuss the content of prior discovery responses, the status of third-party subpoenas, and details regarding the discovery of purported class member information. Certegy is a specialty credit reporting agency. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=70Qw67 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Erin E. Edwards, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 759-1665 E-mail: Erin.Edwards@troutman.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Medina Says --------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC. and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Case No. 0:24-cv-02353-DWF-DJF (E.D. Cal., July 11, 2024) sues the Defendants for their negligent failure to protect the Plaintiff and Class members' confidential health and personal identifying information from ALPHV/Blackcat ("Blackcat"), a well-known group of cybercriminals. On Feb. 21, 2024, Blackcat infiltrated Defendants' information technology networks and then stole for ransom the confidential personal identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") of millions of patients across the United States. The stolen information includes names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security Numbers, medical and dental records, insurance records, and claims and payment information, among other things. Blackcat also encrypted portions of the Defendants' network, essentially locking them out. In response to the security breach, the Defendants immediately took their network systems offline -- and three weeks later -- they remain offline. According to a statement from Change Healthcare, the systems "will remain offline until [they] can be turned back on safely." The security breach and shutdown has crippled the U.S. healthcare system and has negatively impacted patients, hospital systems, physicians, clinical social workers, and both private and government-owned pharmacies, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and violations of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, against the Defendants and seeks all available monetary and equitable relief. Ms. Rebecca Medina is a resident and citizen of Sutter Creek, California in Amador County. Change Healthcare is a healthcare technology company that offers health care providers, pharmacies, and insurance companies claims and reimbursement management, billing solutions, and prescription processing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Steven Lopez, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Trinity Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to D. Minn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TRINITY MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00674, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 12, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-02352-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to timely and adequately process and pay the amounts due to medical providers for their services, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Trinity Medical Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider in Alabama. Change Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare services and support company with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr., Esq. Adam W. Pittman, Esq. CORYWATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 Email: jtapley@corywatson.com ddellacio@corywatson.com apittman@corywatson.com - and - David J. Hodge, Esq. MORRIS, KING & HODGE, P.C. 200 Pratt Avenue, NE Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 536-0588 Facsimile: (256) 533-1504 Email: dhodge@mkhlawyers.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 Email: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com CHARLES CONTRACTORS: Rios Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Masons ------------------------------------------------------------ GUSTAVO RIOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION and CARLOS PAUCAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04843 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a mason in Jamaica, New York from approximately February 2022 until September 2023. Charles Contractors Corporation is a construction firm based in Jamaica, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 CHIMNEY BOYS: Miller Seeks Unlawfully Retained Tips Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHIMNEY BOYS LLC d/b/a TOASTY'S TAVERN, LIL TOASTY'S L.L.C., NATHAN P. STURDEVANT, STEPHEN M. FILIP, and AARON CHADWELL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00404-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 12, 2024) seeks to recover unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the FLSA because they unlawfully required tipped employees to share tips with members of management. The Defendants violated the KWHA because they unlawfully required tipped employees to participate in a tip pool whereby employees were required to remit their tips to the pool for distribution among other employees, supervisors, and members of management, in violation of KRS 337.065. Since opening, the Defendants mandated participation in a tip pool for all front and back of house staff. Prior to July 1, 2022, the Defendants' mandatory tip pool policy was per se unlawful under Kentucky law. What's more, the Defendants permitted managers to unlawfully raid the tip pool for years, resulting in daily wage theft from Toasty's workers. This class and collective action seeks redress for the Defendants' illegal tip pooling practices and failure to comply with record keeping requirements, says the suit. The Plaintiff and those she seeks to represent in this action are current and former employees of the Defendants at its Toasty's Tavern restaurant in Louisville, Kentucky, who were required to participate in a mandatory tip pool including servers, bussers, bartenders, food runners, delivery persons, cooks, dishwashers, etc. ("Tipped Employees"). The Defendants employed Plaintiff at its Toasty's Tavern restaurant in Louisville, Kentucky located at 1258 S. Shelby St., Louisville, KY 40203 from September 2021 through July 2022. Toasty's offers hot dogs, sandwiches & fries, plus cocktails & beer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: sasha@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com CIGNA GROUP: Faces Hecht Class Suit Over In-Network Maintenance --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Hecht and Andrea Hecht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cigna Group, Case No. 1:24-cv-05926 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2024) alleges that Cigna violates federal law in connection with its practices related to its maintenance and communication of in-network provider information. The lawsuit says that the Defendant maintains that the treatment Mr. Hecht and his dependent son received was subject to in-network coverage, but the provider disagrees. The Defendant has not remedied the discrepancy and, as a result, the Plaintiffs have incurred substantial unanticipated costs and suffered a significant decline in their credit scores. Mr. Hecht began working at Epiq in mid-July 2021. Before he qualified for benefits with his new employer, the Hecht family bridged the transition from his old plan with health insurance under a Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act plan. On Oct. 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs received bills from Edward for the services provided to Mr. Hecht and Plaintiffs' older son ("R."). The statements indicated that Edward was not an in-network provider for the Plan. However, when Plaintiffs checked the Explanation of Benefits ("EOB") documents for the visits on Defendant's website, the EOBs indicated that Edward was an in-network provider and the services for both visits should have been billed as in-network. The next day, Oct. 24, 2021, Mr. Hecht called the Defendant's recorded line to get clarification as to why the hospital was billing him as out-of-network, when the EOBs on Defendant's website represented that Edward was in-network. Throughout their communications regarding the discrepancies, the Defendant has consistently represented to the Plaintiffs that Edward is in-network, and that the services Mr. Hecht and R. received were in-network, the suit alleges. Further, the family is already under financial pressure due to medical debts incurred for their youngest son's treatment for leukemia, and in February 2024, the Plaintiffs had to take out a Home Equity Line of Credit ("HELOC") loan to manage the medical debts incurred in connection with B's treatment. In reliance on Defendant's consistent confirmation that Edward was in-network and the Plaintiffs were only responsible for the in-network balances the Plaintiffs already paid to Edward, the Plaintiffs the have not made any further payments to Edward. The balance that Edward claims the Plaintiffs owe remains in dispute, asserts the suit. Plaintiffs Andrew Hecht and Andrea Hecht are a married couple who reside in DuPage County, Illinois. The Plaintiffs and their minor children have health insurance under a plan sponsored by Mr. Hecht's employer and administered by the Defendant, the LocalPlus Medical Benefits Health Savings Account Consumer Driven Plan. Cigna is a health service company that offers integrated health plans and services such as medical, dental, life, and accident insurance and related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC 230 E. Ohio St., Suite 410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (815) 999-9130 E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com - and - Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq. Margaret M. Schuchardt, Esq. Catherine Lusk, Esq. JASZCZUK P.C. 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 442-0509 E-mail: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com clusk@jaszczuk.com CROCS RETAIL: Smith Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments Under NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- NASIH SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CROCS RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 612299/2024 (N.Y. Sup., July 12, 2024) seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed by the Defendant between Jan. 15, 2017 and Dec. 8, 2023 pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Defendant has allegedly compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL Article 6 section 191, the suit says. The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for himself, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, compensation owed -- plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs -- owing to Defendant's illegal pay practices. Mr. Smith worked in an hourly, non-exempt position, where he would typically perform physical tasks for more than 25% of his workday. The Plaintiff says he was compensated every other week by the Defendant throughout the entirety of his employment, and in so doing was time and again injured by Defendant's failure to pay him timely wages, in as much as the Defendant's conduct routinely deprived him on a temporary basis of monies he had earned. Crocs Retail, LLC manufactures and sells non athletic footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 CVS PHARMACY: Spiegel-Grim Sues Over Pretzel Twists' Yogurt Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA SPIEGEL-GRIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04860 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 349 and 350 of New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Gold Emblem Yogurt Pretzel Twists product line. The Defendant's labeling and marketing of the product suggests that it contains yogurt and is healthy to consumer. In reality, the product is covered in a candy-like coating designed to provide the illusion of health while delivering the harms of an ultra-processed food. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known that the product does not contain yogurt, they would not have purchased or, at the very least, would not have paid a price premium for it, says the suit. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a retailer with its principal place of business in Rhode Island.. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Denlea, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Catherine H. Friesen, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 331-0100 Facsimile: (914) 331-0105 Email: jdenlea@denleacarton.com jcarton@denleacarton.com cfriesen@denleacarton.com DAVIESS COUNTY, KY: No Class Status for Sex Offender's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOE DOE, on behalf of himself, PLAINTIFF v. JOHN BURLEW, in his official capacity as Daviess County Attorney, and on behalf of all County Attorneys in their official capacities, DEFENDANT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-00045-GNS ((W.D. Ky.), Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification, holding that Doe has not satisfied the numerosity or adequacy requirements. During the 2024 legislative session, the Kentucky General Assembly passed and Governor Andy Beshear signed into law Senate Bill 249. This law requires persons on the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry who committed a criminal offense against a minor to use their full legal name on social media platforms. Joe Doe asserts two claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights under the First Amendment. In particular, Doe asserts that the challenged law violates his right to speak anonymously and is unconstitutionally overbroad. Doe moves for certification of a plaintiff class and a defendant class. Burlew opposes the motion. The parties' arguments primarily concern the propriety of a defendant class certification in this case. Doe concedes that because he resides in Daviess County, he has only a claim against Burlew, but Doe asserts he still may sue every County Attorney based on the judicial link doctrine. To satisfy Article III's "Cases" or "Controversies" requirement, plaintiffs may only sue when they have standing -- that is, when they have suffered a redressable injury that is traceable to each defendant. In the name of efficiency, the judicial link doctrine (or juridical link doctrine) allows "named plaintiffs [to] bring a class action against some defendants who did not injure them if the class members would have standing and if the named plaintiff can meet Rule 23's requirements." In Fox v. Saginaw Cnty., 67 F.4th 284, 292-93 (6th Cir. 2023), however, the Sixth Circuit expressly rejected the judicial link doctrine. The Sixth Circuit rejected Fox's argument, explaining that standing requirements apply equally to class actions and that the judicial link doctrine conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and separation of powers. Doe argues that despite Fox, he can still rely on the judicial link doctrine because First Amendment overbreadth challenges offer greater historical support for the doctrine than Fox's claim did. The Court points out all Doe offers to support this contention is a passing reference to the fact that overbreadth challenges allow a court to "relax certain standing doctrines." The Sixth Circuit has held, however, that any standing exceptions available in overbreadth challenges do not apply to the injury-in-fact requirement. Because Doe has not been injured by the other Kentucky County Attorneys and Fox prohibits him from relying on the injuries of a plaintiff class to establish standing, Doe's motion to certify the class of defendants is denied, the Court holds. Doe also moves to certify a plaintiff class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). According to the Court, Doe's motion suffers from two deficiencies, each of which prevent certification: there is insufficient information for the Court to determine whether the class meets Rule 23(a)'s numerosity or adequacy of representation requirements. In his motion, Doe states that to the best of his knowledge, there are thousands of registered sex offenders in Kentucky. Of course, not every registered sex offender committed an offense against a minor, but Doe asserts that the number of those who did is also likely in the thousands. Doe understandably cannot list the exact number of registered sex offenders who committed an offense against a minor, but he does not provide any supporting facts from which the Court could infer the size of the class. This deficiency is further complicated by the fact that because the defendant class certification is denied, Doe must positively show that registered sex offenders who committed an offense against a minor are residing in Daviess County to meet the numerosity requirement, the Court states. Rule 23(a) requires that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). "There are two criteria for determining whether the representation of the class will be adequate: 1) [t]he representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel." Ordinarily, the named plaintiff's attorney attaches to the motion for class certification an affidavit or declaration detailing the attorney's qualifications and experience relevant to representing a class of plaintiffs. In this case, the only information about Doe's counsel, Guy Hamilton-Smith, is a few paragraphs in the Amended Complaint that explain that Hamilton-Smith has worked in the area of sex offender civil rights, but many of his listed experiences appear to have been before he became a barred attorney, and the motion for class certification acknowledges that Hamilton-Smith has never served as class counsel, the Court finds. This limited information is insufficient to determine whether Hamilton-Smith has the qualifications, experience, and ability required to conduct class action litigation, the Court concludes. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2024 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LLAgEQ DIRECT GENERAL: Turizo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections -------------------------------------------------------- RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. d/b/a DIRECT AUTO INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-009678 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July 11, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc. d/b/a Direct Auto Insurance operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (561) 789-4413 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com DOCTORS CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wynn Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE WYNN; and KIMBERLY EBRAHIMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEO J. CAPOBIANCO; DOCTORS CENTER AT RED ROCK (CAPOBIANCO), PLLC; and LEO J. CAPOBIANCO, DO, LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01254 (D. Nev., July 11, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. Doctors Center at Red Rock (Capobianco), PLLC is a medical group practice located in Henderson, NV that specializes in emergency medicine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 South Rainbow Blvd- Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 Email: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com E.I. DU PONT: Class Cert. Opening Brief in Banks Set for August 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Banks, et al., v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672 (D. Del., Filed Sept. 06, 2019), the Hon. Judge Jennifer .L Hall entered an order setting briefing schedule regarding motion for class certification: -- Opening Brief due: Aug. 19, 2024 -- Answering Brief due: Nov. 18, 2024 -- Reply Brief due: Jan. 21. 2025 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. DuPont is an American multinational chemical company first formed in 1802 by French-American chemist and industrialist Eleuthere Irene du Pont de Nemours.[CC] EMTB LLC: Williams Alleges Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Taking of Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- KOMAE WILLIAMS, SAMANTHA BLOCKER, KAYLA MCQUEEN, NORMA FERRERIA, ASHLYN METCALF, DAWN EVANS, YVELLY MCNALLY, DAYUANA MONTEAGUDO, ALEXIS CHRISTIAN, CHAYENNE DESOUZA, AUTUMN GULLICK, TANIYA DOZIER and JAMIE BURGOS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EMTB, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and MICHAEL TOMKOVITCH, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01603 (M.D. Fla., July 3, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs alleging causes of action against the Defendants for damages due to evasion from the mandatory minimum wage of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding their tips. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers. They worked and performed at the adult-oriented entertainment facility multiple shifts per week. They assert that Defendants did not pay them and other similarly situated entertainers and took their tip money in the forms of fees, fines and other coerced/mandatory tip payments. EMTB, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, owns and operates a strip club.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 North Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Bid for Conditional Class Cert OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, et al., v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION, HOSPITAL OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01518-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Trenga entered an order that: -- the Motion to Conditionally Certify the Class is granted insofar as it requests the conditional certification of a collective of similarly situated employees from within the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); -- the Motion is denied insofar as it requests the certification of a collective of similarly situated employees outside the Commonwealth of Virginia; -- the parties shall, within 14 days of the date of this Order, after meeting and conferring, prepare and submit to the Court, for approval, a revised form of notice (and related consent form), a revised form reminder notice, and a revised notice schedule incorporating the Court's rulings delineated elsewhere in this Order; and The Court entered an order that: -- within 14 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall, after meeting and conferring, prepare and submit to the Court, for approval, a third-party administrator who will issue notice; -- the Defendants shall provide Plaintiff's counsel a computer- readable list of the following information regarding opt-in plaintiffs who decide to opt into the action: (1) full name; (2) last known mailing addresses; (3) last known cell phone number; (4) last known personal email addresses; (5) work location(s); and (6) dates of employment beginning with the first day of training; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may send a reminder notice via postcard to Collective Members who have not yet returned consent forms twenty-one (21) days before the end of the notice period; and -- any issues with respect to the notice to be issued in this case, as specified by the Court in this Order, shall promptly be presented to the Magistrate Judge for resolution after the parties have exhausted their good faith efforts to resolve the issue. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. In sum, the Plaintiff has met her burden at this stage of the collective certification analysis for the Court to grant the Motion in part and order that notice be issued. On Sept. 26, 2023, the Plaintiff sued individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former case manager employees of the Defendants, alleging violations of the FLSA, and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). Ms. Norman worked as a case manager from June 14, 2021 to March 31, 2023 for the Defendant Encompass Hospital. Encompass is a provider of inpatient rehabilitation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fQ1t3V at no extra charge.[CC] ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Parties Seek Oct. 14 Class Cert Bid Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the discovery deadline by 90 days from July 15, 2024, to Oct. 14, 2024, to allow the parties time to complete discovery. Additionally, the Parties move to extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification July 31, 2024, to Dec. 13, 2024. The Parties have exchanged and responded to written discovery requests. The Parties have been in the process of meeting and conferring on some remaining disputes. Additionally, Defendants have indicated that it has withheld some responsive documents pending the entry of the proposed Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement the parties submitted on June 3, 2024. The Defendants deposed Plaintiff on May 22, 2024. Plaintiff has also noticed the depositions of corporate representatives of Defendants. Those depositions were originally scheduled for June but had to be postponed (one for a scheduling conflict, and the other due to a health issue). Additionally, the Defendants submitted a Motion to Obtain Discovery from Putative Class Members on April 19, 2024. Although Plaintiff initially opposed that motion, the parties have nearly reached a compromise on that issue following a hearing with Judge Cabell on July 11, 2024. Under that compromise, the Parties would engage in written discovery and take the depositions of a segment of putative class members. The current Scheduling Order includes the following deadlines: Close of discovery, July 15, 2024; Plaintiff’s expert designation May 31, 2024; Defendants’ rebuttal expert, June 30, 2024, and any motion for class certification, July 31, 2024. Enterprise offers automobile and commercial truck rentals. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i64xaT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Barry J. Miller, Esq. Hillary J. Massey, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210-2028 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: bmiller@seyfarth.com hmassey@seyfarth.com - and - Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. Ryan C. Stewart, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 EVOLUTION MUSIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ramos Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ESLIMERARI RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUTION MUSIC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05726 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.evolutionmusicstore.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Evolution Music Holdings, LLC offer rock band lessons as well as private guitar, bass, drum, piano, and voice lessons. The company buy, sell, and trade used instruments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Huff Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RANDELL HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02495-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., July 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect the Plaintiff and Class members' personal identifying information from a ransomware attack. According to the Defendant, in May 2024, the Defendant learned that a vulnerability in their computer networks was exploited. "Names, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, and contact information were affected for most of the [Defendant's] personal banking customers, as well as customers of the [Defendant's] Open Banking partners." Further, "information relating to [Defendant's] employees was also likely impacted." The Defendant reported that the Data Breach affected 7,640,112 customers, including the Plaintiff and Class members, who entrusted their PII to Defendant. The Defendant confirmed that the Data Breach was a ransomware attack that was triggered by a phishing email to Defendant's employees performed by criminal organization LockBit. The Defendant began sending breach notification letters to affected customers on July 8, 2024. As a result of the Data Breach, a fraudulent Kentucky state tax return was filed using Plaintiff's name and Social Security number in February 2024, causing the Kentucky Department of Revenue to notify the Plaintiff of the suspicious activity. The Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience because of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of their privacy, the suit says. The Defendant provides banking and financial services to individuals, businesses, and technology companies.[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 - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com FAMOUS DAVE'S: Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FAMOUS DAVE'S OF AMERICA, INC., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Civil Action No. DKC 19-0486 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part the motion filed by Plaintiff Christopher Graham to require the claims administrator to make a pro rata distribution of the remaining settlement amount to those class members who cashed their initial settlement checks, with any remaining unclaimed funds to be subject to cy pres distribution. Mr. Graham also seeks allowance of any additional fees and costs to the Claims Administrator as well as the outstanding amount due for the prior distribution (up to $5,070), and a supplemental award of fees to class counsel of one-third of this "remaining Settlement Amount." Plaintiff reports that, after the distribution approved earlier, there remains $61,605.89 in unclaimed funds. Class Counsel believe that this amount is substantial and larger than contemplated, and that a second pro rata distribution to those class members who cashed their initial settlement checks is appropriate instead of an immediate disbursement to the cy pres recipient. According to the motion, 504 individuals cashed their checks, and an additional pro rata distribution to that group would not provide a windfall to them inasmuch as class members received less than 100% of their unpaid wages. Furthermore, a supplemental distribution would further the principle that cy pres awards be limited to those scenarios where it is not feasible to make further distributions to class members. The motion contemplates that $36,000.60 would be distributed to class members who cashed their initial checks, $5,070 would be devoted to fees and expenses of the claims administrator, and $20,535.29 would be awarded to counsel. The motion will be granted in part (as to the supplemental pro rata distribution and the fees and costs of the claims administrator) but denied as to any supplemental fee award to Class Counsel, the Court rules. The Court points out the initial settlement contemplated that any unclaimed funds be awarded to the cy pres recipient, so diverting these funds to the class members who cashed the initial checks will not adversely affect those class members who did not cash the initial checks. Because those non-responding class members did not cash their initial checks, it is likely they would ignore any supplemental distribution as well, the Court notes. In the settlement agreement approved by the court after notice to class members, Class Counsel were permitted to make an application to the court for an award of attorneys' fees "in an amount not to exceed one-third of the settlement amount." The notice provided that attorneys' fees would not be greater than $331,666.67. Ultimately, the court awarded $331,666.67 in attorneys' fees. Now, Class Counsel wants more from the settlement amount, contending that it has done more work. There is no room, however, for the court to approve any more in attorneys' fees. The approval of the class and collective action settlement was premised on the maximum attorneys' fee award that has already been granted, the Court states. The Court will deny any additional fees to counsel, rather than consider additional notice to the class. According to the Court, the amount in unclaimed funds is not so large as to justify spending more on notice and delaying any further distribution while awaiting objections. Class Counsel have already received one-third of the settlement fund and that will have to suffice for their work in this case, past and future, the Court holds. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2024 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=txieyS FRONTIER COMM: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, McHenry Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS MCHENRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01788-B (N.D. Tex., July 12, 2024) is an action against Frontier for its failure to properly and adequately safeguard the personally identifying information of over 750,000 of its current and former customers, seeking to hold the Defendant responsible for its egregious failure to (a) identify the Data Breach, (b) identify its extent, (c) promptly notify consumers, and (d) make proper remediation and renumeration. As a requirement of providing services, the Defendant collects critical personal identifying information from consumers, including, but not limited to, their names, email addresses, mailing addresses, birth dates, Social Security Numbers, and credit scores. On April 14, 2024, unauthorized cyber criminals accessed and exfiltrated the PII of Frontier customers, including the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. As a result of the Defendant's willful failure to adequately safeguard and maintain its servers, network and cyber-systems, or prevent the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are more susceptible to identity theft and/or have experienced and will continue to experience and/or face an increased risk of financial harms, because they are at substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and other related harm, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff was briefly a customer of Frontier in late 2019 or early 2020, later cancelling Frontier's service because he found it unsatisfactory. The Defendant provides broadband, ethernet, voice, video, and traditional circuit-based services to more than 750,000 U.S. consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC BRUCE W. STECKLER 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com judgestick@gmail.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com GOLD N' DIAMONDS: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD N' DIAMONDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-02538-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Chester, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Division on July 3, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02926 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act against Defendant. Gold N' Diamonds, Inc. retails jewelry. The Company offers gold, diamond, silver, and traditional jewelry. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew R. Barnes, Esq. Richard J. Parks, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP 38th Floor, One Oxford Centre 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (724) 981-1397 E-mail: mrb@pietragallo.com rjp@pietragallo.com GORIS MINI: Fails to Properly Pay Cooks, Sanchez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GORIS MINI MARKET INC. and ANDY GORIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04842 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook in St. Corona, New York from approximately May 2020 until June 29, 2024. Goris Mini Market Inc. is a mini market owner and operator based in St. Corona, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Faces Golani Class Suit Over Leasebreak Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- KARAN GOLANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P., Case No. 518934/2024 (N.Y. Sup., July 12, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's practices of requiring renters to pay fees in violation of the New York Statutory Landlord duty to mitigate damages ("Leasebreak Fees"). When renters inform the Defendant that the renter will be vacating their apartment prior to the expiration of their lease, the Defendant has a policy that requires the renter to pay Leasebreak Fees in consideration for early termination of the lease. The Leasebreak Fees requires the renter to pay approximately two months of rent. The Defendant charges these Leasebreak Fees even when the Defendant immediately rents out the unit that the renter is vacating for the same price that the renter was paying. The Defendant uses this policy to compel renters to continue performance by threatening to charge a fee well in excess of Defendant's actual damages. In the event that renters end their lease early, the Defendant collects an illegal windfall and double rent, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated renters for Defendant's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violations of New York General Business laws, and for declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff rented an apartment from the Defendant located at 1209 Dekalb Avenue, Brooklyn, New York in January 2022 for $2,500 per month. The Defendant is a real estate management and development company that operates over 800,000 leased units nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com HEARST TV: Saunders Bid to Compel Production of Documents Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders, et al., v. Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., Filed May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order entered denying motion to compel. Michele Saunders claims that Hearst Television, Inc. disclosed to third parties her personally identifiable information (PII) in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Hearst claims that Saunders refuses to turn over responsive documents and moves to compel. The relevant document requests are: "All Documents concerning or providing substantiation for the allegations in the Amended Complaint, including, without limitation, Paragraphs 16, 18, 35, 38, 39, 50, 61, 63, 75-84, 85- 95, 106, 110-11, 116-17." "All Documents relating to the 'private research company' referenced in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, including, without limitation, all engagement letters, contracts, scopes of work, emails, and correspondence with the private research company or any individuals acting on its behalf." "All Documents relating to the analysis (whether 'dynamic' or otherwise) of the WCVB and WMUR Apps, as described in the Amended Complaint." The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Hearst is a global, diversified information, services and media company.[CC] HEARTLAND HOME: Atkins Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE ATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEARTLAND HOME CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01190 (N.D. Ohio, July 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee. Heartland Home Care, LLC is a provider of home health care services in Toledo, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com HINGE OF STATEN ISLAND: Sanchez Suit Hits Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alfredo Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hinge of Staten Island, Inc., Charles Polizzotto, and Rosemarie Catania, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04676 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) is a proposed collective action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay applicable minimum hourly wage, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to furnish wage statements. Plaintiff Sanchez was employed as a dishwasher, cleaner, general worker and delivery worker at Defendants' restaurant known as "Towne Deli & Pizza." Hinge of Staten Island, Inc. owns, operates and/or controls Towne Deli & Pizza restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Underpays Healthcare Providers, Frank Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD G. FRANK, M.D., P.C., Individually and on behalf of a similarly situated class, v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-07710 (D.N.J., July 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for their unpaid charges, as well as other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, including, elimination of the use of claw backs and providing plaintiff and class members with reimbursement for the administrative time expended in correcting patient billing records after a claw back occurs. The Plaintiff and other Class Members were and continue to be injured by underpayments made by the Defendant for services provided by Nonpars, like the Plaintiff Frank, to Members of Defendant Horizon's health benefits plans. Those underpayments are pervasive and result from systematic operating procedures employed by the Defendant affecting thousands of Providers and Provider Groups. The Defendant Horizon's underpayment schemes affected, and continues to affect, thousands of Providers and Provider Groups who have been underpaid for ONET services as a result of Defendant Horizon's illegal conduct, says the suit. Dr. Frank is board certified in urology and has been practicing for over 25 years. The Defendant is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 INNOVAGE HOLDING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EL PASO FIREMEN & POLICEMEN’S PENSION FUND, SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND, AND INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INNOVAGE HOLDING CORP., MAUREEN HEWITT, BARBARA GUTIERREZ, JOHN ELLIS BUSH, ANDREW CAVANNA, CAROLINE DECHERT, EDWARD KENNEDY, JR., PAVITHRA MAHESH, THOMAS SCULLY, MARILYN TAVENNER, SEAN TRAYNOR, RICHARD ZORETIC, WELSH, CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE, APAX PARTNERS, L.P., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., CAPITAL ONE SECURITIES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, and ROBERTS & RYAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02770-WJM-SBP (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class certification currently set for July 19, 2024. Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Court enter an order that provides as follows: a. The deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class certification is extended from July 19, 2024 to August 23, 2024. The Defendants have also served requests for production on the Lead Plaintiffs and have been working cooperatively with the Lead Plaintiffs to resolve any issues or disputes relating to Lead Plaintiffs' production of documents, but there is still discovery outstanding from Lead Plaintiffs that, in Defendants' view, is necessary for Defendants to brief their opposition to class certification as from their perspective it concerns issues that must be assessed at the class certification stage under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On Feb. 20, 2024, the parties filed a proposed scheduling order, proposing July 19, 2024 as the deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class certification. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 8, 2024. InnovAge is a healthcare delivery platform focused on providing all-inclusive, capitated care to high-cost, dual-eligible seniors. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6yJz1G at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Karen P. Seymour, Esq. Diane L. McGimsey, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 291-9307 E-mail: seymourk@sullcrom.com mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com - and - Peter Kurtz, Esq. Matthew Benedetto, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1225 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 274-3154 Facsimile: (720) 274-3133 E-mail: peter.kurtz@wilmerhale.com matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com - and - Mary Eaton, Esq. Nicholas A. Caselli, Esq. Abhinaya Swaminathan, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 277-4000 Facsimile: (212) 277-4001 E-mail: mary.eaton@freshfields.com nicholas.caselli@freshfields.com abhinaya.swaminathan@freshfields.com INNOVATIVE SERVICES: Faces Carreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDY CARRENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00891 (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay regular wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in the position of manager from November 2014 until June 13, 2024. Innovative Services, Inc. is an organization that provides services to individuals or clients with developmental disabilities in Wisconsin. [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 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Parties Seeks to Modify Class Cert Brief Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST LITIGATION(, Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties seek to modify class certification briefing schedule: Event Proposed Date Intuitive's Opposition Aug. 2, 2024 Plaintiffs' Reply Sept. 10, 2024 On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification and a report from one expert. Intuitive develops, manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y1vd5Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com ietheridge@srkattorneys.com - and - Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq. Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Daniel McCuaig, Esq. Christopher J. Bateman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-2604 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com bbrown@cohenmilstein.com dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com cbateman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Samuel Maida, Esq. Reena A. Gambhir, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com smaida@hausfeld.com rgambhir@hausfeld.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. John E. Sindoni, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com jsindoni@bonizack.com The Defendant is represented by: Allen Ruby, Esq. ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 15559 Union Ave. 138 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 477-9690 E-mail: allen@allenruby.com - and - Joshua Hill, Esq. Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq. Paul D. Brachman, Esq. William B. Michael, Esq. Crystal L. Parker, Esq. Daniel A. Crane, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 204-7420 E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com pbrachman@paulweiss.com wmichael@paulweiss.com cparker@paulweiss.com dcrane@paulweiss.com jhill@paulweiss.com - and - Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Sonya E. Winner, Esq. Andrew Lazerow, Esq. Ashley E. Bass, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com swinner@cov.com alazerow@cov.com abass@cov.com JENNIFER BEHR: Karim Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JENNIFER BEHR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05348 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and for declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.jenniferbehr.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of descriptive alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Jennifer Behr, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com KASEYA HOLDINGS: Rodriguez Sues Over Discrimination, Mass Layoffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated employees, Plaintiff V. KASEYA HOLDINGS, INC., KASEYA INC., and DATTO HOLDING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00752 (W.D. Tex., July 3, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants terminated a group of employees, including Plaintiff Rodriguez, who are protected under the ADEA, OWBPA, and WARN Acts and requested all of them to sign a Separation Agreement and Release of all claims. Kaseya failed to provide with its Release the decisional unit considered for termination, eligibility factors and selection criteria utilized to select employees for termination, ages and job titles of all employees considered for termination, ages of those terminated and retained employees, and an increase the Release consideration period from 21 to 45 days, the suit says. Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed as a Principal Solutions Engineer who worked remotely in Williamson County, Texas through Defendants' Miami headquarters from January 2022 until his termination on April 2, 2024. Kaseya Holdings, Inc. is a comprehensive integrated IT management company providing IT solutions to companies worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Escover, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. ESCOVER, L.L.L.P. 4500 Williams Drive, Suite 212 #198 Georgetown, TX 78633 Telephone: (512) 635-7469 Facsimile: (866) 372-4190 E-mail: John@Escoverlaw.com KENVUE INC: Band-Aid Bandage Contains Toxin PFAS, Badilla Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKAH BADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE INC.; & JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04710 (N.D.N.Y., July 5, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased for personal, family, or household use, the Defendants' certain Band-Aid Bandage products (the "Products") which contain per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, a category of synthetic chemicals designated by the Environmental Protection Agency, as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers. Despite the Products containing harmful PFAS, a known carcinogen, the Defendants market the Products as offering "trusted protection" and "caring for your wound". Had the Defendants included that the Products contain PFAS or are the risk of containing PFAS on the Products' packaging, the Plaintiff would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the Products, and, consequently, would not have been willing to purchase the Products, says the suit. Kenvue Inc. operates as a consumer health company. The Company offers a consumer health portfolio in self-care, skin health & beauty, and essential health products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut St., Suite. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq. Samantha V. Hoefs, Esq. NIGH GOLDENBERG RASO & VAUGHN PLLC 14 Ridge Square NW, Third Floor Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 978-2228 Facsimile: (202) 792-7927 Email: mgoldenberg@nighgoldenberg.com shoefs@nighgoldenberg.com KREATION JUICERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Futrell Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONJUAN FUTRELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KREATION JUICERY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24NNCV02839 (Cal. Super., July 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not paying the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, including minimum, straight time, and overtime wages. The Defendants required Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees to work "off-the-clock," uncompensated, by, for example, requiring the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees after clocking out for the workday. Some of this unpaid work should have been paid at the overtime rate, the lawsuit contends. Additionally, the Defendants regularly, but not always, required the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing an uninterrupted and duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without compensating the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. Accordingly, the Defendants' policy and practice was not to provide meal periods to Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees in compliance with California law. The Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees are thus entitled to be paid one hour of additional wages for each workday he or she was not provided with all required meal period(s), the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants seeking only to recover penalties on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees that worked for the Defendants, and on behalf of the State of California. Plaintiff Futrell worked for the Defendants in Los Angeles County, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from February 2023 to October 2023. Kreation provides healthy and delicious drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Arrash T. Fattahi, Esq. Arman A. Salehi, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com afattahi@wilshirelawfirm.com asalehi@wilshirelawfirm.com LAKE PARK: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Feltzin Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE FELTZIN v. LAKE PARK SHOPPES, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80851 (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The individual Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, on April 23, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately 28 miles from his residence and is near other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. According to the complaint, the barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff desires to visit the Commercial Property and businesses located in it, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the Commercial Property, but to assure himself that the Commercial Property is in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the Commercial Property, without fear of discrimination. Mr. Feltzin is paralyzed and is substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment, including not being able to walk or stand. Lake Park owned and operated the commercial buildings located at 801 Federal Highway, Lake Park, Florida, 33403.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com; jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com LEO LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOEL CASTORENA FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEO LANDSCAPE, LLC; and JOSE ANTONIO CARBAJAL CASTILLO, Case No. 1:24-cv-01941 (D. Colo., July 12, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendant as a landscaper. Leo Landscape, LLC is engaged in the landscaping business, which maintains its principal office at Brighton, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 305-8230 Email: andrew@milsteinturner.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Tosses Turner Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS TURNER, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL MEDICAL PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN RETIREMENT BOARD; LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-11530-FDS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. The Court said that because the pleaded claim is founded on a broader range of allegedly unlawful conduct than that raised in plaintiff's motion, the complaint did not provide adequate notice of the legal theory animating the proposed class definition. There remains the question of whether a narrower class could be certified based on plaintiff's actual claim. But plaintiff has not proposed a class based on that claim, and thus that question is not presently before the Court. Accordingly, the motion will be denied without prejudice, the Court added. This is an action arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Plaintiff Thomas Turner contends that the Defendants incorrectly calculated his cost-share obligations for his post-retirement medical benefits. The Plaintiff now seeks to certify a class of former Safeco employees defined as: "Former grandfathered employees of Safeco corporation and subsidiaries transitioning to Liberty Mutual on Jan. 1, 2009 who were not or will not be given both: (A) credit for purposes of eligibility and cost sharing for their grandfathered age and service points as of Dec. 31, 2004 (their "Safeco Grandfathered Credit"), and (B) credited service for employment with Liberty Mutual (their "Liberty Mutual Credit")." On August 14, 2020, Turner brought this action against Liberty Mutual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Mr. Turner was hired by Safeco in 1980 and continued to work for Safeco following its acquisition by Liberty Mutual in 2008. Liberty provides pension plans and benefit programs for the employees of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WwWJpz at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLETON AUTO: Fredrickson, Ross Withdrawn as Attorneys -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schuck v. Littleton Auto Repair, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03303 (D. Colo., Filed Dec. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendants Littleton Auto Repair, LLC; Ken Scholl; and Shannon Scholl. -- Attorneys Todd Fredrickson and Hillary Ross are no longer counsel of record for Defendants in this case. -- The Clerk's office is requested to remove Mr. Fredrickson and Ms. Ross from the electronic distribution list. -- As the motion states, as a non-natural person, Defendant Littleton Auto Repair, LLC must be represented by an attorney of this court's bar and otherwise may face the entry of default against it. -- The court further cautions all Defendants that they remain responsible for complying with all deadlines. -- Currently, for instance, Plaintiff's collective and/or class certification motion is due by July 16, 2024, and Defendant's response to that motion is due by Aug. 16, 2024. -- Defendants also remain responsible for complying with all applicable rules, including to timely inform the court of any changes in their contact information. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant operates an auto repair garage in Littleton, Colorado.[CC] LM MANUFACTURING: Underpays Forklift Drivers, Tannyhill Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORDEZ TANNYHILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LM MANUFACTURING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11800-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly forklift driver in Detroit, Michigan from approximately May 8, 2023, through March 8, 2024. LM Manufacturing, LLC is a provider of manufacturing, assembly, sequencing, supply chain and logistics management solutions based in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com LORRAINE E. SCHWARTZ: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LORRAINE E. SCHWARTZ INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05065 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website 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. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Lucky Monkey Necklace in Black Gold but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken and inaccessible links, and barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Lorraine E. Schwartz Inc. was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and metals, costume jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gyani Sues Over Deceptive "Be Planet" Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDEEP GYANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LULULEMON ATHLETICA INC. and LULULEMON USA INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-22651 (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2024) seeks to end a marketing campaign that goes too far by creating the general, express, and implied impression in consumers' minds that the Defendant's business practices, actions, and products positively contribute to the environment and a healthier planet when, in reality, they are causing significant damage to the environment, which is only on track to get worse. In October 2020, Lululemon announced its "Be Planet" marketing campaign, which detailed Lululemon's promises and express representations to "become a more sustainable and equitable business, minimize its environmental impact, and accelerate positive change . . ." Lululemon's marketing campaign messages are unfair, false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers as they portray Lululemon as something it is not. The apparel industry is a major contributor to the environmental crisis, and as one of the largest apparel companies in the world, Lululemon has a significant and growing climate and environmental footprint, and its actions and products directly cause harm to the environment and the deterioration of the planet's health – the opposite of its Be Planet promises and representations. Instead of sustaining and positively improving the planet, Lululemon is increasingly causing negative impact and harm. Indeed, Lululemon is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, landfill waste, and release of microplastics into the environment, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks an injunction to end Lululemon's unlawful marketing campaign and ongoing deception of consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of actual damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and disgorgement of all benefits Lululemon has obtained through its unlawful conduct. Plaintiff Gyani is a citizen of Florida and was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Lululemon is a technical athletic apparel, footwear, and accessories company for yoga, running, training, and most other activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (561) 789-4413 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Steven N. Saul, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com SSaul@JusticeEarned.com SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com M.A. FORD: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Hays Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN HAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M.A. FORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00057-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa, July 11, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to adequately secure and safeguard the highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and the Class. On Dec. 12, 2023, M.A. Ford lost control over its current and former employees' PII in a data breach by cybercriminals. Following the Data Breach, M.A. Ford then failed to notify its employees about the breach for several months. The suit says that the victims of the Data Breach did not start receiving notice of the Data Breach or detailing which specific types of their PII was compromised until May 30, 2024, the suit says. The compromised Personal Information included employees' Social Security number, date of birth, driver's licenses or state issued ID number, passport number, U.S. Alien registration number, military ID number, account number, routing number, financial institution name, medical information, and health insurance information. As a consequence of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members' sensitive PII has been released into the public domain and they have had to, and will continue to have to, spend time to protect themselves from fraud and identity theft, the Plaintiff asserts. Since the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has allegedly experienced an increase in the number of spam calls he receives. Further, because this same information remains stored in M.A. Ford's systems, the Plaintiff and Class members have an interest in ensuring that M.A. Ford takes the appropriate measures to protect their PII against future unauthorized disclosures, added the suit. The Plaintiff is a former M.A. Ford employee and Data Breach victim, who received a Notice Letter from M.A. Ford. M.A. Ford is a machinery manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MA.LI.DA. USA: Baum Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ---------------------------------------------------------- LINDSEY BAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MA.LI.DA. USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-009569 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July 10, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. MA.LI.DA. USA, INC. is a martial art school in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com MAJOR FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hernandez Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MAJOR FOOD GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04867 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thegrillnewyork.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on June 5, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to review the menu and make a restaurant reservation. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the menu and making a reservation at the restaurant, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Hernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant is a restaurant renowned for its mid-century American chophouse experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MCKINSEY & CO: Faces San Miguel RICO Suit Over Opioids Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY HOLDINGS, INC.; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Case No. 3:24-cv-04217 (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2024) seeks judgment, compensatory damages, treble damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, cost of suit; and equitable relief under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff contends that even if a Defendant did not personally commit a predicate act, each Defendant conspired with other members of the False Narrative Enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d). Each Defendant, whether or not it personally committed a predicate act, agreed to participated in the False Narrative Enterprise, with knowledge that at least one member of the enterprise intended to (and did) commit at least two predicate acts. For instance, each Defendant knew and intended that the Pill Mills would prescribe and/or dispense prescription opioids in violation of the CSA. This knowledge and intent can be inferred because Defendants could not profit from prescription opioids unless they were actually prescribed and dispensed According to the complaint, Purdue's marketing initiated a "paradigm shift" in attitudes towards prescribing opioids for chronic pain. After witnessing OxyContin's blockbuster success, "other pharmaceutical firms rushed to develop and promote their own long-acting painkillers." These Manufacturers did so with "rank indifference to the dangers they posed." McKinsey's role was to devise strategies for Manufacturers (including Purdue, Endo, Janssen, and Noramco) that would result in increased sales of prescription opioids. After designing the strategies, McKinsey then turned around and worked hand-in-hand with these clients to implement these strategies. The Manufacturers and McKinsey thus formed the core of a racketeering enterprise -- the False Narrative Enterprise, whose members cooperated to prescribe, sell, and dispense ever increasing quantities of opioids. To create newfound demand for opioids, members of the False Narrative Enterprise used misleading marketing to convince both doctors and patients that opioids could safely be prescribed for common ailments that cause chronic pain, says the suit. McKinsey is a global management consultancy with offices in over 130 cities in 65 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 697-1509 E-mail: swillliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com khoward@stevenwilliamslaw.com - and - Warren Burns, Esq. Darren Nicholson, Esq BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson St., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dnicholson@burnscharest.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com - and - John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq. David McMullan, Jr. Esq. Richard Barrett, Esq. Sterling Aldridge, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com rrb@rrblawfirm.net saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. David L. Black, Esq. Monica Miller, Esq. Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com dblack@cuneolaw.com monicam@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com - and - Steve Martino, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. 51 St. Joseph St. Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-3131 E-mail: SteveMartino@taylormartino.com MDL 2358: Rejection of Class Cert. Bid Up for Interlocutory Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware certified Judge Eduardo Robreno's decision denying class certification in the case captioned as IN RE: GOOGLE, INC. COOKIE PLACEMENT CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 1:12-md-02358-JDW (D. Del.) for interlocutory appeal. Beginning in 2012, several lawsuits were filed in federal courts around the country alleging that Google circumvented certain privacy settings in the Safari and Internet Explorer web browsers so that it could track users via digital cookies. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases in Delaware and assigned them to Judge Sue Robinson. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which Judge Robinson dismissed. The Third Circuit reversed that decision in part. In 2016, the Parties reached a settlement that would result in a $5.5 million cy pres-only settlement. Ted Frank, a member of the class, objected. In 2017, Judge Robinson approved the settlement and certified an injunctive relief settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded the approval, in part because it held that it was improper to certify a settlement that released damages claims under Rule 23(b)(2). On remand, the case was reassigned to Judge Robreno because Judge Robinson had retired. In 2020, the Parties filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action, this time as a damages class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). In 2021, Judge Robreno granted preliminary certification and approval of the settlement. On July 10, 2023, Judge Robreno denied Plaintiffs' motion for final certification of the settlement class. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. But they dismissed that appeal voluntarily. By then, Judge Robreno had retired, so the case was reassigned to Judge Wolson. Judge Wolson held a status hearing with the Parties where Plaintiffs informed the Court that they anticipated seeking an interlocutory appeal of Judge Robreno's decision denying class certification. He set a briefing schedule and ordered that the Parties address: "a) whether the Plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); b) whether the appeal that Plaintiffs filed July 28, 2023 (D.I. 222) constituted a petition for permission to appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); and c) if Plaintiffs did not file a petition for permission to appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), whether that Rule's 14-day time limit for petitions for leave to appeal forecloses an appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b)." On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Interlocutory Appeal addressing these issues. Mr. Frank filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. But, because there's no certified class, it was not clear to the Court that Mr. Frank had standing to participate. Judge Wolson considered his submission as an amicus brief and gave Plaintiffs leave to respond. Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 6, 2023. The briefing raised a substantial dispute as to whether 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) allows Judge Wolson to certify for appeal an order that a different judge entered. Noting that this question was on appeal in the Third Circuit, Judge Wolson stayed this case pending the final resolution of that appeal. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs informed Judge Wolson that the appeal had concluded without the Third Circuit resolving this question. The dispute before the Court turns on who can certify an interlocutory appeal: only the judge who issued the order; or the presiding judge at the time that a party seeks permission for an interlocutory appeal. The statute provides, in relevant part, "When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order." Judge Wolson points out the statutory language answers the question. It provides that a district judge can only certify an interlocutory appeal if he is of the view that the order in question satisfies the standard for such an appeal, meaning that it involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he adds. Most importantly, it says that the district judge must have that view "in making" the order in question. Congress's use of the phrase "in making" means that the only person who can authorize an interlocutory appeal is the judge who issued the other because he is the only one who can have an opinion about it in making it. According to Judge Wolson, any other person who takes over the case after an order issues cannot, by definition, have had an opinion about the order "in making it;" he can only form an opinion later, after the fact. In addition, the legal question is "serious to the conduct of the litigation . . . practically," Judge Wolson finds. The Parties have demonstrated a willingness to settle the action, Judge Wolson states. There's a broad public policy in favor of settlements, but as things stand now, the Parties don't know if there's a way to resolve the case on a class-wide basis. And resolution on a class-wide basis is, practically, the only way it's going to get done, Judge Wolson concludes. The resolution of this question would materially advance the termination of the litigation, Judge Wolson states. The case is not ready for trial or even summary judgment. And if there is a path for Plaintiffs to challenge Judge Robreno's class certification order, then they can get clarity on the possibility of the settlement they have negotiated, Judge Wolson holds. According to Judge Wolson, Section 1292(b) doesn't give him the power to authorize an interlocutory appeal because he didn't issue the order at issue. He said, "Although Plaintiffs claim that that's an absurd interpretation, I disagree. Instead, it's just a result that they don't like, and that's the way the cookie crumbles. But I recognize there's room for substantial disagreement, so I'll certify this decision for interlocutory appeal." A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2024 Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xV4Viz MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in LD v. BoA Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD Construction LLC et al v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04239 (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 LD 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=naJy4i at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in PABFC v. BoA Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04566 (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 Policemen's Annuity 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=Wc898b at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Philadelphia vs BoA Wins Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04563 (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 Philadelphia 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=BY6gn8 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in PSTPRFC v. BoA Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF CHICAGO v. Bank Of America Corporation ,et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09319 (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 Public School 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=cHNGdw at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in Tera Group v. BoA Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tera Group, Inc. et al v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02858 (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 Tera Group 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=wiDnlN at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Settlement Deal in trueEX v. BoA Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as trueEX LLC v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05361 (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 trueEX 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=P90spC at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3014: Court Rules on Several Motions Over MSA ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:21-mc-01230-JFC (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 3014, Judge Joy Flowers Conti entered a Memorandum Opinion on several motions filed by certain plaintiffs relating to qualified injuries under the Master Settlement Agreement. After nearly two and a half years of litigation, on May 9, 2024, the Philips defendants and the PNC announced that they had reached a proposed private settlement regarding certain personal injury claims asserted in the Amended Master Long Form Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages. The MSA is essentially a binding offer to privately settle wherein the Philips defendants and the PNC agreed upon certain obligations the Philips defendants committed to fulfill to certain individual plaintiffs on the terms set forth in the MSA, but those certain individual plaintiffs must accept those terms on or before December 10, 2024. The MSA defined a Qualifying Injury as "either a Qualifying Respiratory Injury or a Qualifying Cancer." A Qualifying Respiratory Injury "means as demonstrated through proof of diagnosis or treatment, respiratory impairment (e.g., new or worsening asthma, new or worsening COPD, chronic bronchitis, bronchiectasis, sarcoidosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, pulmonary fibrosis, pneumonitis, other interstitial lung disease, other obstructive or restrictive lung disease)." A Qualifying Cancer "means one of the following, as demonstrated through proof of diagnosis or treatment: lung cancer; certain blood cancers (acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), or mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) of the air-pathway lymphoid tissue); or ENT/pathway cancers (e.g., oral cavity cancers; oropharynx cancer; nasal cavity/sinus cancer; nasopharynx cancer; larynx cancer; hypopharynx cancer; salivary cancer; esophageal cancers; thyroid cancers)." The day after the PNC filed the notice of settlement, plaintiff Edwin Fuentes objected to the MSA because it "arbitrarily excluded all registered defendant's [sic] who suffered kidney and liver cancer damage conditions . . . ." Fuentes asserts that this exclusion from the MSA denies him and other similarly situated individuals "from collecting damages resulting from the personal injury settlement reached on behalf of all Plaintiffs." Fuentes requests that the court issue an order requiring the MSA to include "all conditions stated by the FDA recall letter of summer 2021" within the definition of Qualifying Injury. According to the Court, because his claimed injury does not constitute a Qualifying Injury under the terms of the MSA, Fuentes cannot opt into the agreement, and, as a nonsettling party, he lacks standing to challenge the MSA. Fuentes is not without any recourse; he is free to either reach his own settlement with defendants or continue to litigate his case. Fuentes' motion will be denied, the Court rules. On May 20, 2024, pro se plaintiff Derek Martin King filed an omnibus motion seeking three things: (1) to join in support of Fuentes' motion; (2) to vacate the docket management and identification orders; and (3) to reject the proposed master settlement agreement. On May 28, 2024, plaintiff Mary Ann Spiekermeier filed an objection to approval of the MSA on grounds that it creates ethical conflicts with the ABA Model Rules, specifically Rules 1.7 and 5.6. On June 4, 2024, the PNC filed an omnibus response to the objections and motions. Also on that same day, the Philips defendants filed a response in opposition to the objections and motions, and defendants Polymer Technologies Inc. and Polymer Molded Products, LLC, moved to join in both the PNC's response and the Philips defendants' response. On June 14, 2024, King filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. King's omnibus motion will be denied as moot, the Court holds. The PNC contends that, like Fuentes, Spiekermeier lacks standing to challenge the MSA because the Spiekermeier complaint does not allege a Qualifying Injury. Upon review, the Court notes that Spiekermeier's alleged injuries are "high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, liver cancer, kidney cancer, kidney damage, liver damage, and ‘Bones.'". Per the MSA, these are not Qualifying Injuries, and, as a nonsettling party, Spiekermeier lacks standing to challenge the MSA, the Court finds. Spiekermeier's objection will be overruled, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2024 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZT9h7 MEDELA LLC: Infant Bottle Product Not BPA Free, Felsenthal Says --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANNIE FELSENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDELA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05671 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2024) is a class action lawsuit regarding the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, distribution, and sale of Bottles that are sold nationwide and falsely marketed as "BPA Free." According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite including harmful microplastics in its Products, the Defendant goes to considerable lengths to mislead consumers into believing the Products are safe, good for them, and without BPA. Moreover, the Defendant omits the Products contain harmful microplastics, especially when heated -- a material fact to the Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers -- on the Products' labeling and marketing. The Defendant is, therefore, liable to the Plaintiff and Class members for selling the Products without disclosing that the Products contain harmful microplastics, says the suit. Medela, LLC. develops and manufactures breastfeeding products. The Company offers breast pumps, pump cleaning, specialty feeding devices, and breast milk collection products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce DeLeon Suite 205 - #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com MEDIBASE GROUP: De Santiago Sues Over Patients' Compromised Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- BELLE DE SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEDIBASE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03097-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated clients stored on its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. The Medibase Group, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business located in Woodstock, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com MEDIBASE GROUP: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Girenko Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ELENA GIRENKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE MEDIBASE GROUP, INC., and STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-03098-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 12, 2024) sues the Defendants for failing to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy the Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The suit says that Medibase's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise the networks of Staten Island University Hospital and other entities that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and other individuals. The Data Breach occurred on Jan. 26, 2024, Medibase notified Staten Island University Hospital on May 8, 2024, and began notifying the Class on July 5, 2024. As disclosed in the Notice Letter, a wide variety of Private Information was implicated in the breach, including potentially: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, admit and discharge dates, outstanding balance amounts, and insurance information. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity theft. As a result of the Defendants' inadequate data security practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, the suit asserts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to the Defendants' data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendants, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Girenko was a patient of State Island University Hospital. Medibase provides healthcare solutions and services to healthcare providers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com MERCURY FINANCIAL: Monaghan Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------------- BEN MONAGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCURY FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-003076-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., July 10, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Mercury Financial LLC is a financial services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT: Damare Class Cert Bid Denied w/ Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE DAMARE, v. MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip Simon entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. Judge Simon said that he finds that filing a motion for class certification before the defendant has even appeared in the case, let alone responded to the pleadings, does not promote the efficient administration of justice. Damare fails to identify any compelling grounds for the Court to entertain this issue at such an early stage in the case. Ms. Damare has not come forth with any evidence in support of her motion; rather, it is based entirely on the allegations in her complaint. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff Leslie Damare, a resident at the LaSalle apartment complex in South Bend, filed a complaint asserting claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence under Indiana law against the Defendant. Ms. Damare seeks to proceed on these claims on behalf of a proposed class consisting of some 70 residents who live at the LaSalle apartment complex and 'had their contractually agreed upon parking rights unlawfully stripped and taken away from them after said rights were legally promised pursuant to a legally enforceable agreement." The same day she filed her complaint, Damare filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class and requesting that a briefing schedule for her motion be set. The Defendant develops, manages, constructs, and finances housing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KPmXNJ at no extra charge.[CC] MIGUEL GOMEZ: Bryant Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chad Eric Bryant, v. Miguel Gomez, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-12169-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Denise Page Hood entered an order referring Bryant case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy Jr. for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non−dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B). A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0FJwzN at no extra charge.[CC] MONGODB INC: Faces Baxter Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- OHN BAXTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONGODB, INC.; DEV C. ITTYCHERIA; and MICHAEL LAWRENCE GORDON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05191 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired MongoDB securities between August 31, 2023 and May 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of MongoDB's common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of MongoDB's common stock by materially misleading the investing public. Later, the Defendants' prior misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became apparent to the market, the price of MongoDB's common stock materially declined, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the price over time. As a result of their purchases of MongoDB's common stock during the Class Period, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages under federal securities laws. From a closing market price of $310 per share on May 30, 2024, MongoDB's stock price fell to $236.06 per share on May 31, 2024, a decline of nearly 24 percent in the span of one day, the suit says. MongoDB, Inc. develops database software. The Company provides an open-source database platform for automating, monitoring, and deployment backups. MongoDB renders enterprise software integration, platform certification, and commercial licensing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 13 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com MORTGAGE RESEARCH: Warnock Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN and HILARY WARNOCK, v. MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER LLC d/b/a VETERANS UNITED HOME LOANS and NATIONSTAR LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 8:23-cv-00914-CEH-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the scheduling order: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Deadline for Plaintiff's expert May 1, 2024 Oct. 1, 2024 disclosures on Plaintiff's individual claim and class certification issues Deadline for Defendant's expert May 15, 2024 Oct. 15, 2024 disclosures on Plaintiff's individual claims and class certification issues Deadline for rebuttal expert May 31, 2024 Oct. 31, 2024 disclosures Deadline for completion of N/A Nov. 30, 2024 Expert discovery on Plaintiff's individual claims and class certification issues Deadline for motion for class N/A Dec. 14, 2024 certification Deadline for Defendant to respond N/A Jan. 8, 2025 to class certification motion Deadline for Plaintiff to file N/A Jan. 29, 2025 reply in support of class certification motion On April 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in which they allege Veterans and Nationstar, the former owner and servicer of the Plaintiffs' Mortgage, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by failing to timely pay the Plaintiff's flood insurance premium resulting in the loss of the Plaintiff's flood insurance. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants further violated RESPA by failing to properly respond to their Notice of Error regarding the untimely payment sent to the Defendants. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants breached their Mortgage contract with the Plaintiffs by failing to make timely payment of Plaintiffs' flood insurance premiums. On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted a joint motion to extend case management deadlines. The motion included a request for a bifurcated discovery schedule. On July 9, 2024, the Court denied the motion and advised the parties that they may renew their motion to extend deadlines, excluding a bifurcated period of discovery Mortgage provides mortgage loans and mortgage related products and services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xqb3VG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryant H. Dunivan Jr., Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY, PA 301 W. Platt St., #216. Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 252-0239 E-mail: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com eservice@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com The Defendants are represented by: D. Kyle Deak, Esq. 305 Church at North Hills Street, Suite 1200 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 835-4100 Facsimile: (919) 835-411 E-mail: kyle.deak@troutman.com dorrella.gallaway@troutman.com - and - Dorrella L. Gallaway, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Telephone: (470) 832-6011 E-mail: dorrella.gallaway@troutman.com christina.hill@troutman.com NATIONAL FREIGHT: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Nov. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, et al., v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-JHR-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Pascal entered an amended scheduling order: -- Pretrial factual discovery, limited Sept. 6, 2024 to Plaintiff Ruiz's deposition is extended to: -- All expert reports and expert disclosures Oct. 7, 2024 pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be served upon counsel for Defendants no later than: -- All expert reports and expert disclosures Nov. 7, 2024 pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Defendants shall be served upon counsel for Plaintiffs no later than: -- Class Certification Motions no later than: Nov. 22, 2024 National Freight provides logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SFVGLB at no extra charge.[CC] NEW ORLEANS ARCHDIOCESE: Disabled Kids' Lawsuit Exempt from Stay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court's order that enforced the automatic stay against minor children pursuing a state court lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. The Archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in May 2020 after more than 500 alleged instances of child sexual abuse by local clergy came to light. The Minor Children's suit, however, has no connection with the tort claims at issue in the underlying bankruptcy. Instead, the Minor Children are a group of disabled Catholic school-aged children in the New Orleans area whose parents wish for them to attend Catholic schools that are either directly or indirectly controlled by the Archdiocese. The Minor Children assert that the Catholic schools they seek to attend are asking pre-admission questions about disabilities and/or requesting medical evaluations of students in violation of Louisiana civil rights laws. As a result, the Minor Children claim they have been dissuaded from applying to the Catholic schools they wish to attend. Minor Children filed a (later amended) class action lawsuit in Louisiana state court in August 2022, alleging that Catholic schools in the New Orleans area directly or indirectly controlled by the Archdiocese are violating Louisiana civil rights laws. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent the Archdiocese from asking such questions of prospective applicants. They also seek attorney's fees. The lawsuit explicitly disclaims any claims to damages for past misconduct. Later that month, the Archdiocese removed the action to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1452(a), premising removal on the court's "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1334(b) as a result of the Archdiocese's bankruptcy case. The Minor Children moved to remand and requested a "comfort order" from the bankruptcy court, seeking judicial confirmation that their action against the Archdiocese was not subject to the automatic stay. On October 3, 2022, before the bankruptcy court could rule on the comfort order motion, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Minor Children's motion to remand, as it concluded that their suit was not "related to" the Archdiocese's bankruptcy because it could not conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate. The Archdiocese did not appeal this decision because remand orders predicated on jurisdictional decisions are unappealable. Notwithstanding the district court's ruling, the bankruptcy court orally denied the motion for a comfort order and enforced the automatic stay against the Minor Children's state court lawsuit at a hearing. The bankruptcy court subsequently signed a formal order confirming its ruling. The Minor Children appealed to the district court without seeking leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158. In the district court, the Archdiocese moved to dismiss, arguing that Minor Children lack standing to appeal and the bankruptcy court's underlying order was interlocutory and unappealable. In June 2023, the district court rejected the Archdiocese's procedural contentions. The district court held that the bankruptcy court's order was appealable, and the Minor Children had standing to prosecute their appeal. A month later, the district court ruled on the merits of the Minor Children's appeal. Consistent with its previous position, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court and held that the automatic stay does not apply to the Minor Children's lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court that the bankruptcy court erred in enforcing the automatic stay against the Minor Children Appellees. The Archdiocese argues that the Minor Children's state court lawsuit is subject to the automatic stay because it could have been filed prepetition, thus invoking Section 362(a)(1), and because it affects property of the estate, invoking Section 362(a)(3). The Fifth Circuit disagrees with both arguments. According to the Fifth Circuit, the district court correctly determined the Minor Children's state court lawsuit implicated only post-petition conduct. Nothing in the record indicates the named plaintiffs in this class action were aware of the Archdiocese's alleged discrimination against children with disabilities, or that they were in any way aggrieved by the Archdiocese prior to May 2020, the Fifth Circuit notes. Simply put, a lawsuit filed in 2022 that only seeks prospective relief cannot enjoin conduct that occurred in 2020, before the Archdiocese filed for bankruptcy. The Archdiocese also argues the automatic stay applies to the Minor Children's claims under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, which states that "any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate." The Archdiocese argues the Minor Children's state court lawsuit seeks to exert control over the operations of the Archdiocese's estate property by designating how children can be admitted to its schools, and by seeking recovery of attorney's fees. The Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court that this provision of the automatic stay does not cover the Minor Children's post-petition suit. The Fifth Circuit points out that the bankruptcy automatic stay "was intended to prevent interference with a bankruptcy court's orderly disposition of the property of the estate, it was not intended to preclude post-petition suits to enjoin unlawful conduct." According to the Fifth Circuit, Section 362(a)(3) does not stymie the Minor Children's state court suit for prospective injunctive relief. This lawsuit does not implicate the automatic stay's core function of preventing a race to the courthouse among creditors and does not undermine the provision's role in "preserv[ing] property for use in the reorganization of the debtor and . . . prevent[ing] the dismemberment of the estate." Further, the possibility of an award of attorney's fees by the Louisiana state court does not invoke the automatic stay, the Court notes. Any such fees should be considered "administrative expenses" under Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code, because those expenses would be the necessary and predictable consequences of post-petition tortious activity by a debtor, the Court states. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 17, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJ9uKa About Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans -- https://www.nolacatholic.org/ -- is a non-profit religious corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Louisiana. Created as a diocese in 1793, and established as an archdiocese in 1850, the Archdiocese of New Orleans has educated hundreds of thousands in its schools, provided religious services to its churches and provided charitable assistance to individuals in need, including those affected by hurricanes, floods, natural disasters, war, civil unrest, plagues, epidemics, and illness. Currently, the archdiocese's geographic footprint occupies over 4,200 square miles in southeast Louisiana and includes eight civil parishes: Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany, and Washington. The Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of New Orleans sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. E.D. La. Case No. 20-10846) on May 1, 2020. The archdiocese was estimated to have $100 million to $500 million in assets and liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing. Judge Meredith S. Grabill oversees the case. Jones Walker, LLP and Blank Rome, LLP, serve as the archdiocese's bankruptcy counsel and special counsel, respectively. Donlin, Recano& Company, Inc., is the claims agent. The U.S. Trustee for Region 5 appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors on May 20, 2020. The committee is represented by the law firms of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP and Locke Lord, LLP. Berkeley Research Group, LLC is the committee's financial advisor. NEXTCARE HOLDINGS: Begay Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- MELANIE BEGAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTCARE HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a NextCare, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01685-DJH (D. Ariz., July 9, 2024) is a class action lawsuit seeking to address NextCare's illegal and widespread practice of disclosing its patients confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", collectively referred to as "Private Information") to unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook" or "Meta") and Google LLC ("Google"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's illegal privacy violations occurred and continues to occur because of the tracking technologies that it installed on its Website including, but not limited to, the Meta Pixel (the "Pixel"), Facebook SDK, Facebook Conversions API, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, DoubleClick (owned by Google), and related tools (collectively, "Tracking Technologies"). By installing Tracking Technologies on its Website, the Defendant effectively planted a bug in Plaintiff's and Class Members' web browsers that caused their communications to be intercepted, disclosed, accessed, viewed and captured by third parties in real time, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's alleged conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of their Private Information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information. NextCare Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides urgent care and occupational medical services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com NICHOLS LUMBER: Faces Trujillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR ROSALES TRUJILLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NICHOLS LUMBER & HARDWARE CO., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV17396 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to timely pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages due at separation of employment, and failure to reimburse required business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a forklift operator/order puller from October 2012 to February 19, 2024. Nichols Lumber & Hardware Co. is a wholesaler of building materials in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir H. Seyedfarshi, Esq. EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS LAWYERS, APC 6380 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1602 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (424) 777-0964 Email: amir@employmentrightslawyers.com - and - Tatiana Hernandez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TATIANA HERNANDEZ, P.C. 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 504 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 909-4248 Facsimile: (310) 388-0639 Email: tatiana@thlawpc.com NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and GEISINGER HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01156-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 12, 2024) is a class action on behalf of individuals and patients of the Defendants, or otherwise people that are customers of or have their records collected by the Defendants, whose personally identifying information and protected health information were accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach that was first announced by Defendants in June of 2024 (the “Data Breach”). According to the complaint, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' inadequate data security, their breach of duty to handle PII and PHI with reasonable care, and their failure to maintain the confidentiality of patients' medical records and PHI, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI has been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, which risk may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy protecting themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. Nuance Communications, Inc. provides conversational artificial intelligence solutions. The Company offers solutions that understand, analyze, and respond to amplifying human intelligence to increase productivity and security. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Miriam Benton Barish, Esq. Kevin Fay, Esq. Robert G. Devine, Jr., Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, #1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 790-4571 Email: rgolomb@anapolweiss.com mbarish@anapolweiss.com kfay@anapolweiss.com bdevine@anapolweiss.com OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Seeks to Certify Hourly-Paid Employees Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON QUIROGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OLDS PRODUCTS CO. OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00390-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of: "Current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt production employees of the Defendant, who were employed at any time on or after March 29, 2020." Additionally, the Court should authorize Plaintiff's counsel to issue notice to putative class members because court authorization of notice to the class serves the legitimate goal of avoiding a multiplicity of duplicative suits and setting cutoff dates to expedite disposition of the action, the lawsuit says. Olds Products produces and sells mustards. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yKi4hh at no extra charge.[CC] 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 PACIFIC MARITIME: Fowler Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeremy Fowler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION and SSA MARINE INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Case No. 24-2-11958-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 2, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00974. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three causes of action: failure to provide sick leave under RCW; failure to provide paid sick leave under Seattle Municipal Code and willful withholding of wages in violation of Washington's Wage Rebate Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew R. Escobar, Esq. Joe Wonderly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, Washington 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: aescobar@seyfarth.com jwonderly@seyfarth.com PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Parties Seek Final OK of Settlement Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA STANLEY and JUDY KOJETIN, v. PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS AND SPINE CENTER, P.C. and PMG LLLP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01176-RM-SBP (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for final certification of the proposed class and collective action and for final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The proposed Settlement strikes an appropriate balance between the strength of the Plaintiffs' case and the benefit to the class of securing a settlement now, rather than after contentious and intense litigation, lengthy trial, and inevitable appeals process. On April 23, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and certified the proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and proposed class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for settlement purposes, and approved the form of class notice to be sent to the class/collective by the settlement administrator. On May 23, 2024, notice was sent to all Class Members by the means approved by the Court by the settlement administrator, Simpluris, Inc., with the approved opt-out form. The Plaintiffs filed this action for unpaid wages on May 11, 2022. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay their clerical staff for off-the-clock work they performed for the Defendants. Panorama is a provider of orthopedic care in metro Denver. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDkjmO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com The Defendant are represented by: John Husband, Esq. Juan Obregon, Esq. HOLLAND & HART, LLP 555 17th Street St., Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-8545 E-mail: JCObregon@hollandhart.com Jhusband@hollandhart.com PATELCO CREDIT: Warren Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-04036-LJC (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information that Plaintiff and Class Members, as customers of Patelco, entrusted to it, including, without limitation, and upon information and belief, their names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and/or financial account information. On June 30, 2024, Patelco began sending Plaintiff and other Class Members an email communication informing them that on June 29, 2024 Patelco suffered a serious security incident that required it to shut down its day-to-day banking systems to remediate the issue and contain the impact. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have lost access to their money and financial accounts, says the suit. Allegedly, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded; failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data; and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party, the suit asserts. Patelco Credit Union is a full-service, not-for-profit financial cooperative based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Alex J. Tramontano, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com tramontano@whafh.com PAYCHEX INC: Stevenson Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATALIE STEVENSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCHEX INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-06433 (W.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and violation of New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its computer systems following a data breach on April 30, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Paychex Inc. is a payroll services company headquartered in Rochester, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PBGS LTD: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Feltzin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE FELTZIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.B.G.S., LTD., Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80852-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial buildings located at 4198 Northlake Boulevard, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. P.B.G.S., Ltd. Owns and operates a commercial property at Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com PEACEHEALTH: Faces Smith Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------- DAYMON SMITH, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PEACEHEALTH, a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-01092-MK (D. Ore., July 3, 2024) arises from PeaceHealth's alleged unlawful religious or medical discrimination against Plaintiff because of his conflict with taking the COVID-19 vaccine and the Defendant's refusal to offer reasonable accommodations for the same, in violation of the Or. Rev. Stat. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, PeaceHealth terminated approximately 100 religious employees who had submitted religious or exemptions from the vaccine mandates and refused to accommodate them. The Plaintiff and other PeaceHealth employees filed over 100 similar complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Oregon Bureau of Labor. After receiving just one EEOC complaint, PeaceHealth was on notice that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees intended to file their claims for wrongful termination due to PeaceHealth's actions. The EEOC was also on notice about these complaints that numbered in the hundreds, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a jury trial for all claims that can be tried to a jury under federal law. The Plaintiff worked in a PeaceHealth facility during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in March of 2020. PeaceHealth is a not-for-profit health care system that owns and operates ten hospitals and numerous clinics in the U.S. states of Alaska, Oregon, and Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline Janzen, Esq. Paul Janzen, Esq. RUGGED LAW, INC. 4550 SW Hall Blvd Beaverton, OR 97005 Telephone: (503) 520-9900 E-mail: caroline@ruggedlaw.com paul@ruggedlaw.com PEORIA, IL: Public Roads Inaccessible to Disabled, Yarbrough Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD YARBROUGH; CHRIS MITCHELL; and WILLIE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS; PATRICK URICH, in his official capacity as the City Manager; RITA ALI, in her official capacity as the Mayor of the City; DENISE JACKSON; CHARLES V. GRAYEB; TIMOTHY RIGGENBACH; ANDRE W. ALLEN; DENIS CYR; JOHN L. KELLY; ZACHARY M. OYLER; DR. KIRAN VELPULA; DR. BERNICE GORDON-YOUNG; and MICHAEL P. VESPA, in their official capacities as Council Members for the City of Peoria, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01246-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., July 11, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the curb ramps, sidewalks, school crosswalks, public crosswalks, bus stops, pedestrian crossings, and other walkways (hereafter, "pedestrian rights-of-way") built by the Defendants are largely inaccessible to persons with mobility disabilities. The Defendants has failed and continues to fail to construct or maintain pedestrian rights-of-way throughout the City and to install and maintain curb ramps and bus stops that are necessary to make its pedestrian rights-of-way readily accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. The pedestrian rights-of-way, when viewed in their entirety, are not readily accessible to and usable by persons with mobility disabilities due to the pervasive existence of numerous architectural and other physical access barriers along the paths of travel, says the suit. Peoria is a city in Maricopa and Yavapai counties in the U.S. state of Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer M. Sender, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 W Madison St., Ste 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 604-2778 Email: jsender@hsplegal.com - and - Carl F. Reardon, Esq. 120 Illini Drive East Peoria, IL 61611 Telephone: (309) 699-0787 Email: carlreardon@comcast.net - and - Jim Rochford, Esq. Nina R. Gougis, Esq. JIM ROCHFORD & ASSOCIATES 101 SW Adams, Suite 700 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 637-5322 Email: jrockford@rochfordlaw.com ngougis@rochfordlaw.com PERDUE FOODS: Parker Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perdue Farms, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Roger Parker, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Perdue Foods LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02895-LMM-LTW (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Perdue Farms -- https://www.perdue.com/ -- is the parent company of Perdue Foods and Perdue AgriBusiness, based in Salisbury, Maryland. Perdue Foods is a major chicken, turkey, and pork processing company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Crooks, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G. Street, NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (617) 721-3587 - and - Jarred A. Klorfein, Esq. Timothy Brandon Waddell, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 596-5600 Fax: (404) 596-5604 Email: jklorfein@caplancobb.com bwaddell@caplancobb.com PERFECT THING II: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ramos Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ESLIMERARI RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PERFECT THING II, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05731 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.theperfectthing.net, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Perfect Thing Ii, Inc. provides consignment services for estate liquidations and offers a variety of services including sales control, arrangement of item pick up, safe removal of items, charitable donations, post-sale cleanup, individual item sale, and personal property appraisals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PET CONCEPTS: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties ------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Harrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pet Concepts, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-07494 (D.N.J., July 2, 2024), is brought arising 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://katiesnj.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, https://katiesnj.com/ (hereinafter referred to as "Website"), Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself 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 services at https://katiesnj.com/ prior to entering Defendant's physical location, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person. Pet Concepts, LLC, operates the Katiesnj.com online retail store 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 PHILIPS NORTH: Perez Sues Over Mislabeled Avent Bottle Products --------------------------------------------------------------- GUADALUPE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11755 (D. Mass., July 8, 2024) is a class action lawsuit regarding the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, distribution, and sale of Philips Avent-branded Bottles that are sold nationwide and falsely marketed as "BPA Free." According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite including harmful microplastics in its Products, the Defendant goes to considerable lengths to mislead consumers into believing the Products are safe, good for them, and without BPA. Moreover, the Defendant omits the Products contain harmful microplastics, especially when heated -- a material fact to the Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers -- on the Products' labeling and marketing. The Defendant is, therefore, liable to the Plaintiff and Class members for selling the Products without disclosing that the Products contain harmful microplastics, says the suit. Philips North America LLC is a health technology company focused on improving people's health and enabling better outcomes across the health continuum from healthy living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment and home care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 944-9455 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce DeLeon Suite 205 - #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com PLAYA BOWLS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYA BOWLS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04729 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.playabowls.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Playa Bowls LLC is an acai shop that serves healthy fruit bowls, smoothies, juices, oatmeal, soup, and coffee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com PLAZA LA MER: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Feltzin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE FELTZIN v. PLAZA LA MER OWNER, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80845-AMC (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2024) is a class action alleging that the Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against the Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located in it, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property on April 23, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is 34 miles from his residence and is near other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. These barriers have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, the suit adds. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to ADA. Mr. Feltzin is paralyzed and is substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment. He requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate and uses a manual wheelchair. The Defendant operates an infill retail business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com ramon@rjdiegolaw.com PRAIRIE STATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tilley Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS TILLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01701 (S.D. Ill., July 11, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Tilley was employed by the Defendant as a coal miner. Prairie State Generating Company, LLC operates a coal mine located in Lively Grove Township, Washington County, near Marissa, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 216-230-2955 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com R.I.S. PROPERTIES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Feltzin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAWRENCE FELTZIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.I.S. PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80830-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owned and operated the commercial buildings located at 525 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, (hereinafter the "Commercial Property"). The Plaintiff alleges that he encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and business within, have each denied the Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, says the suit. R.I.S. Properties, Inc. owns, operates, and oversees commercial properties in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com REDBIRD CONTENT: Sequoia Sues Over Non Performance of Obligations ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEQUOIA MEDIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDBIRD CONTENT CORPORATION; and TIFF WINTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05175 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2024) is an action where the Plaintiff is seeking restitution in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $165,000 for damages arising directly from Defendants' breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has invested, or caused to be invested, approximately $108,588.51 in the Defendants' covered expenses incurred in order to carry out the Project under the Agreement and in return, the Defendants have knowingly and willfully failed to perform any of its contractual obligations the Agreement. Redbird Content Corporation is engaged in the creation, management, marketing, licensing, and selling of visual, digital, audio, written, and other forms of documentation pertaining to the production of an original documentary/cinematic production. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. Hatzipetros, Esq. PETROS LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 W 23rd Street, FL 5 New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (347) 804-1206 Facsimile: (212) 206-8868 REFRESH CLUB: Court Awards Pietrangelo $3K in Damages ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. PIETRANGELO, II, v. REFRESH CLUB, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01943-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney Friedrich entered an order dismissing as moot Pietrangelo's claims for injunctive and prospective declaratory relief but not claim for retrospective declaratory relief. In addition, the Court awards Pietrangelo $1,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages. A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion. The Court concludes that (1) Pietrangelo's claims for injunctive and prospective declaratory relief are moot; (2) Pietrangelo's claim for retrospective declaratory relief is not moot; and (3) Pietrangelo is entitled to $1,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages. The Plaintiff James E. Pietrangelo, II, proceeding pro se, brought this suit against Refresh Club, Inc. and The Wing DC, LLC seeking monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for alleged violations of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. On Sept. 29, 2023, the Court granted Pietrangelo summary judgment on his public accommodation and advertising claims. The Court then ordered supplemental briefing on the potential mootness of Pietrangelo's requests for equitable relief and, on Feb. 27, 2024, held a bench trial on compensatory and punitive damages. The parties completed their post-trial briefing on May 25, 2024. At bottom, Pietrangelo proved that The Wing's denial of his application and advertising practices constituted violations of the DCHRA. Humiliation and embarrassment naturally flow from such discrimination. For those harms, this Court, following the lead of other courts, concludes that Pietrangelo is entitled to $1,000 in compensatory damages. But Pietrangelo has fallen short of proving any aggravating circumstances that warrant enhancing that award— certainly not to the tune of his requested $4 million. As to the precise dollar amount, Pietrangelo seeks punitive damages double the value of compensatory damages—i.e., $8 million for both DCHRA violations. As a constitutional threshold, "few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages . . . will satisfy due process." Given that the Court will award $1,000 in compensatory damages, an $8 million award in punitive damages would undoubtedly violate the Due Process Clause—approximating a 8,000 multiplier. Given The Wing's violations of the DCHRA, aggressive marketing as a non-male space, and initial mockery of efforts to enforce antidiscrimination laws, the Court concludes that a multiplier of two is reasonable and no greater than necessary to achieve the goals of retribution and deterrence. The Court will thus award Pietrangelo $2,000 in punitive damages. Refresh was a women-focused social club and co-working space. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ar0VeG at no extra charge.[CC] RETAIL ENERGY: Lyman Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Energy Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Maxx Lyman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retail Energy Holdings LLC doing business as: Town Square Energy, Case No. 2:24-cv-01629-SMB (D. Ariz., July 2, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Retail Energy Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides electricity trading services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 301 E Bethany Home Rd., Ste. C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 265-3332 Email: david@kazlg.com - and - Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com RICE DRILLING: Must Oppose Gregor Class Cert Bid by August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order granting joint motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order. -- The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Aug. 15, 2024. -- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by no later than Sept. 5, 2024. The Defendant is doing business in oil & energy industry. A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=thu5Be at no extra charge.[CC] RIFLE LLC: DelaCruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIFLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05107 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://riflepaperco.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase the Citrus Grove Oven Mitt. He attempted to purchase the Citrus Grove Oven Mitt but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item and/or items to the cart due to barriers on Defendant's Website which prevented him from doing so. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of his full and equal access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Rifle, LLC's website provides consumers with access to goods including information about purchasing home decor, stationary, accessories and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal RONIN STAFFING: Walker Sues Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RONIN STAFFING LLC; UCLA HEALTH; STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC. and DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05669 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Megan's Law, California Fair Chance Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons in California who applied for employment with Ronin's and UCLA Health (referred here as Employer Defendants) and were denied employment as a result of Ronin and/or UCLA Health's use of information disclosed in the Megan's Law Website, brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies, based on: (i) the unlawful and unfair conduct of Employer Defendants, in using information disclosed in the California Department of Justice Megan's Law Website for employment purposes; (ii) Employer Defendants' failure to conduct an individualized assessment of whether Plaintiff's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of an UCLA Health program analyst that justified denying him the position; (iii) Sterling's unlawful and unfair conduct in furnishing to Employer Defendants investigative background reports containing records of arrest, indictment, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that antedate the report by more than seven (7) years; and (iv) Employer Defendants failure to provide a pre-adverse action notice and post-adverse action notice before and after taking adverse action against Plaintiff based on information contained in the background report. Ronin Staffing LLC is an employer, staffing agency, and full-service provider of Human Capital Management, Temporary & Direct Hire Support. Ronin is a California limited liability company headquartered in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Ave., Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 92932 Telephone: (833) 729-5529 Facsimile: (833) 972-9546 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com SEVILLE WASH: Underpays Car Wash Attendants/Detailers, Sorto Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VISITACION SORTO, FREDY MAURICIO CHAVARRIA, JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ NOLASCO, MARVIN EZEQUIEL ALVAREZ LOPEZ, MERCEDES DE LA PAZ NOLAZCO GONZALES, and SILVIO OMAR PEREZ MARQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEVILLE WASH INC. d/b/a CLASSIC SEVILLE CAR WASH and URI SHEMELZMAN and AZUCENA TOLEDANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04863 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as car detailers and car wash attendants in New York at any time between 2013 and 2024. Seville Wash Inc., doing business as Classic Seville Car Wash, is a car wash services provider in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bowers Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MADDALENA BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00055-JTJ (D. Mont., July 10, 2024) is a class action arising out of Snowflake's failure to secure its cloud storage systems, enabling criminals to access and misuse highly sensitive Private Information from Snowflake's cloud storage and systems that Plaintiff and members of the Class provided to companies that, in turn relied on Snowflake to store and protect such Private Information (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data Breach, through which their Personally Identifiable Information was compromised, disclosed, and obtained by unauthorized third parties, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own expense. Consequently, the Plaintiff and the other Class Members will incur ongoing out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the suit. Snowflake Inc. provides software solutions. The Company develops database architecture, data warehouses, query optimization, and parallelization solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Rossbach, Esq. ROSSBACH LAW, P.C. 401 North Washington Street P.O. Box 8988 Missoula, MT 59807-8988 Telephone: (406) 543-5156 Email: bill@rossbachlaw.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com.com kswope@cpmlegal.com SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Simpson Sues Over Income Share Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SIMPSON, LISSETT CAMARGO, and MICHAEL TREPANIER, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY D/B/A KENZIE ACADEMY, and LAUNCH SERVICING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01118-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Indiana Code. In recent years, bootcamps and institutions of higher education began offering alternative forms of financing to lure students to their programs. One such form of alternative financing, called an "income share agreement" (ISA), has been marketed to students as an alternative to conventional student loans. According to the complaint, SNHU committed criminal fraud by knowingly or intentionally making false or misleading statements within their ISAs that the financing available to students was not credit and was not a loan. Despite this, SNHU reported payment information on the ISAs to the credit reporting agencies. SNHU represented to Plaintiffs and Class Members they were not signing up for credit or taking on debt when SNHU knew this was not true. SNHU did so to bind students to a loan agreement causing them to pay far more than the cost of their loan. Students, including Plaintiffs, were not entitled to early payment or prepayment without a substantial penalty, says the suit. Southern New Hampshire University d/b/a Kenzie Academy was formed in 2017 as a for-profit tech start-up school. It was designed and developed as a tech "bootcamp" school designed to provide students an education in a short period of time for the lowest cost possible.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell B. Cate, Esq. William N. Riley, Esq. Joshua N. Taylor, Esq. Sundeep Singh, Esq. RILEYCATE, LLC 11 Municipal Drive, Suite 320 Fishers, IN 46038 Telephone: (317) 588-2866 Facsimile: (317) 458-1785 E-mail: rcate@rileycate.com wriley@rileycate.com jtaylor@rileycate.com ssingh@rileycate.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Simon Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM SIMON and CYNDIE SIMON on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01159-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, certifying their class claim against the Defendant for the reasons identified in the concurrently filed Memorandum of Law. Specialized operates as a financial company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wOgN7A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com STAT COURIER: Jemison Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN JEMISON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STAT COURIER, INC., d/b/a, ATM AMERICAN TRASNPORTATION MANAGEMENT & DESIGN, AARON TOMCZAK, BRUCE TOMCZAK, ARON PUPI, individually, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:22-cv-01322-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective Action. The Plaintiff contends that the case meets the standard for conditional certification as he has shown that the proposed class members are similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Additionally, the Court should authorize notice to the class, as court authorization of notice to the class in an FLSA collective action serves the legitimate goal of avoiding duplicative suits and setting cutoff dates to expedite disposition of the action, the Plaintiff adds. Stat offers a full range of courier services and specializes in same-day courier deliveries. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mOA3ix at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 SUN TECHNICAL: Jimerson Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rashad Jimerson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUN Technical Services, Inc., dba BHI Energy Staffing Solutions, a California Corporation; Southern California Edison Company, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00011927-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01150-BEN-VET. This Action arises under federal law because the alleged actions and/or omissions of Defendant and the alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff Rashad Jimerson ( "Plaintiff") and others in the alleged class, which gave rise to this Action, took place at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS"), or are otherwise related to Plaintiff's employment by SUN Technical Services, Inc., dba BHI Energy Staffing Solutions, Inc. at SONGS.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tanya A. Guzman, Esq. SCE LAW DEPARTMENT 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, 3rd Floor Rosemead, CA 91770 Phone: (626) 302-6976 Email: tanya.aguzman@sce.com TEXAS CHILI: Ramirez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LUNA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEXAS CHILI RESTAURANT I, INC. d/b/a TEXAS CHILI, TEXAS CHILI RESTAURANT II, INC. d/b/a TEXAS CHILI, MOISES HERNANDEZ, and YESENIA PINEDA, Case No. 7:24-cv-05242 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) seeks equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and 26 U.S.C. section 7434. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. From January 2022 until Sept. 12, 2023, Mr. Ramirez regularly worked Fridays through Tuesdays, for a total of 57.5 hours per week. Mr. Ramirez was also not afforded any breaks during his shifts. During the relevant time period until May 2023, the Defendants paid Mr. Ramirez a fixed hourly rate of $17.00 for all hours worked, including those over 40 hours per week. From June 2023 until Sept. 12, 2023, the Defendants paid Mr. Ramirez a fixed hourly rate of $18.00 for all hours worked, including those over 40 hours per week. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff spread of hours pay equal to one (1) additional hour's pay at the full minimum wage rate for every day in which his shift exceeded ten (10) hours. The Defendants also failed to furnish to the Plaintiff payroll notices at the time of his hire, or at any time thereafter, containing his rates of pay, the designated payday, or other information required by NYLL, the suit claims. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook and waiter from January 2016 until Sept. 12, 2023. Texas Chili is a Tex-Mex restaurant in Port Chester, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarret Bodo, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: jtrbodo@katzmelinger.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Miller Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05867 (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers following a data breach on their third-party cloud database provider's systems between April 2, 2024, and May 18, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Ticketmaster, LLC is a ticket sales and distribution company, located at 9348 Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, California. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is an event promoter and venue operator, located at 9348 Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer M. French, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: jennf@lcllp.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (724) 656-1556 Email: gary@lcllp.com TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Parties Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA CASTILLO DE MARTINEZ, et al., v. TIER-ONE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02339-LLA (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and LCvR 23.1: 1. Certifying and authorizing the Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel to represent a settlement class ("Tier One Settlement Class") consisting of: "all Tier-One employees who performed "Public Work", as defined in the settlement agreement attached as Exhibit A, in the District of Columbia who performed more than 40 hours of work in a workweek and/or were paid below the rate promised and owed pursuant to District of Columbia law during the period of Jan. 1, 2021 through March 3, 2024"; 2. Preliminarily find that the proposed settlement reflected in the Settlement Agreement and described in the accompanying Memorandum in Support is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate so as to justify dissemination of notice thereof to the Tier One Settlement Class; and 3. Preliminarily approving the fee & cost award to undersigned counsel; 4. Appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; 5. Approving the date set forth for a hearing on final approval of the proposed settlement and its terms; 6. Approving the Notice Form, which has been agreed to by the settling parties, and which are attached hereto as Exhibit D; 7. Directing that the Notice Form be disseminated in the manner described in the accompanying Memorandum; and 8. Approving the deadlines for, inter alia, requests for exclusion from the Tier One Settlement Class and filing objects to the proposed settlement. Tier One is a minority-owned facility services provider of commercial janitorial, building maintenance and specialty property services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=putp1r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: John M. Remy, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1701 Parkridge Blvd., Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 Telephone: (703) 483-8300 Facsimile: (703) 483-8301 E-mail: John.remy@jacksonlewis.com TIKTOK INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TIKTOK INC., a corporation; BYTEDANCE, INC. a corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order their application under local Rule 79-5 for leave to file opposition to motion for class certification under seal. Under Local Rule 79-5.2.2(a), Defendants submit this Application for leave to redact and file under seal certain portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Declarations in support of that Opposition, and Exhibit Nos. 1-5, 9-12, and 16-17 to the same. The Defendants request that the Court enter the concurrently filed [Proposed] Order permitting Defendants to file these documents under seal. These documents contain and reference Defendants' proprietary information. This includes information designated "Confidential" and "Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Parties Stipulated Protective Order. As explained in the Declaration of Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, also filed concurrently with this Application, compelling reasons exist to seal this information. Additionally, Exhibit Nos. 13-15 are documents that the Plaintiffs have designated "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes Only," and the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Stivers contains references to these documents. Pursuant to Local Rule 79- 5.2.2(b), the burden is on the Plaintiffs to file a declaration to establish that all or part of the designated material is sealable. TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rKiBWW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Victor Jih, Esq. Kelly H. Yin, Esq. Luis Li, Esq. Sheryl S. Bassin, Esq. Dylan G. Savage, Esq. Thomas Wakefield, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 1900 Avenue of The Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 446-6900 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com kyin@wsgr.com luis.li@wsgr.com sbassin@wsgr.com dsavage@wsgr.com twakefield@wsgr.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Caluwe Sues Over Lack of Hydrogen Fuel Stations ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN CALUWE; SHERVIN SHAHHIAN; LEILA KHAJE HOSEINI; and SOHEIL VAHEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION d.b.a. TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05819 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, Toyota markets, sells, or leases its hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles, specifically the Toyota Mirai (hereinafter "Mirai"). However, Toyota has failed and continues to fail to disclose to its customers, including the Plaintiffs, that the hydrogen fueling stations which it promises them are numerous in number frequently are out of fuel, are inoperative due to broken equipment, and will not accept fuel cards as payment due to various internal issues. Despite Toyota being aware of these refueling limitations, throughout the relevant period, Toyota and its salespeople tell customers prior to sale and lease of its Mirai vehicles that hydrogen fuel is available and that refueling the Mirai is seamless. Moreover, despite its knowledge of the lack of working hydrogen fuel stations and hydrogen fuel for its Mirai vehicles, Toyota has not disclosed these issues in its advertising, marketing, sales, or leases, says the suit. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retail and sells new and used automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers, hybrids, hybrid cars, among others. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Azar Mouzari, Esq. Nilofar Nouri, Esq. BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 858-5567 Facsimile: (424) 286-0963 Email: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com nilofar@bhtrialattorneys.com TWITTER INC: Adler Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EITAN ADLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-01788-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to extend, Nunc Pro Tunc, the deadline to file his motion for class certification until just after midnight on Friday and/or to accept Plaintiff's Late Filed Motion. On July 8, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation seeking to extend the class certification deadline and to set an agreed upon briefing schedule. On July 11, 2024, the Court denied the parties' stipulation. Following the Court's denial of the parties’ stipulation, the Plaintiff's counsel worked quickly to prepare the Motion for Class Certification during the evening of July 12th. However, coordinating the exhibits took longer than anticipated, due in part to technical issues with Plaintiff's counsel's servers. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was filed at approximately 12:20 am on July 13, 2024, and his supporting exhibits, along with an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, were filed about an hour later. Given that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was filed only approximately 20 minutes after the Court's original deadline (and the fact that there is no prejudice to Defendants), there is good cause to grant Plaintiff's motion. The extension request, including the time for filing Plaintiff's exhibits and Administrative Motion, is for less than 90 minutes, nunc pro tunc. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OOha4p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com bmanewith@llrlaw.com TWITTER INC: Turkal Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Willow Wren Turkal, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. CGC-24-613875 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-04054. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the putative class, asserts a claim of sex discrimination against Defendant under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Roshni C. Kapoor, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com roshni.kapoor@morganlewis.com - and - Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. Kassia Stephenson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com - and - Carolyn M. Corcoran, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: +1.212.309.6000 Fax: +1.212.309.6001 Email: carolyn.corcoran@morganlewis.com UHG I LLC: Court Dismisses Pochan Suit Over Classified Info ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JEREMY POCHAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff, vs. UHG I LLC, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; AND WELTMAN WEINBERG & REIS CO LPA, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; Defendants, Case No. 2:23-CV-01138-MJH (W. Pa.), Judge Marilyn J. Hora of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion to dismiss the class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mr. Pochan brings this putative class action against UHG and WWR under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq., the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. Sec. 2270.4, et seq., the Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Sec. 201-2, et seq., and under Pennsylvania common law theories of negligence and invasion of privacy. Mr. Pochan alleges that, on February 21, 2023, UGH through its counsel WWR, filed a Complaint against Mr. Pochan in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Pochan asserts the state court complaint disclosed his private financial information and the Defendants failed to properly utilize a confidential document form necessary to shield said disclosure. According to him, "by failing to prevent disclosure of these statutorily protected materials, WWR failed to comply with 204 Pa. Code 213.81." In its Motion to Dismiss, WWR argues that 1) the Court should reject Plaintiff's counsel's second attempt to manufacture liability; 2) WWR complied with both Pennsylvania Law and the FDCPA; 3) Non-Adherence to a court rule does not automatically give rise to an FDCPA violation; 4) Without an FDCPA violation, Mr. Pochan cannot sustain an PFECUA or UTPCPL claim; 5) Mr. Pochan cannot support a negligence claim against WWR; and 6) Mr. Pochan cannot support an invasion of privacy claim. Mr. Pochan contends that the loan agreement, Truth in Lending Disclosure, and account numbers attached to the state court complaint constitute a disclosure of confidential "financial source documentation" under the UJS Policy (204 Pa. Code Sec. 213.81). He argues that said disclosures violate the FDCPA because it identifies him as a defendant in a debt collection action. In reply, WWR maintains that the supporting documents attached to the state court complaint are not "Financial Source Documents." WWR further contends that, despite Mr. Pochan's failure to plead alleged disclosures of "account numbers," he is aware that these are defendant's internal reference numbers and not "account numbers." The Court concludes Mr. Pochan cannot maintain an FDCPA claim, holding that the supporting documents to the state court complaint are not "Financial Source Documents" under the UJS Policy definitions that would require sealing, amendment, or redaction. According to the Court, the FDCPA statute is meant to protect against abusive practices; it does not concern violations of state technical procedural rules within a legitimate civil debt collection complaint. Therefore, under these circumstances, Mr. Pochan cannot state a claim under the FDCPA against the defendants, the Court holds. The only PFCEUA prohibited actions pleaded by Mr. Pochan are violations of the FDCPA. And, because the Court, supra, has determined that Mr. Pochan cannot state a claim for violations of the FDCPA, his PFCEUA and UTPCPL claims will likewise fail, the Court states. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, as regards the PFCEUA and UTPCPL claims, will be granted, the Court rules. WWR argues that Mr. Pochan's negligence claim must be dismissed, because it owed no duty to Mr. Pochan; and even if it did, no duty was breached. Specifically, WWR maintains that it only owed a duty to its own client, not to Mr. Pochan, its client's adversary. Further, WWR contends that no breach occurred, because it never divulged Mr. Pochan's personal financial information. Mr. Pochan maintains that UHG and WWR had a common law duty to exercise reasonable care to protect and secure his personal and financial information within their possession or control from being compromised, lost, stolen, misused, and/or disclosed to unauthorized parties. He argues that they breached said duty when the confidential information was published to the general public on the dockets. The Court points out the distinguishing factor in this case is that the alleged offending information was set forth, first and foremost, when UHG and WWR filed their state court complaint. Under Pennsylvania law, parties and their counsel are privileged with absolute judicial immunity from tort liability for communications made during the course of judicial proceedings, the Court notes. WWR, as the attorneys representing UHG, owed no duty of care to its non-client, Mr. Pochan, the Court states. Further, even it did owe a duty, both WWR and UHG are entitled to judicial privilege from any liability arising from content of its pleadings, in this case, the state court complaint, the Court adds. Thus, even if the state court complaint contained confidential information, which the Court has already determined that it did not, Mr. Pochan could not recover from UHG and WWR under a negligence theory, the Court concludes. Finally, any claims that internal reference numbers could be traced to any of his private information is tenuous and speculative, and Mr. Pochan's lack of supporting factual allegations indicating any actual breach has occurred calls into question his standing to bring such a claim, the Court holds. Therefore, Mr. Pochan cannot state a claim in support of a negligence claim in this context. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, as regards Mr. Pochan's negligence claim, will be granted, the Court rules. UHG and WWR, as regards Mr. Pochan's invasion of privacy claim, are entitled to judicial privilege when they included the numbers in their judicial pleadings. Therefore, Mr. Pochan cannot maintain an invasion of privacy claim against them, the Court concludes. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 17, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vNX6Rs UNITED STATES STEEL: Shaffer Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHASE SHAFFER, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. GD-24-005941, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 3, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00969 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees who are also simultaneously represented by the United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and whose employment with USS is governed by the terms in the Basic Labor Agreement. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts a cause of action under Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act based on Defendant USS' alleged failure to compensate him and alleged Class Members for all time performing certain tasks prior to and after their scheduled shifts. The Complaint also challenges the legality under the PMWA of Defendant's company-wide timekeeping, compensation, and payroll practices. United States Steel Corporation is an American integrated steel producer headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Marla N. Presley, Esq. Laura C. Bunting, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 232-0404 Facsimile: (412) 232-3441 E-mail: Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com Laura.Bunting@jacksonlewis.com - and - Andrew J. Bellwoar, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 10701 Parkridge Blvd., Suite 300 Reston, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 483-8300 E-mail: Andrew.Bellwoar@jacksonlewis.com UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cole Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- KATRINA COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE/BLUMENTHAL, INC.; and CHOICE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00576 (M.D.N.C., July 12, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Cole was employed by the Defendant as a nursing assistant. Universal Health Care/Blumenthal, Inc. operates a chain of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wilson Fong, Esq. HENSEL LAW, PLLC Post Office Box 39270 Greensboro, NC 27438 Telephone: (336) 218-6466 Facsimile: (336) 218-6467 Email: will.fong@hensellaw.com - and - Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com VALVE CORPORATION: Court Renotes Class Cert Bid to August 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v. Valve Corporation (RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION_, Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order renoting the class certification motion to Aug. 12, 2024. The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge: Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for class certification, noted for July 12, 2024. That motion relies heavily on the testimony of Dr. Steven Schwartz, which is the subject of a motion to exclude noting Aug. 12, 2024. As the Court must address the exclusion issue before it can resolve the class certification motion, it renotes the class certification motion to Aug. 12, 2024. Valve is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZxKSE at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Discloses Users' Video Habits to Facebook, Brown Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAURIE BROWN, OLUWAKEMI FOSUDO, and ABIGAIL MUSICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-05144-TLB (W.D. Ark., July 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing habits of the visitors to its website, www.walmart.com, without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' video viewing history while on the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit. Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: H. Gregory Campbell, Esq. CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, P.A. 2100 Riverdale Road, Suite 200B Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 372-5659 Email: greg@gcampbell-law.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com aravindran@hedinllp.com ejackson@hedinllp.com WHALECO INC: King Files TCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WhaleCo, Inc. The case is styled as Phyllis King, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WhaleCo, Inc. doing business as: Temu, Case No. 1:24-cv-11720-JEK (D. Mass., July 3, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. WhaleCo, Inc. doing business as Temu -- https://www.temu.com/ -- is an online marketplace operated by the Chinese e-commerce company PDD Holdings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com Asbestos Litigation ********* 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 ***