/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240730.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 30, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 152 Headlines 24 CAPITAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response 3M CO: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Schultetus Says ABOVE EXPECTATIONS: Brown et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches AMAZON.COM INC: Taylor Has Leave to Amend Complaint in 30 Days AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Directs Clerk to Close Rizvanovic Suit AMY PECHACEK: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Bemke Partly OK'd BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Releases Remainder of Attys.' Fees BLUNDSTONE USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Pollitt Says BMW OF NORTH: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Deadlines to August 5 BOEING CO: Perry Discrimination Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Hale Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes BYTEDANCE INC: Hearing on Class Cert Denial Bid Set for August 29 CAPITAL VISION: Clark Loses Class Status Bid CARMAX INC: Dixson Discrimination Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CASCADES CONTAINERBOARD: Brito Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. CEDAR FAIR: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply CENCORA INC: Anaya Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 2, 2025 CENTRAL CARDEN: Seeks to Strike Unpleaded Theories CHARLES MACHINE: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Hearing CHESS.COM LLC: Krueger VPPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CIGNA HEALTH: Bids to Dismiss Ahmed Health-Insurance Suit Granted CLEAN HARBORS: Walton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Koepsel Files Suit in D. Minnesota CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Greig Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Rowe Files FDCPA Suit in Ill. DuPage Cty. CROSSROAD SERVICES: Mosqueda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CROWN LABORATORIES: Toro Suit Transferred to N.D. California CVS PHARMACY: Must Prove Subject Matter Jurisdiction in McLaurin DAVIS WRIGHT: Anderson's Claims vs. Pacific & Riverview Dismissed DENVER, CO: Walter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DH & RK INVESTMENTS: Weingrad Suit Transferred to C.D. California DMG SECURITY: Morgan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ENHANCE HEALTH: Sours Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Gaskins Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina FAY SERVICING: Mayer-Perri Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania FCA US: Class Action Settlement in Wilson Suit Gets Initial Nod FEDEX GROUND: Hill Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection FHIA LLC: Minors Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FIRSTAR FINANCIAL: Gutierrez Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma FUTURE MOTION: Kagley Sues Over Defective OneWheels GEO GROUP: Pasillas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California GINO MORENA: Agosto Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California GIORGIO ARMANI: Ahumada Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California GRUMA CORP: Bid to Remand Becerra-Zamora Suit to State Court OK'd HALLMARK MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Darrigo Alleges HCA HEALTHCARE: Wingo Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee HERU SECURITY: Steward Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HOGAN MFG INC: Villasenor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES: Moss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HUNT CONSTRUCTION: Almader Suit Removed to C.D. California INTEL MEDIA HOUSE: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rose Suit Transferred to S.D. New York INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 2 KMLB ENERGY: Edmond Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KROGER CO: Court Recommends Approval of Class Certification Bid LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Walker Suit Removed to S.D. Florida LEDGER SAS: Court Narrows Claims in Baton Suit LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Hubiack Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing for Class Certification Brief Extended LIPS RESTAURANT: Vickery Sues Over Failure to Pay Appropriate Wages LONG FENCE: Parties Stipulated to Dismiss Abante Class Suit LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Summary Judgment Granted in Addison Action MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES: Eugenio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARTIN O'MALLEY: L.N.P. Files Suit in E.D. Virginia MATSU CF INC: Yang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MAXEY ENERGY: Gustin Files Suit in W.D. Texas MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Payan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MAXIMUS EDUCATIONS: Hernandez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia MCANGUS GOUDELOCK: Deprives Constitutional Rights, Justice Says MDL 1720: E.D.N.Y. Suggests Remand of Two Actions to S.D.N.Y. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY: Garland Files Suit in S.D. California MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Wolfing Suit Removed to E.D. California META PLATFORMS: Case Management Order Entered in Delgado Suit MICHIGAN: Court Tosses May's Due Process & Equal Protection Claims MILESTONE PROJECT: Court Approves Settlement in Rhodus FLSA Suit MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH: Fantore Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. MOSES H. CONE: Singh Sues Over Breach of Privacy MOUNT KISCO SURGERY: Policicchio Files Suit in S.D. New York NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Bailey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida NEW VIDEO CHANNEL: Urry Files Suit in S.D. New York NEW YORK CITY: Court Grants Luna Leave to File Amended Complaint NEW YORK, NY: Bellere Balks at Inadequate Fire Suppression Systems NEWELL BRANDS: Barrales Sues Over Microplastics in Baby Bottles NIKE INC: Ellis Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 8th Circuit NORTH STAR EMERGENCY: Stanley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NUTRIEN: Court Seeks More Briefing & Documentation in Grayson Suit PANERA LLC: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PATELCO CREDIT UNION: Antwerp Sues Over Failure to Secure PII PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Loses Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Jones Suit PENSKE LOGISTICS: Milam Suit Transferred to E.D. California PENSKE TRUCK: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. PHARMACARE US: Bid for Extension of Pretrial Dates Partly Granted PLATINUM CHOICE: Kotlarsz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida POST CONSUMER: Landry Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois PRODIGY EDUCATION: Dulei Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. PROTOCOL AGENCY: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REDWIRE CORP: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply OK'd RESONETICS LLC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Deadlines RESORTS WORLD: Parties Must Submit Settlement Conference Request RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class in Crews Suit SALLY BEAUTY: Rios Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 9th Circuit SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Certification Bid Extended to August 19 SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines Sought SANTA MONICA: Martinez Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PA: Posey Suit Seeks to Certify Class SENDWELL INC: Champion Seeks More Time to File Class Certification SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed STARCO BRANDS: Bid for Class Cert. in Ryan Suit Due March 21, 2025 STARCO BRANDS: Parties Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule Approval SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bernstein Says TEXAS TECH: Court Narrows Claims in Stewart Suit TIKTOK INC: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal TRUSPER INC: Court Denies Bid for Early Discovery in Ramirez Suit TWITTER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Schobinger Suit Due August 23 UNITED AUTO: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Feb. 28, 2025 UNITED STATES: Court Overrules BLMDC's Objection to Certification UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Doe Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. VELOCITY MORTGAGE: Cranston Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit VISA INC: 7-Eleven and Target Suits Must Be Remanded to S.D.N.Y. VISA INC: E.D.N.Y. Suggests Remand of Target Suit to S.D.N.Y. WEBCOLLEX LLC: Gutierrez Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Sub-Class WELLPOINT WASHINGTON: Mendoza Class Cert Bid Due April 18, 2025 XTO ENERGY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 4 ********* 24 CAPITAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc v. 24 Capital, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00236 (N.D. Ind., Filed July 14, 2022), the Hon. Judge Holly A. Brady entered an order granting Defendants 24 Capital, LLC and Jason Sankov's motion for extension of time to respond to motion for class certification by proposed class representative Peters Broadcast. -- Defendants granted to and including Aug. 16, 2024, to file a response to the motion for class certification by Peters Broadcast. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Racketeering (RICO) Act. 24 Capital is a private equity investment firm.[CC] 3M CO: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Schultetus Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LAYNE SCHULTETUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03962-RMG (D.S.C., July 15, 2024) is an action resulting from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says the suit. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr. Steven D. Gacovino GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 ABOVE EXPECTATIONS: Brown et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES BROWN, et al., on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABOVE EXPECTATIONS, LLC, SHERRI ROBINSON, AND CHRISTOPHER SCHATZSCHNEIDER, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00788-UNA (D. Del., July 5, 2024) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as home health aides and required them to travel to and from their clients' residences in and around Kent County, Delaware. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for the all the hours worked and one-and-one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Defendants also provided paystubs that did not reflect Plaintiffs' actual hours worked. Additionally, the Defendants misclassified a salaried program coordinator as exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime under the FLSA. Above Expectations LLC provides services to disabled individuals with bathing, cooking, assistance with medication, community activities, shopping, doctors' appointments, and other activities. [bn] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald G. Poliquin, Esq. THE POLIQUIN FIRM, LLC 1475 S. Governors Ave. Dover, DE 19904 Telephone: (302) 702-5001 E-mail: ron@poliquinfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Taylor Has Leave to Amend Complaint in 30 Days -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEFFREY TAYLOR and ROBERT SELWAY, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00169-MJP (W.D. Wash.), Senior District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of this Order. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Taylor and Robert Selway claim the algorithm used by Defendant Amazon.com., Inc., to determine which offers are prominently featured on the online marketplace violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86.010 ("CPA"). They claim that the algorithm's preference for Amazon's own offers, or those offers for which Amazon provides logistical support, deceives consumers into paying more for identical products. Since 1994, Amazon has expanded from selling books to becoming the largest online retailer in the United States. It has done so via two avenues: Amazon Retail and Amazon Marketplace. Amazon Retail is comprised of two parts: goods produced by and sold through Amazon, such as Kindle e-readers and "Amazon Basics" products, and through wholesale supplier partners, referred to as vendors. Amazon Marketplace allows other retailers, referred to as "sellers," to sell products directly to consumers on Amazon's retail platform, where they compete against Amazon Retail. For the privilege of selling on Amazon Marketplace, sellers must pay Amazon fees, including commissions, selling fees, advertising services, and any fees owed due to enrollment in the Fulfilled By Amazon ("FBA") program. FBA allows sellers to contract out certain logistical elements of online retail, such as warehousing, packing, shipping, and handling of returns, to Amazon. By all accounts, most successful Amazon sellers use FBA, which has become a multi-billion-dollar venture for Amazon. When customers search for an item on Amazon, they are presented with a "Detail Page" including a product description, pictures, dimensions, reviews, and, importantly for the purposes of this lawsuit, a "Featured Offer" or "Buy Box" winner. When more than one seller offers the same product, Amazon selects a single offer--either from Amazon Retail or from a third-party seller--for display in the "Buy Box." When an offer is selected for display in (or "wins") the Buy Box, that offer's price is prominently displayed on the item page, and shoppers may accept the offer immediately through a "Buy Now" button or may use a different button to add the offered item to their shopping cart. When an offer does not win the Buy Box, it is relegated to the "Other Sellers on Amazon" section, which lists the lowest price among the relegated offers and cannot be bought directly via a "Buy Now" button. Unsurprisingly, some reports allege that up to 98% of purchases made on Amazon Marketplace are made via the Buy Box. The Plaintiffs allege that the Buy Box algorithm, or the methodology by which offers are selected to win the Buy Box, are rigged in favor of Amazon Retail offers or offers from sellers enrolled in FBA. The Plaintiffs rely on a 2021 report from the Italian Competition Authorities, which found that the Buy Box algorithm looks at five factors when determining which offer should win the Buy Box. The Plaintiffs allege that two of the five factors are biased in favor of Amazon Retail or FBA offers. The first factor is whether an offer qualifies for Amazon Prime, a consumer subscription service that allows for free two-day shipping. The Plaintiffs allege that FBA offers automatically qualify for Amazon Prime, while non-FBA offers do not. The second factor is the seller performance rating, which the Plaintiffs allege does not apply to FBA offers, as those offers automatically receive the maximum value simply by virtue of being FBA offers. On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging that Amazon's use of the Buy Box algorithm constitutes a deceptive practice under the CPA. They claim that the biases in Amazon's Buy Box algorithm "deceptively preference offers from Amazon itself and third parties that participate in FBA, even when there are lower prices on otherwise identical offers from sellers that don't use FBA." According to the Plaintiffs, this deception injured them and other members of a putative class by causing them to pay more for goods via offers that won the Buy Box than they would have paid if Amazon did not use the biased algorithm. They further note that this deception only came to light upon investigation by European regulators in 2021–2022 (which is within the statute of limitations for the single cause of action under the CPA). The Plaintiffs do not identify any specific purchase they would have made if not for Amazon's alleged deceptive practices, nor do they identify any lower-priced items that they could have bought from other sellers. Amazon moves to dismiss the Complaint, specifically arguing that (1) the Plaintiffs' CPA claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) the Plaintiffs fail to allege necessary elements of their CPA claim. Amazon first seeks dismissal on timeliness grounds, arguing that the Plaintiffs' CPA claim falls outside of the four-year statute of limitations because the Plaintiffs should have known of their injuries by 2018. The Court disagrees. Judge Pechman finds the Complaint adequately alleges that the Plaintiffs became aware of the basis for their cause of action in 2021, after European regulators issued findings regarding Amazon's alleged bias in the selection of the Buy Box offer, making the filing of the Complaint timely. The Complaint was, therefore, timely filed. The Court disagrees with Amazon's argument that the Plaintiffs could have discovered the basis of their claims through on two separate sources of public information from 2018 and 2019. Judge Pechman opines that neither source proffered by Amazon is sufficient to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs should have been aware of their claims prior to 2020. The Plaintiffs rely on Avila v. Willits Environmental Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that "some public awareness of an issue through media coverage does not in and of itself trigger the discovery rule." The Court finds the reasoning in Avila persuasive. In Avila, the trial court granted summary judgment against toxic tort claimants on statute of limitations grounds. The Ninth Circuit vacated that decision, finding that "[p]ublicity concerning the [toxic] contamination and that it was likely the source of that injury must have been so pervasive as of that date that the only reasonable inference is that Plaintiffs should have known the cause of their injury." The Court, therefore, rejects Amazon's challenge to the Plaintiffs' claims as untimely. The Complaint includes well-pleaded allegations that the Plaintiffs could not have reasonably learned of their alleged injuries until the regulatory findings in 2020 and 2021, and what evidence Amazon has produced to the contrary does not show otherwise. The Court agrees with Amazon that the Complaint fails to adequately allege the fourth (injury) and fifth (causation) elements required of the Plaintiffs' CPA claim. Judge Pechman points out that the Complaint lacks specific factual allegations necessary to draw a reasonable inference that the Plaintiffs sustained a cognizable injury under the CPA or that Amazon caused the injury. Because dismissal is warranted on the fourth and fifth elements of the Plaintiffs' CPA claim, the Court does not address Amazon's challenge to the first CPA element (unfair or deceptive act) at this time. Judge Pechman also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege injury. The Plaintiffs do not allege any specific purchases in which they were deceived via the Buy Box, let alone provide receipts. The Court recognizes that the Plaintiffs may be unable to ultimately prove that they overpaid for specific purchases: in the Plaintiffs' lone example of a Buy Box screen, the Featured Offer price of $11.37 for hand soap is significantly lower than the lowest priced offer--$14.05--listed from other sellers. But the CPA claim cannot proceed past the pleading stage without a specific allegation of injury. Given the lack of injury, the Court grants Amazon's Motion to Dismiss. Finding no alleged injury, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown causation. For this additional reason, the Court grants Amazon's motion to dismiss. Judge Pechman concludes that the Complaint includes well-pleaded allegations that the Plaintiffs could not have reasonably learned of their cause of action until regulatory findings issued in 2020 and 2021. Despite blog posts and a congressional subcommittee record discussing the Buy Box, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' CPA claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. But, even construing the Complaint in the Plaintiffs' favor, the Court finds that they failed to adequately allege specific injury or causation as part of their CPA claim. Therefore, the Court grants Amazon's Motion without prejudice. The Court grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint within 30 days of this Order. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this Order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5c9a676y from PacerMonitor.com. AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Directs Clerk to Close Rizvanovic Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California directs the Clerk of Court to close the lawsuit styled MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01804-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.). On Nov. 4, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Rizvanovic filed an unverified putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC, removed the action to this Court on Dec. 22, 2021. The Defendant, thereafter, filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint or, in the alternative, motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. On April 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion. The Court found it necessary to dismiss the Plaintiff's class allegations because she brought a proposed class with claims that exceeded the pertinent statute of limitations. However, the Court found the request to strike the class allegations was premature and denied the motion to strike class allegations. On June 3, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement. Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulation to dismiss the action with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's individual claims and the putative class action claims without prejudice. Judge Baker finds that the parties' stipulation of dismissal comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) and the Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss the individual claims (at least) without a court order. In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified. In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative class claims under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. The Plaintiff's class claims have been dismissed. The Plaintiff has not amended her complaint and no class has been certified. Moreover, the Plaintiff has not sought certification, nor has certification been proposed for purposes of settlement. Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not affect putative class members' possible claims, Judge Baker says Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the parties' settlement or notice to putative class members. In light of the parties' filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court's approval of the dismissal. This action will be terminated by operation of law without further order of the Court. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and adjust the docket to reflect dismissal with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the putative class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), with each party to bear that party's own attorney's fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysd2vxz7 from PacerMonitor.com. AMY PECHACEK: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Bemke Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN BEMKE, SCOTT COLLETT, JOHN FERIOZZI, JUDY FINTZ, SARAH JAMIESON, EVAN JOHNSON, TRACY LONG and CLIFFORD NEUMANN, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals, v. AMY PECHACEK, in her official capacity As Secretary-designee of the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Conley entered an order that: 1. The Defendant Amy Pechacek's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to plaintiffs' claims that Wis. Stat. section 108.04(12)(f): (1) intentionally discriminates against plaintiffs in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (plaintiffs' "disparate treatment" claim); and (2) violates due process. The motion is denied in all other respects. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to plaintiffs' disparate impact claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and the motion is denied in all other respects. 3. The status conference set for July 23, 2024, is cancelled. The clerk of court is directed to set this case for a scheduling conference with the magistrate judge to set a new schedule for briefing on class certification and remedies, as well as a court trial on any remaining issues. The lawsuit was brought by individuals who were eligible for and received social security disability insurance ("SSDI") benefits, but after losing part-time work, were either denied unemployment benefits outright or were compelled to repay those benefits with interest or other penalties under Wisconsin's Unemployment Compensation Insurance Statute, Wis. Stat. section 108.04(12)(f), which prohibits those receiving SSDI benefits from receiving state unemployment benefits. Plaintiffs contend that the exclusion of unemployment benefits for those receiving SSDI unlawfully discriminates against individuals with disabilities and violates their due process rights. They filed this proposed class action against Amy Pechacek in her capacity as Secretary-designee of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. The Department's primary responsibilities include providing job services, training and employment assistance to people looking for work. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jl48X0 at no extra charge.[CC] BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Releases Remainder of Attys.' Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an order releasing remainder of attorneys' fees, as amended, in the lawsuit captioned IN RE BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-06719-WHO (N.D. Cal.). On Nov. 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Final Approval to Settlement, Approving Plan of Allocation, and Awarding Fees and Costs in this Action. In the Final Approval Order, the Court awarded attorney's fees to Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP in the amount of 19% of the Settlement Fund (including interest earned at the same rate as the Settlement Fund). The Court ordered that 20% of the attorneys' fees awarded in the Final Approval Order be withheld and released only when "the post-distribution accounting has been filed," and ordered that "counsel shall file a proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees when they file their post-distribution accounting." On May 3, 2024, the Court entered an Order Approving Distribution Plan As Amended ("Distribution Order"). On June 7, 2024, the Claims Administrator conducted the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to eligible Claimants pursuant to the Distribution Order, which including disseminating $30,222,372.86 by wire transfer and checks to 22,880 Claimants, who were eligible for payment. On June 28, 2028, twenty-one days after the distribution was conducted, Lead Plaintiff Arbejdsmarkedets Tillaegspension and Lead Counsel filed the Post-Distribution Accounting providing details of that distribution with the Court. The Court, therefore, orders that all but 5% of the attorney's fees awarded to Lead Counsel in the Final Approval Order are released and may be paid to Lead Counsel from the Escrow Account. A further post-distribution accounting will be filed once all settlement checks become stale, with counsel providing a declaration regarding whether a second-round distribution occurred (and if not, why not) and the final amount of the settlement (if any) going to the court-approved cy pres recipient. When counsel file the further post-distribution accounting, they will file a proposed order releasing the final withheld attorney fees to whopo@cand.uscourts.gov. The Case Management Conference set for July 10, 2024, is vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/spz6f587 from PacerMonitor.com. BLUNDSTONE USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Pollitt Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK POLLITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUNDSTONE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04921 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.blundstone.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. Blundstone USA, Inc. specializes in high-quality footwear including lace-up boots, work and safety boots, waterproof boots, dress boots, casual low-cut shoes, as well as accessories such as footbeds, socks, and renovating creams. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 BMW OF NORTH: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Deadlines to August 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIS et al., v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order modifying the deadlines for serving the parties' class certification briefing, from July 22, 2024, to Aug. 5, 2024. Due to unexpected scheduling conflicts and pre-planned vacation time, BMW NA requires additional time to finalize its brief in opposition. The new deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their brief in reply will be October 2, 2024. BMW of North America markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kqv6zA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4582 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com BOEING CO: Perry Discrimination Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEVEN PERRY, individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation; BOEING FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Washington profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-12754-2 SEA, was removed from the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01000 to the proceeding. The case arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of anti-discrimination law. The Boeing Company is an aerospace company headquartered in Virginia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com - and - Mathew A. Parker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KeyBank Building 88 East Broad Street, Suite 2025 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 E-mail: mathew.parker@ogletree.com BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Hale Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE and JESUS GOMEZ., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Sept. 26, 2024, for an order certifying the following classes: Missed Meal Period Class: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants in California who signed the same arbitration agreement as Plaintiffs Hale and Gomez, who worked a shift in excess of 6 hours, and whose timekeeping records do not reflect any recorded meal period for such shifts, during the time period Nov. 18, 2018, through the present." Missed Rest Period Class "All non-exempt positions of Defendants in California who signed the same arbitration agreement as Plaintiffs Hale and Gomez, and who worked a shift of at least 3.5 hours during the time period Nov. 18, 2018 through the present." Cell Phone Reimbursement Class "All non-exempt positions of Defendants in California who signed the same arbitration agreement as Plaintiffs Hale and Gomez, and who were required to utilize their personal cell phone to use the application HotSchedules, during the time period Nov. 18, 2018 through the present." The Plaintiff will further move the Court for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) appointing Setareh Law Group and Haines Law Group, APC, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members confirm that they were virtually never able to take their 30-minute uninterrupted meal period, which is reflected by Brinker's timekeeping records that confirm 96% of shifts over 6 hours in duration have no recorded meal period. The Plaintiff Hale was employed with Brinker from December of 2005 until July 2020. Brinker owns and operates over one hundred restaurants in California, including such chains as Chili's Grill and Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VnDufA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq. Tyson Gibb, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com jose@setarehlaw.com tyson@setarehlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424)292-2350 Facsimile: (424)292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com BYTEDANCE INC: Hearing on Class Cert Denial Bid Set for August 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to deny class certification for Aug. 15, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. shall be heard by the Court on Aug. 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4, 17th floor. ByteDance is a Chinese internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4EzJYH 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 S Grand Ave Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 CAPITAL VISION: Clark Loses Class Status Bid -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ALICE CLARK, CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ, KEVIN NELSON, and PHILLIP ROSCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10236-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise Casper entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and allowing MyEyeDr's motion to decertify the FLSA collectives, -- denying MyEyeDr's motion for summary judgment as to Galba-Bright, D. 166, as to Cardona, D. 169, and as to Clark, D. 172, but allowing the motion as to Firouzi, D. 175, -- denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and -- allowing MyEyeDr's motion to preclude the opinion of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Fox. D. 208. On this record, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that MyEyeDr acted willfully such that the statute of limitations period would be extended to three years. Firouzi opted into the lawsuit on Sept. 15, 2022, so the two-year limitations period accrued Sept. 15, 2020. Firouzi, however, has not been employed as a GM since April 5, 2020. Accordingly, the Court allows MyEyeDr's motion for summary judgment as to Firouzi. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this putative collective action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Counts I and II), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA") (Count III) and Mass. Gen. L. c. 151, section 1A (Count IV), all for the recovery of unpaid overtime. The Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to five issues relating to the applicability of FLSA executive or administrative exemptions, payroll deductions and liquidated damages. Finally, MyEyeDr moved to preclude Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Liesl Fox, from proffering expert opinions in this case. The Plaintiffs moves to certify two classes based on these state-law claims pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of individuals who have worked as GMs for MyEyeDr stores in (1) Massachusetts and (2) Pennsylvania since March 21, 2019. Capital provides optometric and retail optical services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=amrvkE at no extra charge.[CC] CARMAX INC: Dixson Discrimination Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RONALD DIXSON, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARMAX, INC., CARMAX ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24STCV13956, was removed from Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05728 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. Headquartered in Richmond, VA, CarMax is a retailer of used cars. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Victor Danhi, Esq. Lynn R. Fiorentino, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 757-5500 Facsimile: (415) 757-5501 E-mail: victor.danhi@afslaw.com lynn.fiorentino@afslaw.com CASCADES CONTAINERBOARD: Brito Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PETER BRITO, Plaintiff v. CASCADES CONTAINERBOARD PACKAGING; CASCADES HOLDING US; DAVID MARTINEZ; BRIAN UHLER; JOHN DOES #1-10; ABC CORPS #1-10, Defendant, Case No. MID-L-2601-24, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07619 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff for reporting Defendants' discriminatory and harassing practices in the workplace and unsafe conditions that did not meet the regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Headquartered in Quebec, Canada, Cascades Containerboard Packaging is engaged in the business of manufacturing containers, packaging, and hygienic packaging papers in several states and Canada, including New Jersey and New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John C. Petrella, Esq. Jeremy M. Brooks, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Connell Drive, Suite 2000 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Telephone: (908) 795-5200 CEDAR FAIR: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONEVA WALKER, JONATHAN BROWN, HOLLY POTEAT, KELLY SHEPPERSON, MANDI STEWART, NOELANI MORI, and SHANE FOSHIA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., and CEDAR FAIR MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 15 days extension (until Aug. 20, 2024) to file their Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification, due to intervening deadlines in other matters. The Defendants have consented to this request. On Feb. 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. Pursuant to the Court's April 30, 2024, Order regarding the class certification briefing schedule, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification on July 15, 2024, and the Plaintiffs' current deadline to reply in support of the motion is Aug. 5, 2024. The Parties have agreed that Plaintiffs shall have up to and including August 20, 2024, for Plaintiffs to file their Reply Brief. A proposed Order approving this request is attached Cedar Fair was an American company headquartered at its flagship Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Egm4F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com - and - Richard M. Kerger, Esq. Kimberly A. Conklin, Esq. THE KERGER LAW FIRM, LLC 4159 N. Holland-Sylvania Rd. Suite 101 Toledo, OH 43623 Telephone: (419) 255-5990 Facsimile: (419) 255-5997 E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com kconklin@kergerlaw.com - and - Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com CENCORA INC: Anaya Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ANAYA, STEVEN BETTS, WILLIAM COOK, AMBER HORNICK, CAROLYN PLUHAR, KYLE REYNOLDS, and VIRGINIA ROMANO, individually and on behalf of all OTHERS similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENCORA, INC.; THE LASH GROUP, LLC; SUMITOMO PHARMA AMERICA, INC.; BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; and BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB PATIENT ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC.; REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC; GLAXOSMITHKLINE PATIENT ACCESS PROGRAMS FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02961 (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to prevent computer hackers from infiltrating their systems and stealing sensitive information. The Plaintiffs' and Class members' private information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or reckless acts and omissions and Defendants' repeated failure to reasonably and adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class members' private information. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress from Defendants' unlawful conduct and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, third-party beneficiary claim for breach of contract, and declaratory judgment. Headquartered in Conshohocken, PA, Cencora, Inc. provides drug distribution and consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com - and - David M. Berger, Esq. Rosemary Rivas, Esq. Linda Lam, Esq. Sarah E. Hillier, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com lpl@classlawgroup.com seh@classlawgroup.com CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 2, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEDDY LAWRENCE DREHER, et al., v. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02515-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures no later than: Sept. 5, 2024 -- Fact Discovery: Feb. 18, 2026 -- The parties shall disclose initial experts March 18, 2026 and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than: -- All expert discovery shall be completed May 18, 2026 no later than: -- The deadline for plaintiffs to file their Sept. 2, 2025 motion in support of class certification shall be: -- The deadline for any opposition to such Oct 2, 2025 motion shall be: -- Deadline for any reply thereto shall be: Nov. 3, 2025 Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) offers individuals just coming home from prison the ongoing support necessary to build career capital and financial support. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CsGCXR at no extra charge.[CC] CENTRAL CARDEN: Seeks to Strike Unpleaded Theories -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON BRAND and JOHN FLODIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CENTRAL CARDEN & PET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, BREEDER'S CHOICE PET FOODS, INC., and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to strike unpleaded theories in the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Under Rule 23(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants move the Court for an Order striking unpleaded theories in the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class premised on new allegations that the Defendants allegedly violated regulations from the Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") and guidance from the Association of American Feed Control Officials ("AAFCO"). Because the Plaintiffs never raised these new, unpleaded theories about the FDA and AAFCO in any of their Complaints, the Defendants were never on notice of these theories and were deprived of their right to challenge the theories at the pleadings stage. The Court should strike Plaintiffs' unpleaded arguments about alleged violations of regulations from the FDA and guidance from the AAFCO because the Plaintiffs' "motion for class certification is not the appropriate mechanism to introduce new claims," the Defendants contend. Central Garden produces and distributes various products for the lawn and garden. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LMQRaB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. Sean Suber, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: RRothste@winston.com SSuber@winston.com SObi@winston.com CHARLES MACHINE: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LEE REMILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CHARLES MACHINE WORKS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-02639-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order vacating the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and all associated deadlines. On Jan. 25, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' joint stipulation setting dates and deadlines related to a motion for class certification to be filed by the Plaintiff. The Parties attended mediation on June 20, 2024, with Judge Brian Walsh (Ret.) and reached an agreement to resolve all claims alleged in the present action. The Parties anticipate a written agreement will be fully executed within 45 days of the filing of this stipulation The Defendant is a machine industry company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUp2gp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Ali Carlsen, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas M. Mcinerney, Esq. Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: Thomas.mcinerney@ogletree.com Carolyn.hall@ogletree.com CHESS.COM LLC: Krueger VPPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styed CARSON KRUEGER, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHESS.COM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2024CH05199, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05722 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged breaches of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Chess.com, LLC provides online chess platform. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gary Feinerman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com - and - Michael Rubin, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-391-0600 E-mail: michael.rubin@lw.com - and - Nima Mohebbi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 Grand Ave., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-485-1234 E-mail: Nima.mohebbi@lw.com CIGNA HEALTH: Bids to Dismiss Ahmed Health-Insurance Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled AZAM AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08094-AS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff Azam Ahmed says that Defendants Wellfleet Insurance, Wellfleet New York Insurance Company, and CIGNA Management, Inc., refused to cover medically necessary procedures in contravention of his health-insurance policy. But Ahmed's breach-of-contract and insurance-law claims come years too late, and his attempt to recharacterize his contract claim as one for fraud or unjust enrichment fails, Judge Subramanian opines. As such, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. In August 2016, Azam Ahmed enrolled in New York University's student health-insurance plan. The plan was issued by what is now Wellfleet New York Insurance Company and administered by what is now Wellfleet Insurance (together, "Wellfleet"). Years earlier, Ahmed had been diagnosed with a congenital birth defect, resulting in skeletal abnormalities and symptoms like headaches and joint pain. He also suffered from facial asymmetry, as well as issues with chewing, articulation, breathing, and jaw locking. In May 2017, Ahmed had surgery to address his symptoms. His preauthorization request was approved by Wellfleet via a third-party vendor that had been hired by Wellfleet to perform medical-necessity reviews. The surgery, though partially successful, did not fully resolve his symptoms, and seven months later, Ahmed's surgeons determined that a second surgery was necessary to further remedy his skeletal deformity and ongoing pain and breathing problems. The surgery would involve a septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and jaw augmentation. In conjunction with his doctors, Ahmed sent a preauthorization request for the second surgery to Wellfleet, which was reviewed by CIGNA Management, Inc. (Cigna). On Dec. 21, 2017, Wellfleet, acting through Cigna, denied the preauthorization request for the jaw augmentation. The letters indicated that Wellfleet deemed the surgery to be purely cosmetic, not medically necessary. On Jan. 8, 2018, Cigna then denied the preauthorization for the septoplasty and rhinoplasty, also citing a lack of medical necessity. Mr. Ahmed sued on Sept. 13, 2023. Drawing on a ProPublica investigative report, he alleged that Cigna relied on an algorithm to deny his preauthorization requests. Subsequently, Cigna gave Ahmed a declaration stating that it did not use the algorithm. On Jan. 8, 2024, Ahmed filed an amended complaint. He now says that Wellfleet breached the insurance contract (as well as its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) via the use of improper policies and procedures to determine medical necessity. He also says that Wellfleet violated New York Insurance Law and both Wellfleet and Cigna committed fraud insofar as they concealed their intention to deny coverage of medically necessary services and procedures in contravention of the Policy. Finally, Ahmed says that Cigna was unjustly enriched by receiving from Wellfleet a portion of the insurance premiums paid by Ahmed while intentionally and systematically denying coverage of medically necessary services and procedures in contravention of the insurance contract under which he was due benefits. Mr. Ahmed also seeks to represent a class of others whose preauthorization requests were denied. Both Wellfleet and Cigna now move to dismiss. They also move to strike the class allegations. Mr. Ahmed brings claims for breach of contract, violation of N.Y. Insurance Law Section 4226, fraud, and unjust enrichment. But, Judge Subramanian finds the first two claims come too late, and Ahmed's factual allegations are a poor fit for the latter two. Wellfleet asserts that Ahmed lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief because he is no longer a Wellfleet policyholder. Ahmed counters that he has standing because he has not alleged that he would never purchase a Wellfleet health insurance policy in the future, and so future harm is possible. Judge Subramanian holds that Ahmed's argument butchers the law in two respects. First, it is his burden to allege facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that he has standing to sue. Second, to seek injunctive relief, future harm must be "likely," not just "possible." Because Ahmed lacks such standing, Judge Subramanian says his claim for injunctive relief must be dismissed. Mr. Ahmed sues Wellfleet for both breach of contract and violation of N.Y. Insurance law Section 4226. Judge Subramanian finds that both claims are time-barred. Ahmed's contract claim is time-barred because the policy imposes a three-year time limit, meaning that Ahmed brought it two years too late. Although New York typically applies a six-year statute of limitations to breach-of-contract actions, parties may agree to a shorter period. Finally, Ahmed's unjust-enrichment claim against Cigna must also be dismissed, Judge Subramanian holds. Cigna argues that this claim must be dismissed because, among other reasons, it concerns the subject matter of a valid and enforceable contract. The Court agrees that the existence of a contract precludes Ahmed's unjust-enrichment claim. Judge Subramanian opines that Ahmed's fraud claim is defective because intention to breach is not the kind of fact required to be disclosed under the special facts doctrine. In addition, Ahmed fails to allege that he had any relationship with Cigna prior to the denials, making it unclear whether the special-facts doctrine even applies. To the extent that Ahmed's fraud claim is defective, Judge Subramanian points out that an unjust enrichment claim cannot remedy the defects and must, therefore, be dismissed. Judge Subramanian notes that Ahmed initially brought this case thinking that the Defendants used an algorithm to deny his preauthorization request. Having now received confirmation that this was not so, Ahmed tries to pivot. But the pivot leads Ahmed straight into a wall. His claims are either untimely or are a poor fit for the doctrine he tries to cram them into. As such, the Court rules that the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted with prejudice. The Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkts. 51 and 55. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/urk34bat from PacerMonitor.com. CLEAN HARBORS: Walton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Peggy Walton, individually and on behalf of herself and persons similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24-2-12989-8 KNT was removed from the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01051. On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Peggy Walton caused to be filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of Washington's Wage Transparency Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com - and - Mathew A. Parker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KeyBank Building 88 East Broad Street, Suite 2025 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 494-0420 Facsimile: (614) 633-1455 Email: mathew.parker@ogletree.com CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Koepsel Files Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. The case is styled as Pamela Koepsel, Beckie Birkholz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consulting Radiologists, Ltd., Case No. 0:24-cv-02708-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., July 15, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Consulting Radiologists, Ltd. -- https://www.consultingradiologists.com/ -- is a physician-owned practice serving patients and providers throughout the upper Midwest for more than 90 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 545-4653 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Greig Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Credit Control, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Greig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental Credit Control, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-05770 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Continental Credit Control -- https://contcred.com/ -- is a financial agency that focuses on accounts receivable management and health care debt collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Rowe Files FDCPA Suit in Ill. DuPage Cty. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed Credit Management Company, PA. The case is styled as Sean Rowe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Management Company, PA, Case No. 2024LA000822 (Ill., DuPage Cty., July 3, 2024). Credit Management Company -- https://www.creditmanagementcompany.com/ -- is committed to providing our business partners with optimum revenue cycle management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liam M. Hayden, Esq. HD LEGAL, LLC 875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: 312.647.7813 Email: lhayden@hd-legal.net CROSSROAD SERVICES: Mosqueda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crossroad Services, Inc. The case is styled as Oscar Cardenas Mosqueda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crossroad Services, Inc., Case No. 24CV082830 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 9, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Crossroad Services -- https://www.crossroadservices.com/ -- has been providing in-store service, resets and project management to the home improvement industry since 1979.[BN] CROWN LABORATORIES: Toro Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Erin Del Toro, Louisa Romo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crown Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00573 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-03996 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Crown -- https://www.crownlaboratories.com/ -- is a privately held, fully integrated global skincare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Shipley, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 680-8400 Fax: (213) 680-8500 Email: mshipley@kirkland.com - and - Paul Michael Jonna, Esq. LIMANDRI & JONNA LLP PO Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Phone: (858) 759-9930 Fax: (858) 759-9938 Email: pjonna@limandri.com CVS PHARMACY: Must Prove Subject Matter Jurisdiction in McLaurin ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Eugenia McLaurin v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-05177-PA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California orders the Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. The Notice of Removal alleges that the Court possesses jurisdiction over the action filed by Plaintiff Eugenia McLaurin pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") alleges that the Defendant violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., and the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., and also asserts a cause of action for breach of express warranty based on the Defendant's advertisement and sale of supplements containing citric acid but that were labeled as having no artificial ingredients. The FAC requests relief in the form of "restitution and disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment" and "damages in amount which is different than that calculated for restitution." The FAC defines the class as "all persons who purchased the Products for personal use in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations until the date class notice is disseminated." Judge Anderson finds that the Notice of Removal contains only the conclusory allegation that the alleged amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and fails to include any well pleaded, plausible facts or even the assumptions upon which the Defendant bases its conclusion. The Defendant alleges in its NOR that when an operative complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, the removing defendant's "amount in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by plaintiff or questioned by the court." But here, the Court questions whether the Defendant has met its burden of alleging an amount in controversy in excess of $5 million. Moreover, based on its own review of the original Complaint and the FAC, the Court questions the timing of the Defendant's removal of this action. Judge Anderson notes that the procedures include a requirement that the notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding will be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based. Here, the Defendant bases its removal of the action on the filing of the FAC. However, Judge Anderson opines that the NOR is vague and conclusory and fails to include any facts or underlying assumptions regarding the alleged damages, and the Complaint and FAC contain the same Request for Relief. If, as the Defendant alleges, the FAC alleges sufficient facts from which the Defendant could determine removability, Judge Anderson says it is not clear why the original Complaint's allegations did not similarly provide notice of removability. Thus, Judge Anderson finds there is an issue as to whether the amount in controversy was ascertainable at the time the original Complaint was served and whether the filing of the Notice of Removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b). Based on the foregoing, the Court orders the Defendant to show cause in writing why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Defendant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction has been met. The Defendant is additionally ordered to show cause in writing why the action should not be remanded because the amount in controversy was ascertainable at the time the original Complaint was served and the removal was, therefore, untimely. The Defendant's response to this Order to Show Cause was due on July 17, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Court Order dated July 3, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/29cwjtza from PacerMonitor.com. DAVIS WRIGHT: Anderson's Claims vs. Pacific & Riverview Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DIANE ANDERSON, trustee of the Diane L. Anderson Revocable Trust; BONNIE BUCKLEY; trustee of the Bonnie K. Buckley IRA; CARL AND KIRBY DYESS, trustees of the Dyess Family Trust; PETER KOUBECK, an individual and trustee of Peter L. Koubeck IRA; MICHAEL PETERSON, trustee of the Michael T. Peterson IRA; and ED WILSON, an individual, Plaintiffs v. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership; ROSS MILES, an individual; MAUREEN WILE, an individual; and PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, a California chartered bank, and RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY BANK, a Washington chartered bank, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01194-AR (D. Or.), Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, dismisses with prejudice, and without an award of costs or fees to any party, the Plaintiffs' claims against Pacific Premier and Riverview. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), Pacific Premier, Riverview, and the Plaintiffs jointly move for dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' claims against Pacific Premier and Riverview. The lawsuit is a complex securities case involving an alleged Ponzi scheme that existed for nearly two decades, fifteen investment funds currently under receivership in Washington, and the Banks' alleged involvement in the sale of real estate securities by virtue of their loans to the managers of the investment funds. On Aug. 31, 2023, the Clark County Superior Court overseeing the receivership granted the motion by Clyde A. Hamstreet & Associates, LLC ("Receiver"), the court-appointed receiver, for approval of a $19 million settlement between the Receiver, Pacific Premier, and Riverview. In approving the settlement, the court issued an order ("First Settlement Order") concluding, among other things, that the proposed settlement was "in all respects, fair, reasonable, and equitable, and in the best interests of the Investors and other creditors of the [investment funds] as a whole." As part of the First Settlement Order, the court also issued a bar order that permanently "barred and enjoined" all investors with allowed claims in the receivership, including plaintiffs, from "directly or indirectly asserting, initiating, maintaining, continuing, intervening in, encouraging, or otherwise prosecuting" any claim against Pacific Premier and Riverview "including claims that have been asserted or could be asserted" in this case. The Plaintiffs later appealed the First Settlement Order to the Washington Court of Appeals. On June 21, 2024, the Clark County Superior Court approved a subsequent settlement between the Plaintiffs, Pacific Premier, Riverview, and the Receiver ("Second Settlement Order"). Under that settlement, the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their appeal of the First Settlement Order and to dismiss their claims against Pacific Premier and Riverview in this Court, and Pacific Premier and Riverview agreed to withdraw their objections to the Plaintiffs' $3.6 million settlement with DWT ("DWT Settlement") and to file satisfactions for their judgments against the Plaintiffs arising from contempt of the First Settlement Order. The Plaintiffs filed this action as a putative class action, and though a settlement Class for the DWT Settlement has been certified, the Court has not certified a class action as to claims against the Defendants other than DWT. The moving parties acknowledge that the statute of limitations for any putative class members' Oregon Securities Law claims against Pacific Premier and Riverview has likely run. Any prejudice to the putative class members is substantially mitigated by the fact that (1) the DWT Settlement will be implemented and distributed to investors, who are members of a settlement Class without any further delay (appeals of the District Court orders would have taken months if not years), and (2) through the Receivership action in Clark County Superior Court, almost all the putative Class members will now share in the $19 million settlements between the Banks and the Receiver, and will receive substantial distributions. The Second Settlement Order, therefore, provides a mechanism for the Plaintiffs and other investors to promptly receive money from the First Settlement Order and the DWT Settlement, and for Pacific Premier and Riverview to obtain a dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' claims against them in this matter. Accordingly, based on the Second Settlement Order, the parties jointly request -- and the Court granted -- that the Court issue an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims against Pacific Premier and Riverview with prejudice without an award of fees or costs to any party. The Plaintiffs' claims against DWT, Ross Miles, and Maureen Wile will remain pending. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Motion and Order dated July 5, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yexu3mnz from PacerMonitor.com. Christopher J. Kayser -- cjkayser@ lvklaw.com -- John C. Rake -- jrake@lvklaw.com -- LARKINS VACURA KAYSER LLP, in Portland, Oregon 97204; John W. Stephens -- stephens@eslerstephens.com -- Michael J. Esler -- esler@eslerstephens.com -- ESLER STEPHENS & BUCKLEY, LLP, in Portland, Oregon 97204, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. J. Matthew Donohue -- matt.donohue@hklaw.com -- Shannon Armstrong -- shannon.armstrong@hklaw.com -- Kristin Asai -- kristin.asai@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, in Portland, Oregon 97204, Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Premier Bank. Charles J. Paternoster -- cpaternoster@pfglaw.com -- PATERNOSTER FARNELL & GREIN, LLP, in Portland, Oregon 97205, Attorneys for Defendant Riverview Bank. DENVER, CO: Walter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Shane Walter, and all others similarly situated v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Case No. 1:24-cv-01947 (D. Colo., July 15, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of compensation at one and one -half times their regular rate(s) of pay for all hours worked at the Fire Academy in excess of forty in each seven-day workweek that fall within the applicable statute of limitations period, liquidated damages under the FLSA, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, and all attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff commenced their employment with the Denver Fire Department as a probationary firefighter and attended the Fire Academy. City and County of Denver is a consolidated city-county and public employer located in Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret Angelucci, Esq. Matt Pierce, Esq. Alex Behn, Esq. ASHER, GITTLER & D'ALBA, LTD. 200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 263-1500 (phone) Fax: (312) 263-1520 (fax) Email: maa@ulaw.com mjp@ulaw.com ajb@ulaw.com DH & RK INVESTMENTS: Weingrad Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DH & RK Investments LLC doing business as: FUNDQUBE, Case No. 9:24-cv-80701 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05981-MEMF-MAR to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. DH & RK Investments LLC doing business as FundQube -- https://www.fundqube.com/ -- is a revolutionary digital lending platform that uses modern technology to deliver an outstanding user experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Rachel E Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com DMG SECURITY: Morgan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Morgan, as an individual and on the behalf of similarly situated persons v. DMG SECURITY INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06080 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendant did not pay them overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours or more in a work week. In most if not all workweeks, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but Defendant did not pay him overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week. As a result of these practices, Plaintiff is owed lost wages and liquidated damages as a result of not being paid overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a security officer in August 2017. DMG Security Inc. is doing business in and for Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone (630) 575-8180 Fax (630) 575 - 8188 Email: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com ENHANCE HEALTH: Sours Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhance Health, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Sours, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Enhance Health, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61175-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Enhance Health -- https://enhancehealth.com/ -- is a senior-focused digital insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Ave, D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 612-9999 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mike@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Gaskins Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolve Bank & Trust. The case is styled as William Gaskins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:24-cv-00654-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., July 15, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD LAW 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: (919) 960-1545 Email: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com FAY SERVICING: Mayer-Perri Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fay Servicing, LLC. The case is styled as Joanne Mayer-Perri, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fay Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01159-KM (M.D. Pa., July 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Fay Servicing, LLC -- https://www.fayservicing.com/ -- provides mortgage lending services. The Company offers mortgages, loans, refinance, licensing, and other related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market St., 52nd Floor One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3986 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: phoward@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com FCA US: Class Action Settlement in Wilson Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILSON, PATRICK KRENEK, DONALD AKRIDGE, TIM VANGEE, LESLIE DALY, and JOSEPH BASS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00447-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval and to direct notice of proposed settlement to the Class. The Court hereby conditionally certifies, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for the purposes of settlement only, the following Settlement Class consisting of: "All current owners or lessees of a Model Year 2017-2018 DJ Ram 2500 / D2 Ram 3500 / DD Ram 3500 Cab Chassis / DF Ram 3500 10K LB. Cab Chassis / DX Ram Cab Chassis / DP Ram 4500/5500 built between April 1, 2017 and Dec. 29, 2018. For purposes of this definition, "current owners or lessees" are owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle on or after November 1, 2023." For settlement purposes only, Plaintiffs Jason Wilson, Patrick Krenek, Donald Akridge, Tim VanGee, Leslie Daly, Joseph Bass, James Neu, and Christopher Adams are appointed as Class Representatives. For settlement purposes only, the following counsel are hereby appointed as Class Counsel: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill Barnow and Associates, P.C. 205 W. Randolph St., Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Bruce Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road Dallas, TX 75230 - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is appointed Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice process, as well as to oversee the administration of the Settlement. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SFyin3 at no extra charge.[CC] FEDEX GROUND: Hill Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Nataiyah Hill, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05734 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Allegedly, FedEx collected and retained biometric information for the purpose of verifying Plaintiff's identity as an employee. However, FedEx failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's fingerprint scans following each time punch or at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment. In addition, FedEx collected, stored, and used Plaintiff's biometric information without ever receiving Plaintiff's informed consent. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., operates facilities providing small-package ground delivery services, residential delivery services, less-than-truckload freight services, in-store services, and other business solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com FHIA LLC: Minors Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FHIA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kim Minors, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FHIA, LLC, Florida Home-Improvement Associates, Inc., Renuity, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-22708-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. FHIA, LLC -- https://fhiaremodeling.com/ -- are a premium provider of quality impact windows and doors in the entire state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Andre Giribaldo, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (737) 310-3211 Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com - and - Logan Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Email: lpardell@pkglegal.com - and - Alex Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC 501 Congress Ave., Suite 150 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (737) 310-3210 Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com FIRSTAR FINANCIAL: Gutierrez Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jackie Gail Curtis, Donnie R. Yarbrough, Cathy Yarbrough, Dalton Yarbrough, Jessicca Yarbrough, Garrett Kizzia. Robert Bruce Fisher, Sheila Kizzia, Dan Rosson also known as: William D. Rosson, Danny Kizzia, Rita Ballinger, Joeseph Schmidgall, Steven L. Hinds, Tawnya Hinds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Firstar Financial Corporation, Firstar Bank, Fort Gibson State Bank, Tony Stockton, Fort Gibson Bancshares, Inc., Three Rivers Bankshares, Inc., Susan Chapman, Matt Hendrix, Case No. CJ-24-00052 was removed from the Muskogee County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on July 12, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-00243-GLJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization. Firstar Bank -- https://www.firstar.bank/ -- is a locally-managed bank with 200 employees and 12 locations in Oklahoma and Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Potts, Esq. 1515 E Okmulgee Muskogee, OK 74403 Phone: (918) 687-7755 Fax: (918) 681-3939 Email: jeffpottslawoffice@att.net The Defendant is represented by: Justin A. Lollman, Esq. Robert Trent Shores, Esq. GABLEGOTWALS - TULSA 110 N Elgin, Ste 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1492 Phone: (918) 595-4800 Fax: (918) 595-4990 Email: jlollman@gablelaw.com tshores@gablelaw.com FUTURE MOTION: Kagley Sues Over Defective OneWheels --------------------------------------------------- DYLAN KAGLEY, Plaintiff, v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-04078-BLF (W.D.N.C., July 8, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendant of deceptive acts or practices in the marketing of OneWheels. The Plaintiff suffered injuries in that he experienced severe road rash. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered economic loss due to his purchase of the Device. Defendant has faced significant backlash for the safety of its devices and still refuses to acknowledge the inherent dangers associated with its devices. The devices' design defects caused the Devices to function in a manner that results in a failure of the user to balance, including but not limited to sudden and unexpected nosedives. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for violations of North Carolina's Consumer Protection Statute. Headquartered in Santa Cruz, CA, Future Motion, Inc. manufactures skateboard-like devices that are referred to as OneWheels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com GEO GROUP: Pasillas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUAN PASILLAS, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. d.b.a. GEO CALIFORNIA, INC., a Florida corporation; GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 24CV439672, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-04117 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' minimum wage violations, failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, wage statement violations, failure to indemnify for all necessary business expenditures, and unfair competition. The Geo Group, Inc. owns and operates private prisons and mental health facilities in the United States. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Damien DeLaney, Esq. Rukayat Salaam, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: damien.delaney@akerman.com rukayat.salaam@akerman.com GINO MORENA: Agosto Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CARLY AGOSTO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. GINO MORENA ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. 37-2024-000257033-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01178-DMS-BLM to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Gino Morena provides hair care services to United States military personnel and their families, and its barbershops and salons are located on United States military bases throughout California and the United States. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jing Y. Li, Esq. Ethan B. Shakoori, Esq. SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231.0303 Facsimile: (619) 231.4755 E-mail: jli@swsslaw.com eshakoori@swsslaw.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Ahumada Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2024-00025648-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB to the proceeding. The case arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in New York, Giorgio Armani Corporation sells apparel and accessories. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com Sevada.Hakopian@jacksonlewis.com GRUMA CORP: Bid to Remand Becerra-Zamora Suit to State Court OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled YESICA BECERRA-ZAMORA, Plaintiff v. GRUMA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01076-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court. Plaintiff Yesica Becerra-Zamora ("Becerra") moves to remand this Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) action to state court. Because the Defendants have failed to show that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the Court grants the motion to remand. The Defendants' motion to consolidate this case to the lower-numbered voluntary dismissed case is denied, and their motion to compel arbitration is deferred for decision by the state court on remand. Ms. Becerra previously filed Zamora v. Gruma Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05256-LB ("Becerra I"), a putative wage and hour class action against the same defendants in Becerra II, in state court in August 2023. Becerra I was removed by defendants to this Court based on Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") jurisdiction. They moved to compel Becerra I to arbitration and the plaintiff moved to remand. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, who heard arguments on the motions on Jan. 18, 2024. On Feb. 11, 2024, Judge Beeler denied the plaintiff's motion to remand Becerra I, granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of her California Labor Code claims, dismissed the plaintiff's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim without prejudice to it being refiled in state court, and granted the plaintiff leave to assert a representative claim pursuant to the PAGA. Because the appropriate forum for the representative PAGA claim was not decided, Judge Beeler suggested that the parties meet and confer. Ms. Becerra had already filed the PAGA-only claim in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (hereafter "Becerra II") on Jan. 22, 2024. It asserts claims for civil penalties under numerous California Labor Code sections based on the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to accurately track all minutes worked, permitting off-the-clock work, failure to include all forms of compensation in calculating the regular rate of pay, and failure to properly implement an alternative work week schedule. The Defendants removed Becerra II on Feb. 22, 2024, based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and Section 1441, subsection (b). They calculated that Becerra's PAGA claims and penalties at stake amounted to $77,900, surpassing the required amount in controversy. They also added 25 percent of $77,900 -- $19,475 -- representing a "standard benchmark" for attorney fees. Based on those calculations, they contend the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. On Feb. 23, 2024, Becerra filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Becerra I. On Feb. 28, 2024, Judge Beeler related Becerra II to Becerra I. On March 14, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel Becerra II to arbitration. On March 25, 2024, Becerra filed a motion to remand Becerra II to state court. On April 1, 2024, because all parties to this case did not consent to Judge Beeler, Becerra II was reassigned to Judge Orrick. On April 17, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to consolidate Becerra II with Becerra I. Judge Orrick finds that the Defendants failed to prove that the amount in controversy meets or exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of evidence. Judge Orrick opines that the Defendants' heightened penalty calculations were inappropriate, they improperly included 100 percent of the possible PAGA penalties in their calculations, and they failed to provide the required lodestar estimate to justify including an attorney fee award in the amount in controversy calculation. They have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff's PAGA claims exceed the $75,000 threshold under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Hence, the motion to remand is granted. Despite that determination, the Defendants nonetheless argue that if Judge Orrick consolidates this case with Becerra I, Judge Orrick could appropriately exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in this case. But Becerra voluntarily dismissed her claims in Becerra I, as was her right under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Judge Orrick says. The Defendants filed "objections" to that dismissal, but the only authority they cited is Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 983 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2020), which does not apply, Judge Orrick holds. That case held only that plaintiffs could not create appellate jurisdiction by voluntarily dismissing claims that a district court had compelled to arbitration. The existence or non-existence of appellate jurisdiction over the claims Judge Beeler determined were arbitrable is not before the Court; the only question is whether the Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal was effective, Judge Orrick opines. Judge Orrick says Becerra I is dismissed, and the Clerk's Office will be instructed to close the case. And even if Becerra I was not voluntarily dismissed and it was appropriate to consider consolidating this case with Becerra I, Judge Orrick would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA-only representative claim. Judge Orrick would remand her PAGA-only claims back to state court, just as Judge Orrick is doing now. Hence, the Defendants' motion to consolidate is denied. Finally, the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is deferred for determination by the state court on remand, Judge Orrick holds. The Defendants failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement of $75,000, Judge Orrick holds. Therefore, the motion to remand is granted. The motion to consolidate is denied. The motion to compel arbitration is deferred for resolution by the state court on remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/39tp6p73 from PacerMonitor.com. HALLMARK MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Darrigo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- PAUL DARRIGO; and LANCE HOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HALLMARK MEDIA UNITED STATES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV17533 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 15, 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. Hallmark Media United States, LLC is an American media production company with corporate headquarters located in Studio City, California, and is a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Wingo Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCA Healthcare Marketing and Corporate Affairs, LLC. The case is styled as Devon Wingo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare Marketing and Corporate Affairs, LLC doing business as: HCA Healthcare, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00817 (M.D. Tenn., July 5, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in 1968.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com HERU SECURITY: Steward Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Steward, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HERU SECURITY LLC, Case: 2:24-cv-03712-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 16, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), ("Ohio Wage Act"); and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and OPPA will collectively be referred to herein as "the Ohio Acts"). The Defendant suffered or permitted Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to perform work that resulted in them working more than 40 hours in given workweeks without being paid one and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40. Defendant has substantial control over Named Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' working conditions and the unlawful policies and practices. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated security employees worked more than 40 hours per workweek for Defendant. However, instead of paying Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated security employees their base hourly rates of pay for regular hours worked and then paying them one-and- one-half times their regular rates of pay, for all overtime hours worked (i.e., all hours over 40 in a workweek), Defendant paid them their base hourly rates of pay for all hours worked, inclusive of any overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of Defendant in the positions of Security Guard and Area Supervisor operating out of its Columbus, Ohio branch from March 2022 to March 2024. The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing security services to its clients throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com HOGAN MFG INC: Villasenor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hogan MFG, Inc. The case is styled as Mario Villasenor, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hogan MFG, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007904 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 5, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Hogan Mfg., Inc. -- https://www.hoganmfg.com/ -- is a customer-centric, solution-based manufacturer of quality products and provider of value-added manufacturing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES: Moss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Derek Moss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, CLEAN HARBORS INC., Case No. 24STCV16760 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 5, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." HPC Industrial -- https://www.hpc-industrial.com/ -- is the only industrial cleaning company with a fully invested, dedicated Technology Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Alexander De Sario, Esq. NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 Email: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com HUNT CONSTRUCTION: Almader Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ruben Almader, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09121 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05680. The Plaintiff filed a proposed class action complaint against Defendant asserting the following nine causes of action: Unfair Competition in Violation of the California Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the California Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of the California Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of the California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of the California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of the California Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of the California Labor Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of the California Labor Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of the California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Pamela Vartabedian, Esq. Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq. Steven Wong, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: pvartabedian@seyfarth.com emacgregor@seyfarth.com stewong@seyfarth.com INTEL MEDIA HOUSE: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intel Media House Inc., et al. The case is styled as Gerard Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Intel Media House Inc., eHealth Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-01181-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Intel Media, Inc. -- https://intelmediahouse.net/ -- was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes the dissemination of visual and textual television programs on a subscription or fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Bower, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jbower@bower-law.com INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rose Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Rose, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, Johnson and Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09123 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05311-PAE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Breach of Contract. International Business Machines Corporation, nicknamed Big Blue -- https://www.ibm.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Armonk, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Michael Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Phone: (805) 335-8455 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ml@kazlg.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com The Defendant is represented by: Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 680-8400 Email: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com - and - Anne Sidrys, Esq. Martin L Roth, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Fax: (312) 862-2200 - and - Keith Holt, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-3694 Email: keith.holt@kirkland.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin entered an order that the briefing schedule for the Opposition on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be modified as follows: Event Proposed Date Intuitive's Opposition Aug. 2, 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 Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HDtx53 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 KMLB ENERGY: Edmond Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Markus Edmond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KMLB ENERGY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case 2:24-cv-00538-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex., July 16, 2024), is brought alleging violations of statutory employment right to receive overtime pay from Defendant as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all those similarly situated employees overtime wages. The work the Plaintiff did for KMLB was not exempt as defined under the FLSA. The evidence at trial will show that Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in every work week. KMLB failed to pay overtime wages when Plaintiff and all others similarly situated despite the fact that they worked over 40 hours in most workweeks thereby resulting in unpaid overtime wages to the dispatchers. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, alleges that the failure of KMLB' to pay Plaintiff and all those similarly situated for overtime pay was intentional, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at KMLB as a swabbing crew member. KMLB Energy Services and Development, LLC is a Texas limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone/Facsimile: 903-596-7100 Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com KROGER CO: Court Recommends Approval of Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, DENISE CONROY, and KATHLEEN ZACH, individually and on behalf of other customers, v. THE KROGER CO., dba Fred Meyer, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead recommends: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; -- appointing the Plaintiffs Solano, Conroy, and Zach as Class Representatives; -- appointing the plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel; and -- denying Fred Meyer's motion to deny class certification. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the Defendant The Kroger Co. (Fred Meyer) for alleged violations of Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), Oregon Revised Statutes sections 646.608(1)(e) and (s), and for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs allege that Fred Meyer wrongfully collected 10-cent bottle deposits on their purchases of Florida's Natural Orange Juice (FNOJ) that were not redeemable because beverages in containers larger than 1.5 liters and in cartons were not covered by Oregon's Bottle Bill. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Class defined as follows: "Oregon Fred Meyer customers who, (a) on or after Jan. 1, 2018, and on or before Nov. 1, 2018, (b) paid an additional 10-cent deposit charge to Fred Meyer, (c) for a Florida's Natural 100% Premium "No Pulp" (UPC 1630016564) or No Pulp with Calcium (UPC 1630016567) orange juice product, which was not redeemable for a refund of the 10-cent deposit charge under Oregon law." Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's findings and recommendation dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RlLRvq at no extra charge.[CC] LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Walker Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kevin Walker, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 50-2024-CA-005397 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-80871-XXXX. The Plaintiff alleges that he, and similarly situated individuals, experienced damages as a result of a third-party cyber-attack on Lakeview's computer network. The Plaintiff has raised two causes of action: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Further, Plaintiff seeks extensive injunctive relief. See Id. Lakeview denies the allegations underlying Plaintiff's claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carlos M. Lastra, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 603 E. Fort King Street Ocala, FL 34471 Phone: (888) 473-2720 Email: CLastra@c-wlaw.com LEDGER SAS: Court Narrows Claims in Baton Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD BATON, et al., v. LEDGER SAS, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02470-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting in part and dismissing in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint: -- Mr. Seirafi has established Article III standing in his claim against Ledger except with respect to his claim for injunctive relief -- TaskUS Plaintiffs have established Article III standing in their claims against TaskUs -- The California Consumer Subclass is stricken with leave to amend -- The Court has personal jurisdiction over Shopify and TaskUs -- Ledger's forum selection clause does not apply to Plaintiffs' UCL claim against Ledger -- Shopify may avail itself of Ledger’s forum selection clause -- Mr. Seirafi has plausibly pled a UCL claim under the "unfair" and "unlawful" prongs against Ledger -- Mr. Seirafi's CLRA and "fraudulent" UCL claims are dismissed against Ledger -- Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a negligence claim and a New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim against TaskUs -- Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim against TaskUs is dismissed Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are customers who purchased a Ledger SAS hardware wallet to protect their cryptocurrency assets. Ledger's hardware wallets store customer's "private keys" for their cryptoassets. The private keys are similar to a bank-account password in that the private key can be used to allow an individual to transfer their crypto-assets. In 2020, Ledger's customer database was hacked, and Plaintiffs' personal identifying information ("PII") was accessed by hackers. The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action seeking redress for harms they allegedly suffered stemming from the data breach. The data breach occurred when two of TaskUs's "rogue" employees conspired with a "California man" who accessed and distributed Ledger users' PII. The Plaintiffs are customers of Defendant Ledger SAS. Ledger is a company based in Paris, France that sells hardware wallets to allow customers to manage cryptocurrency. A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sYr7Zw at no extra charge.[CC] LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Hubiack Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS HUBIACK is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Thomas Hubiack, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Li-Cycle Holdings Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-9894, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs filed this class suit against the Defendants for alleged securities fraud. On Mar. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Apr. 12, 2024. On June 10, 2024, Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint saying it does not adequately allege an actionable false or misleading statement and, in any event, fails to allege the requisite strong inference of scienter. Judge Rakoff opined that the amended complaint's identified statements about the progress of the hub's construction are either too general to be actionable or are not sufficiently shown to have been false or misleading when they were made.' Judge Rakoff also held that the amended complaint fails to state a securities fraud claim. Even if the amended complaint had sufficiently pleaded an actionable false or misleading statement, the amended complaint would still need to be dismissed for the independent reason that it does not adequately allege scienter, Judge Rakoff pointed out. The appellate case is captioned Thomas Hubiack v. Li-Cycle Holdings Corp., Case No. 24-1860, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS HUBIACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Omar Jafri, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Defendants-Appellees LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS CORP., et al. are represented by: Mary Eaton, Esq. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP 175 Greenwich Street, 51st Floor New York, NY 10007 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing for Class Certification Brief Extended ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order approving joint motion for extension of time for the Plaintiff and Defendant to file class certification related brief: 1. Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be extended from July 29, 2024 to Aug. 19, 2024. 2. Plaintiff's deadline to file her Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be extended from Sept. 10, 2024 to Oct. 1, 2024. Liberty offers auto, vehicles, properties, life, and small business insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BbZjCS at no extra charge.[CC] LIPS RESTAURANT: Vickery Sues Over Failure to Pay Appropriate Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Vickery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LIPS RESTAURANT ATLANTA LLC; MICHAEL PACCA; EDWARD LAFAYE; and DAVID WRIGHT; Case No. 1:24-cv-03016-TWT (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2024), is brought against Defendants for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay the minimum wage for all work performed and by failing to pay the appropriate wage for overtime hours. The Defendants required Plaintiff and other Performers to appear at work pursuant to work schedules. The Defendants also required Plaintiff and other Performers to attend meetings scheduled outside of normal work hours. The meetings were for the primary benefit of Lips. The Defendants communicated to Plaintiff and all Performers that attendance at such meetings was mandatory. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff or other Performers for time spent at these mandatory meetings. The Defendants also required Plaintiff and other Performers to attend photo shoots that lasted roughly six hours. The Defendants communicated to Plaintiff and other Performers that participation in the photo shoots was mandatory. Plaintiff and other Performers attended mandatory photo shoots each year they were employed at Lips. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff or other Performers for time spent at the photo shoots. The Defendants required Plaintiff and other Performers to devote time outside of work to creating advertisements for Lips and posting them on social media. The Plaintiff and other Performers were frequently reminded that the creating and posting of advertisements was mandatory. Plaintiff and other Performers were reprimanded and threatened with termination if they failed to create and post advertisements. Plaintiff and other Performers spent at least fifteen minutes each week creating and posting advertisements for Lips. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff or other Performers for the time spent on advertisements. The Defendants regularly and deliberately set schedules that required Plaintiff and other Performers to work more than 40 hours per workweek. the Plaintiff and other Lips Performers regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. the Defendants willfully and/or deliberately failed to pay Plaintiff and other Performers overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked more than 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a Performer at Lips and was employed the Defendant from 2016 through December 2023. The Defendants operate Lips, a bar and restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia that provides drag show entertainment to diners and patrons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo Gilb, Esq. Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 Email: ricardo@hallandlampros.com chall@hallandlampros.com LONG FENCE: Parties Stipulated to Dismiss Abante Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order dismissing the lawsuit titled ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., Plaintiff v. LONG FENCE AND HOME LLLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06496-RS (N.D. Cal.). The parties in the case have stipulated to dismiss this action, with prejudice as to the Named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to the putative class. Judge Seeborg notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs voluntary dismissals in the class action context, applies only to certified or settlement classes. Where no class has been certified, as is the case here, voluntary dismissal of a putative class action is governed only by Rule 41. Judge Seeborg finds that the parties' joint stipulation complies with Rule 41's requirements, so the stipulation of dismissal is granted, with prejudice as to the Named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to the putative class. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/pey6tp9y from PacerMonitor.com. LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Summary Judgment Granted in Addison Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the Addison Action in the lawsuit entitled FREDERICK E. ADDISON, SR., ET AL., Plaintiffs v. LOUISIANA REGIONAL LANDFILL COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11133-SM-MBN (E.D. La.) c/w 19-14512. SECTION: "E" (5). Applies to: Both Cases. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims for certain injuries (the "Motion for Summary Judgment"). The Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition. The Defendants filed a reply. The case concerns the operation of the Jefferson Parish Landfill in Waggaman, Louisiana (the "Landfill"), and the resulting odors emitted from the Landfill between July 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2019 (the "relevant time period"). The Plaintiffs, who are Jefferson Parish residents, filed several individual lawsuits that were consolidated into a mass action, Addison v. Louisiana Regional Landfill Co., which includes over 500 individual Plaintiffs (the "Addison Action"). The Plaintiffs assert negligence and nuisance claims under Louisiana state law against the Defendants: Jefferson Parish, which owns and contracts with others to operate the Landfill; Aptim Corporation, which managed the gas and leachate collection systems of the Landfill from July 2017 to May 2019; and three entities that operated the Landfill from May 2013 to December 2020: Louisiana Regional Landfill Company; Waste Connections Bayou, Inc.; and Waste Connections US, Inc. Jefferson Parish residents also filed several related class actions, which were consolidated into one case, Ictech-Bendeck v. Waste Connections Bayou, Inc. (the "Class Action"). On Nov. 5, 2019, the Court issued the first Case Management Order ("CMO"), proposed by the parties, which established a bifurcated litigation schedule under which the issue of general causation would be resolved first by the judge in the Addison and Class Actions. The first CMO and CMOs issued subsequently define the issue of "general causation" as "the determination of whether odors and gases were being emitted by [the Landfill] during the relevant time period and whether any such odors and gases were capable of producing the injuries claimed by any one or more of the Plaintiffs in this case." This definition incorporates three elements: (1) whether odors and gases were emitted by the Landfill; (2) whether the gases and odors were emitted during the relevant time period; and (3) whether the emitted odors and gases were capable of producing the injuries claimed by any one or more of the Plaintiffs. The parties consented to the Court serving as trier of fact on the issue of general causation for the Addison and Class Actions, and agreed resolution of the issue would help narrow the focus of the case and the issues. The Court held a trial on general causation in both the Addison and Class Actions in early 2022. On Nov. 29, 2022, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to General Causation (the "General Causation Order"), determining that: (1) odors and gases were emitted by the Landfill; (2) the emissions of gases and odors from the Landfill occurred during the relevant time period; and (3) exposure to the odors and gases emitted by the Landfill at a level of five parts per billion ("ppb") for thirty minutes is sufficient by itself for individuals generally to be able to smell hydrogen sulfide and for the exposure to cause a reaction. The Court found that the Plaintiffs established general causation during the relevant time period for certain injuries, including: headaches, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety and worry, a decrease in quality of life, and loss of enjoyment or use of property in the general population. As the Plaintiffs argue, these are general categories that encompass certain other symptoms suffered by the Plaintiffs. The Court finds the following categories of injuries encompass by "necessary implication" certain injuries referenced in the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment: "Nausea" encompasses "stomach irritation," "stomach pain," "upset stomach," and "stomach issues"; "Vomiting" encompasses "gagging"; "Dizziness" encompasses "lightheadedness"; "Fatigue" encompasses "lethargy," and "decrease in energy level"; "Anxiety and worry" encompasses "stress," "concern regarding long term effects," "decreased focus," and "crying"; and "A decrease in quality of life" encompasses "decreased productivity," "sad and overwhelmed," "decrease in mood," and "depression." The list of categories of injuries for which the Court found general causation during the relevant time period, as enumerated in the Court's General Causation Order, and those additional injuries identified as being encompassed by the categories of injuries, are collectively referred to as the "Allowed Injuries," including Headaches; Nausea; Vomiting; Gagging; Loss of appetite; Sleep disruption; Dizziness; A decrease in energy level; Depression; and A loss of enjoyment or use of property in the general population. The Court ordered that a trial be conducted with a select number of Addison Plaintiffs (the "Trial Plaintiffs"). The first Addison trial was set to begin on Sept. 5, 2023, and has since been continued to begin on Aug. 12, 2024 (the "First Addison Trial"). In February 2024, the Court issued a Thirteenth CMO, which required the parties to file all non-evidentiary pretrial motions in the First Addison Trial by June 6, 2024. The Defendants timely filed their Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for any injuries not included in the Allowed Injuries or for damages outside the relevant time period. In their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for the Non-Allowed Injuries in the Addison Action, arguing the Plaintiffs cannot prove specific causation as a matter of law for those claims because they fall outside of the relevant time period or are injuries for which the Court did not find general causation. Judge Morgan finds that (i) under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the Court's General Causation Order governs issues of general causation in the Addison Action and the Class Action, and (ii) the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in the Addison Action on the Plaintiffs' claims for damages for injuries that are not included in the Allowed Injuries. As a matter of law, Judge Morgan opines, the Court's General Causation Order concluded that the Plaintiffs met their burden of establishing general causation for only the Allowed Injuries. The material underlying facts are undisputed and the record reveals no evidence from which reasonable persons might draw the conclusion that the Plaintiffs could establish general causation on the Non-Allowed Injuries. The Defendants are, therefore, entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' claims in the Addison Action for the Non-Allowed Injuries. Accordingly, in the Addison Action, judgment will be granted against the Plaintiffs and in favor of the Defendants on all of the Plaintiffs' claims for Non-Allowed Injuries, Judge Morgan holds. At trial, the Plaintiffs only may assert claims for the Allowed Injuries and seek recovery only for damages suffered during the relevant time period. At the general causation trial, the Plaintiffs made a proffer as to the qualifications and opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert Susan Schiffman, Ph.D., concerning potential physical impacts of the Landfill emissions on the Plaintiffs. At the pretrial conference in the First Addison Trial, the Plaintiffs' counsel represented that they wish to preserve for appeal their objection to the Court's finding of no general causation on the Non-Allowed Injuries and the restriction of the recovery of damages to the relevant time period. The Plaintiffs' counsel also notified the Court that they may seek to make a proffer at the First Addison Trial. The Plaintiffs' objection is preserved, Judge Morgan holds. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the Addison Action. The Defendants are granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims for injuries not included in the Allowed Injuries or for damages as a result of those Allowed Injuries outside the relevant time period of July 1, 2017, through Dec. 31, 2019. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated July 3, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/348kxrzj from PacerMonitor.com. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES: Eugenio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rodel Eugenio, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, Does 1 TO 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC24616274 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 10, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Marriott Hotels & Resorts -- https://www.marriott.com/default.mi -- is Marriott International's brand of full-service hotels and resorts based in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas James Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 MARTIN O'MALLEY: L.N.P. Files Suit in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martin O'Malley, et al. The case is styled as L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martin O'Malley, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, The Social Security Administration, Case No. 1:24-cv-01196 (E.D. Va., July 9, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Social Security: RSI Tax Suits. Martin Joseph O'Malley is an American lawyer and former politician who served as the 61st governor of Maryland from 2007 to 2015.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. Green, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3050 K Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 342-8849 Email: jgreen@kelleydrye.com MATSU CF INC: Yang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Hongjian Yang and, Chunying Hu, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MATSU CF INC d/b/a Matsu Japanese Restaurant and FENG CHEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-02028-ABA (D. Md., July 12, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWCPL"), and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), arising from Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices of unpaid overtime wages; liquidated damages or prejudgment interest; and reasonable attorney's fees and cost. The Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA, MWCPL, and MWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. the Defendants knowingly, willfully, and maliciously failed to pay Plaintiffs their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as a Miscellaneous Helpers/Dishwashers. The Defendants operate Matsu Japanese restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 MAXEY ENERGY: Gustin Files Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxey Energy Company, et al. The case is styled as Charles Gustin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maxey Energy Company, Max-E-Stores, Inc., Max-E-Enterprises, Inc., Max-Cash Express Stores, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00757-JKP (W.D. Tex., July 9, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Maxey Energy Company -- https://www.maxeyenergy.com/ -- is a premier wholesale bulk fuel distributor serving a variety of customers in South-Central Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander G. Kykta, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-2325 Email: alex@ellzeylaw.com leigh@ellzeylaw.com jarrett@ellzeylaw.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Payan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ISAMAR PAYAN, an individual, on behalf of herself, Aggrieved Employees, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ERICA MORALES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV13781, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05713 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and wrongful termination. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a medical staffing company headquartered in Maryland. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sophia Collins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: scollins@littler.com - and - Anthony G. Ly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: aly@littler.com - and - Harman Deol, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: hdeol@littler.com - and - Sarah R. Boxer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: sboxer@littler.com MAXIMUS EDUCATIONS: Hernandez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maximus Educations, LLC. The case is styled as Jordan D. Hernandez, Charles Seibel, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers v. Maximus Educations, LLC doing business as: Aidvantage, Case No. 1:24-cv-01237-PTG-WEF (E.D. Va., July 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Maximus Educations, LLC doing business as Aidvantage -- https://aidvantage.studentaid.gov/ -- is a federal student loan servicer that manages loans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com MCANGUS GOUDELOCK: Deprives Constitutional Rights, Justice Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Justice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McAngus Goudelock & Courie LLC, Luke Dalton, Skylar J. Gallagher, North Carolina Bar Association, Amanda E. Stevens, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-392-D (E.D.N.C., July 8, 2024) arises from the Defendants' wrongful conduct by depriving Plaintiff of his Federal and State Constitutional Rights and violation of Statues. On July 10, 2023, while Defendant Fred's Towing & Transport Inc. was dispatched to tow a disabled truck from Plaintiff's residence to its facility for repairs, an incident happened that caused damages to Plaintiff's yard. The Plaintiff asked the driver of the recovery truck what he was going to do about the damages to the yard. The Defendant's response was as soon as the ground is dry it will come back with the bobcat and smooth it over. As stated in the original complaint, Plaintiff called on multiple days to request when someone would come out and repair the damages, but each time Plaintiff was told when the ground is dry. Two months later Fred never returned to repair damages, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the damages including an estimate for damages and repairs. On August 25, 2023 Plaintiff and Defendant appeared at trial defendant attorney Skylar Gallagher and defendant owner Fred's Towing & Transport Incorporated. The complaint was dismissed in favor of the defendants because the Plaintiff was caught off guard or unprepared to counter the overwhelming evidence presented. During the proceedings on December 6, 2023, attorney Luke Dalton, acting on behalf of the defendant Fred's Towing, presented his case and supporting documents. However, the Plaintiff raised an objection, stating that they had not been given the chance to review the evidence prior to the trial, says the suit. McAngus Goudelock & Courie LLC, Luke Dalton, Skylar J. Gallagher, North Carolina Bar Association, and Amanda E. Stevens were actively engaged in executing the actions aligned with defendant Amanda E. Stevens' policy or custom during the entire relevant period. These actions included a failure to comply with the North Carolina General Statutes, North Carolina Constitution or United States Constitution, ultimately leading to the Plaintiff being deprived of a fair hearing. Allegedly, the court consistently disregarded the objections raised by the Pro Se plaintiff during hearings and consistently ruled in favor of the lawyers involved. Additionally, the Defendants unlawfully conspired and deprived Plaintiff's constitutional right to file a complaint to address a grievance guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States First Amendment. McAngus Goudelock & Courie LLC is a company principally engaged in the business of a regional law firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff, of Manson, North, Carolina, appears pro se. MDL 1720: E.D.N.Y. Suggests Remand of Two Actions to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand two actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Oct. 21, 2013, the two actions -- Target Corp. v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5745 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013); and 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5746 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013) -- were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to this Court for consolidation with In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1720) pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel"). For the reasons explained in this Suggestion of Remand, the Court issues a suggestion of remand to the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and Rule 10.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern District of New York, where they were joined by other similar cases. The consolidated cases included both class actions and individual actions. In April of 2006, the plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended class complaint that defined two classes: one seeking damages and the other seeking equitable relief. In November of 2012, the Court provisionally certified a class and preliminarily approved a class settlement agreement between class plaintiffs and the Defendants. Following preliminary settlement approval, three groups of merchants that had not previously appeared as named parties, including the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs, opted out of the settlement's damages class and filed their own complaints in other districts, all of which were ultimately transferred to the court and consolidated in the multidistrict litigation. The Panel ordered transfer to this Court for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs have been litigating their opt-out actions in this Court since then. The Court approved the settlement in 2013, but in 2016, the Second Circuit vacated certification of the class and reversed approval of the settlement. In November of 2016, the Court appointed counsel to two putative classes under Rule 23(b)(2) (the "Equitable Relief Class") and Rule 23(b)(3) (the "Damages Class") of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 2019, the Court approved a subsequent settlement between the Damages Class and the Defendants (the "2019 Settlement"), and in 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the approval in all material respects. Discovery as to the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") was completed around March of 2020. In December of 2020, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. In three separate decisions, the Court denied the Defendants' motion. In April of 2024, the Plaintiffs requested that the Court hold a status conference to establish a schedule for remaining pretrial procedures and trial, arguing that because all the pending summary judgment motions in their cases had been resolved, the cases were ready for trial. The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that there is still substantial supplemental discovery work that must be done and that the issues Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs wished to address at a conference were not ripe for resolution. The Court granted the request and held a status conference on June 13, 2024. At the conference, the Court indicated that the Plaintiffs' cases were likely ready for trial, and discussed whether the Defendants would waive their rights under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998), ("Lexecon rights") to have the case remanded to the Southern District of New York. The Court indicated that if the Defendants did not waive their Lexecon rights, the cases would be remanded to the Southern District of New York. The Court gave the Defendants until June 30, 2024, to inform the Court as to whether they would waive their rights to remand. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a letter containing relevant authorities under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and 28 U.S.C. Section 292 that the Plaintiffs assert would allow the Court to preside at the trial of the Target and 7-Eleven matters, if the Defendants exercise their Lexecon rights. On June 28, 2024, the Defendants notified the Court that they would not be waiving their Lexecon rights, and they requested that the Court issue a suggestion of remand to the Panel with respect to the Target and 7-Eleven actions. Later the same day, the Plaintiffs filed responses requesting that the Court's suggestion of remand include either (a) an invitation to the Southern District of New York to transfer the case back to this Court, or (b) a suggestion that the Second Circuit consider an intra-circuit assignment of Judge Brodie to sit in the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs do not oppose remand and submit that remand is now appropriate. Judge Brodie finds the Target and 7-Eleven actions are ready for trial. Discovery has been completed and all dispositive motions have been resolved. The Court declines the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs' request for transfer or reassignment. The Court declines to invite transfer back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and will not seek intra-circuit reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 292(b). Although the Court does not agree with the Defendants' suggestion that such actions are foreclosed by Lexecon, the Court agrees with the Defendants to the extent that such measures would be contrary to the purpose of Lexecon. For example, Judge Brodie says, the Court's familiarity with the Target and 7-Eleven actions is insufficient to override Mastercard's interest in having the case tried before a jury in the district in which it is headquartered. In addition, the purpose of consolidation in multidistrict litigation is to obtain efficiencies from coordinated discovery and pre-trial procedures; now that these steps are completed, trial before this Court is no more efficient than trial before a court in the Southern District of New York. Moreover, as the Court stated at the status conference on the Target and 7-Eleven actions, Judge Brodie points out that there's no difference between the Eastern District and the Southern District when it comes to location. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs elected to file suit in the Southern District of New York and they will not be prejudiced by trying their case before a judge in that district. For these reasons, the Court suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand these actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Suggestion of Remand to th e Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Suggestion of Remand dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ub4hv4z from PacerMonitor.com. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY: Garland Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mead Johnson & Company, LLC. The case is styled as Chelsea Garland, Estelita Rey, Zachary Williams, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01168-L-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 5, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC -- https://www.meadjohnson.com/ -- is an American company that is a leading manufacturer of infant formula, both domestically and globally, with its flagship product Enfamil.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura Ellen Goolsby, Esq. Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 Email: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com nate.kiyam@capstonelawyers.com tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Wolfing Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Amber Wolfing, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV007705 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00903. The Plaintiff set forth nine distinct causes of action in the complaint: Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and The Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and The Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees For Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab Code; and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of Cal. Gov. Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com - and - Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: 503-552-2166 Email: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com - and - Paul M. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: paul.smith@ogletree.com META PLATFORMS: Case Management Order Entered in Delgado Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order regarding July 19, 2024, case management conference: -- The parties previously submitted Joint Rule 26(f) Reports on Nov. 9, 2023 and April 26, 2024. -- The parties last appeared before the Court at a case management conference on May 3, 2024. -- The case was subsequently referred to private ADR and the Court entered a case schedule on May 10, 2024, establishing certain discovery and other case management deadlines. -- The parties have been working to make progress on fact discovery in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the case schedule. -- The parties are unaware of any ripe discovery disputes or other issues that require the Court's attention at this time. Meta operates as a social technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AubFmn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. Emily Sauer, Esq. Lucas Townsend, Esq. Amanda Sterling, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com esauer@gibsondunn.com ltownsend@gibsondunn.com asterling@gibsondunn.com MICHIGAN: Court Tosses May's Due Process & Equal Protection Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled DAMIAN MICHAEL MAY, Plaintiff v. EMILY A. MINNICK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00383-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich.), Judge Jane M. Beckering of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the Plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection claims. The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. Judge Beckering notes that the Court must read the Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, and accept his allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss the Plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection claims against the Defendants for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility. The Plaintiff sues Michigan Sexual Abuse Prevention Program (MSAPP) Coordinator Emily A. Minnick, Classification Director Unknown Smolenski, and Parole Board Members Carolyn Burns and Brian Shipman. Mr. May alleges that he has never been charged or convicted of a sex-based offense and that he pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. He states that his present incarceration stems from a domestic assault he committed on his former girlfriend while intoxicated after she informed him that she was pregnant and refused to have sex with him. The Plaintiff states that he choked his former girlfriend and struck her in the face several times, which resulted in her suffering a missing tooth, a laceration above her eye, and bruising. He also states that at the time of his offense, he had been working as a "live web cam model for adult porn," who had sex with men and women for money. According to the Plaintiff, he was transferred to IBC in late September 2023. He asserts that he was never interviewed by Defendant Smolenski regarding his classification or program referrals, even though policy required such an interview. He was interviewed by his counselor and was told to sign a CSX-175, which incorrectly indicated that he was "SERVING FOR OR HISTORY OF: SEX OFFENSE." Defendant Smolenski signed off on the Plaintiff's Program Classification Report as if policy had been followed. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Minnick subsequently approved his classification and enrolled him in MSAPP. He contends that Defendant Minnick should have entered an override to omit him from the program because he had never committed a sexual offense. In October of 2023, the Plaintiff was enrolled in the first phase of MSAPP, known as the Treatment Readiness for You (TRY) program. On the first day of TRY, he asked the instructor, non-party Mrs. Thompson, why he was enrolled in the program since he had never been charged with or convicted of a sex-based offense. Mrs. Thompson responded that she could bring his PSI (Pre-sentence Investigation Report) to the next group session and read the pertinent section to the entire group. At the next group session, Mrs. Thompson arrived with the Plaintiff's PSI in hand and asked him if he wanted her to read aloud to the group the section pertaining to his enrollment in MSAPP. The Plaintiff said that he did want her to read the section and Mrs. Thompson read it. On Nov. 16, 2023, the Plaintiff was interviewed for parole by Defendant Burns, who informed the Plaintiff that he was going to be denied parole because of his failure to participate in and complete MSAPP (Michigan Sexual Abuse Prevention Program). This decision was supported by Defendant Shipman and the Plaintiff was denied parole on Dec. 7, 2023. The Plaintiff signed up to use the law library to research whether he had a liberty interest in not being labeled as a sex offender for purposes of being enrolled in the MSAPP. He finally received access to the law library in December of 2023, one month after he completed TRY. He states that he discovered an Eastern District case that supported his assertion that he should not be forced to participate in MSAPP in order to be eligible for parole. The Plaintiff's grievance on the matter was denied as untimely. As a result of being required to enroll in TRY, the Plaintiff is constantly questioned and scrutinized about his underlying case, placing suspicion on him that he is a sex offender, and making him susceptible to harassment and physical assault. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants violated his right to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection under the law. He seeks to have this case certified as a class action. He also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. He seeks an order certifying this case as a class action. Judge Beckering opines that it is well established that pro se litigants are "inadequate class representatives," citing Garrison v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 333 F. App'x 914, 919 (6th Cir. 2009). Because the Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, the Court will deny the Plaintiff's request for class certification. Until the Plaintiff has served his maximum sentence, Judge Beckering notes, he has no reasonable expectation of liberty. Thus, any failure or refusal by the Michigan Parole Board to consider the Plaintiff for, or grant him, parole does not implicate a federal right. In the absence of a liberty interest, Judge Beckering points out that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a violation of his procedural due process rights. The Plaintiff's position in this case is similar to that of the plaintiff in Harper v. Arkesteyn, No. 19-1928, 2020 WL 4877518 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2020), Judge Beckering notes. The Plaintiff has not been convicted of a sex offense and--at least based on the absence of any admission in the complaint--has not been accused of any sexual wrongdoing while in prison. Because the Sixth Circuit has recognized that the improper classification of a prisoner as a sex offender may implicate a liberty interest, Judge Beckering finds that the Plaintiff's due process claim based on this conduct is not clearly lacking in merit. Therefore, at this point in the litigation, Judge Beckering holds that the Plaintiff's procedural due process claims regarding his classification as a sex offender will not be dismissed. The Plaintiff also asserts a violation of his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In this case, the Plaintiff claims that classifying him as a sex offender and requiring him to participate in MSAPP is shocking to the conscience because he has never been convicted of or charged with a sex offense. In this case, Judge Beckering holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Clause applies to protect the Plaintiff's liberty interest not being classified as a sex offender. Moreover, to the extent that he is claiming that classifying him as a sex offender affected the conditions of his confinement, the Eighth Amendment would provide an explicit source of constitutional protection to the Plaintiff. For these reasons, Judge Beckering holds that the Plaintiff's substantive due process claims will be dismissed. The Plaintiff makes a conclusory assertion that the Defendants violated his equal protection rights. Judge Beckering finds that the Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that he was treated differently than any other similarly situated prisoner. Therefore, his equal protection claims are properly dismissed. To the extent that the Plaintiff is asserting violations of state law, the Court notes that claims under Section 1983 can only be brought for deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendants violated state law, therefore, fails to state a claim under Section 1983. Because the Plaintiff continues to have federal claims against the Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that the Plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c). The Plaintiff's procedural due process and state law claims against the Defendants remain in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 5, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4x7fc5 from PacerMonitor.com. MILESTONE PROJECT: Court Approves Settlement in Rhodus FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brandon S. Long of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement agreement in the lawsuit captioned LOYD RHODUS, ET AL. v. MILESTONE PROJECT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06451-BSL-JVM (E.D. La.). SECTION "O." Before the Court is an unopposed motion, filed by Plaintiff Loyd Rhodus and opt-in Plaintiffs Robert Matherne and Ronald Beams (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), to approve the settlement of this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against Defendant Milestone Project Services, LLC, and to dismiss claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs are former hourly employees of Defendant Milestone Project Services, LLC. They allege that the Defendant violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., by failing to pay them and other similarly situated employees the proper overtime compensation. On Oct. 23, 2023, Loyd Rhodus, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the Defendant alleging that he consistently worked over 40 hours in a workweek and was not paid an overtime rate for those hours. Robert Matherne opted in to this proceeding on Oct. 23, 2023, and Ronald Beams opted in on Dec. 13, 2023. The parties began discussing settlement on Jan. 22, 2024, and successfully negotiated a confidential settlement soon thereafter. Because this case arises under the FLSA, the Court must approve the fairness of the settlement. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court approve their settlement and dismiss all claims with prejudice. Although the parties had not yet engaged in motions practice or extensive discovery, the Court agrees with the parties that (1) this case presents a bona fide wage dispute and (2) the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. The Court finds that there is a bona fide dispute between the parties as to whether the Defendants violated the FLSA. The parties disputed the Defendant's liability under the FLSA as to the hours the Plaintiffs worked and the compensation owed to them. The Defendant is not attempting to negotiate around the FLSA requirements. Thus, the Court finds that the settlement is the product of a bona fide dispute in this case. In evaluating whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court must consider the following six factors outlined Reed v. General Motors Corp.: "(1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of class counsel, class representatives and absent class members," 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982)). After considering these factors in the instant case, the Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. As part of its fairness determination, the Court must evaluate whether the proposed attorney's fees in this case are reasonable. The instant case involves a contingent fee agreement based on a percentage of the settlement; the parties are not seeking to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party under the FLSA nor have the parties agreed to fees based on lodestar. Here, each Plaintiff executed a contingency fee agreement providing for a thirty-five (35%) fee. In the proposed settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs' counsel seeks twenty-eight (28%) of the total settlement amount as attorney's fees. The Defendant has agreed to pay fees on this basis. Thus, the Court finds that 28% is a reasonable percentage of the settlement. In addition to this fee, the Court grants the request by the Plaintiffs' counsel for $552 in filing fees and service costs as a part of the settlement. There is no objection to awarding these costs. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement agreement is granted and the settlement is approved. All claims in the matter are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing their own respective costs and fees, except as provided in the settlement agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Reasons dated July 3, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ym8ju9kr from PacerMonitor.com. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH: Fantore Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. The case is styled as Michael Fantore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MNGI Digestive Health, P.A., Case No. 27-CV-24-10788 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., July 18, 2024). The case type is stated as "Negligence." MNGI Digestive Health -- https://www.mngi.com/ -- is a nationally recognized leader in gastroenterology diagnosis, quality and care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com MOSES H. CONE: Singh Sues Over Breach of Privacy ------------------------------------------------ Ashika Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION d/b/a CONE HEALTH and THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL d/b/a CONE HEALTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00558 (M.D.N.C., July 8, 2024), is brought against Defendants on behalf of millions of other patients (collectively, the "Users") whose medical privacy was violated by Cone Health's use of tracking and data collection tools by Alphabet, Inc. d/b/a Google and Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta; seeking to remedy these harms individually and for millions of similarly affected persons, and therefore brings causes of action for Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Breach of Express Contract; Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Breach of Implied Contract; Negligence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unjust Enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants installed Google and Meta Collection Tools on their public website (https://www.conehealth.com, the "Website") and their patient portal (available at https://mychart.conehealth.com, "Patient Portal") (collectively, the "Web Properties") to simultaneously collect and divulge Users' confidential health information ("Private Information" including personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")) to Google and Meta in violation of federal and state laws. The Private Information of potentially millions of Users of Cone Health's Web Properties was improperly and unlawfully disclosed to Google and Facebook without their knowledge or consent. Cone Health did so because it knew that this sensitive information had tremendous value and that Plaintiff and Class Members would not consent to the collection, disclosure and use of their Private Information if they were provided a choice or would demand significant compensation. At all times that Plaintiff and Class Members visited and utilized Cone Health's Website and Patient Portal to receive medical services, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy that their Private Information would remain secure and protected and only utilized for medical purposes. Further, Cone Health made express and implied promises to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and maintain the privacy and confidentiality of communications that patients exchange with Cone Health. Not only did Cone Health willfully and intentionally incorporate the Google and Meta Collection Tools into its Web Properties, but it also never disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their sensitive and confidential communications via the Web Properties with Google or Facebook. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their PII and/or PHI were being surreptitiously transmitted to Facebook and Google as they communicated with their healthcare providers, looked up their conditions and/or treatments, and logged into the Patient portal, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Cone Health patient. The Defendant is "the largest and most comprehensive medical center within the five-county region."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: (828) 258-2991 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-282-4806 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Britany Kabakov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com britany@almeidalawgroup.com MOUNT KISCO SURGERY: Policicchio Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mount Kisco Surgery Center LLC. The case is styled as Tracy Policicchio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mount Kisco Surgery Center LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-05084-PMH (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle. Mount Kisco Surgery Center LLC doing business as The Ambulatory Surgery Center of Westchester (ASCW) in Mount Kisco, New York, is a state-of-the-art outpatient surgical center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Marie Gullo, Esq. THE KANTOR GULLO LAW FIRM, PLLC 348 Harris Hill, Suite A Williamsville, NY 14221 Phone: (716) 626-0404 Fax: (716) 626-0412 Email: cgullo@kantorgullolaw.com NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Bailey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Ryan A. Bailey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, John Does 1-10, Case No. 4:24-cv-00280-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., July 17, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com NEW VIDEO CHANNEL: Urry Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Video Channel America LLC. The case is styled as Kelley Urry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New Video Channel America LLC doing business as BBC America, Case No. 1:24-cv-05092 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. New Video Channel America LLC doing business as BBC America -- https://www.bbcamerica.com/ -- is an American basic cable network that is jointly owned by BBC Studios and AMC Networks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Polina Brandler, Esq. POLINA BRANDLER 716 West 232 Street Bronx, NY 10463 Phone: (718) 414-7094 Email: polinapecherskaya@gmail.com NEW YORK CITY: Court Grants Luna Leave to File Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled ANDY LUNA, Plaintiff v. AC GEORGY; AC COLLADO; CAPT. YOUNG; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01884-LTS (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Andy Luna, who is currently held in the Otis Bantum Correctional Center ("OBCC") on Rikers Island, brings this action pro se, seeking damages. The Plaintiff sues: (1) "AC Georgy" or "AC Georgie"; (2) "AC Collado,"; (3) Correction Captain Young; and (4) the "Department of Correction," which the Court understands to be the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"). He seems to allege that all three of the Individual Defendants are correction personnel that are assigned to the OBCC. He sues these Defendants in their official and individual capacities. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants have violated his federal constitutional rights, as well as the "Indigenous People Act/Rights/Declaration of Human Rights." He also states that an additional legal basis for his claims arises from "18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 4 Amendment, 5th, 6, 9, 10; 18 USC Section 3006A, Article III sec. 2." The Court construes his complaint as asserting claims of federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as well as claims under state law. By order dated April 18, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this Order. The Plaintiff alleges that between Nov. 21, 2023, and Nov. 25, 2023, while he was held in the OBCC, he was unlawfully locked in his cell for 4 days. He was denied recreation, religious services, law library access, phone communications, sick calls, video visits, counsel visits and, for Thanksgiving, family phone calls, or any showers. He adds, among other things, that he was traumatized due to being locked in a cell for 4 days, was served cold food that gave him an upset stomach and a headache, and was exposed to MK9 and MK4 sprays and he received no medical attention. The Plaintiff has attached to his complaint a list of signatures of individuals described as "witnesses," who appear to be other prisoners housed in the same housing unit as him. In his complaint commencing this action, the Plaintiff states that he seeks $3,000,000 in damages for himself, "and the same for the other inmates in this class action claim." The Court understands that Plaintiff Andy Luna is the sole Plaintiff in this action, and that he is asserting claims on behalf of himself and other OBCC prisoners including, perhaps, those prisoners who have listed themselves as "witnesses" in his complaint. The Court also understands that the Plaintiff requests to bring this action as a class action. The Court further understands his complaint as seeking only damages. To the extent that the Plaintiff requests to proceed with this action as a class action, the Court must deny that request. The Court must also dismiss any claims that he asserts on behalf of others, including other prisoners held in his OBCC housing unit. Because the Plaintiff does not allege that he is an attorney, the Court denies his request to proceed with this action as a class action and dismisses, without prejudice, any claims that he asserts on behalf of others. With respect to the Plaintiff's own claims against the DOC, which is an agency of the City of New York, Judge Swain opines that the DOC is not a separate entity that can be sued. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Plaintiff's own claims against the DOC for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. In light of the Plaintiff's pro se status, however, the Court understands and will treat those claims as brought against the City of New York. Yet, Judge Swain finds the Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts sufficient to state his own claims under Section 1983 against the City of New York. Judge Swain opines that the Plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest that a policy, custom, or practice of the City of New York caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights. Thus, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Section 1983 against the City of New York, and the Court dismisses that claim for that reason. Because the Plaintiff is appearing pro se, however, the Court grants him leave to file an amended complaint in which he names the City of New York as a defendant and alleges facts sufficient to state a claim under Section 1983 against the City of New York. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's request for this action to proceed as a class action, and dismisses, without prejudice, those claims that the Plaintiff asserts on behalf of others. The Court also dismisses, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the Plaintiff's claims against the DOC and his official-capacity claims under Section 1983 against the Individual Defendants. The Court, however, grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth in the Order. The Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of this Order, caption the document as an "amended complaint," and label the document with docket number 1:24-CV-1884 (LTS). Judge Swain says an amended civil rights complaint form is attached to this Order. No summonses will issue at this time. If the Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this action; the Court will dismiss the Plaintiff's claims that he asserts on behalf of others without prejudice, dismiss the Plaintiff's own claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and will decline to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, the Plaintiff's own claims under state law. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p6jstux from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK, NY: Bellere Balks at Inadequate Fire Suppression Systems ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY BELLERE, et al., individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05131-AKH (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2024) arises out of Defendants' violations of the United States Constitution, including the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and related laws of the State and City of New York in connection with the Defendants' failure to take steps to prevent the April 6, 2023 fire in the North Infirmary Command. The Plaintiffs allege that the City of New York has failed to provide adequate fire suppression systems, has failed to operate, repair, and maintain its jails consistent with the minimum standards for fire safety, has failed to develop fire evacuation protocols, has failed to provide adequate emergency and follow-up medical services, has failed to adequately train, supervise and discipline regarding fire safety and care, and has failed to provide adequate remediation for jails where fires have occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to address the lasting injuries they have suffered and will suffer, but because they know that it is only a matter of time before New York City Department of Corrections' flagrant disregard for the law, and the rights of those in its custody results in a mass casualty event. City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. It provides medical and behavioral health services to inmates and detainees in its correctional facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua J. Lax, Esq. Cassandra Rohme, Esq. LIAKAS LAW, P.C. 40 Wall Street, 50th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 937-7765 NEWELL BRANDS: Barrales Sues Over Microplastics in Baby Bottles --------------------------------------------------------------- TINAMARIE BARRALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03025-MLB (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2024) arises from Defendant's alleged false and misleading misrepresentations of its "Nuk" branded baby bottles. Plaintiff Barrales alleges that the said products contain considerable amounts of harmful microplastics despite being marketed as "BPA Free." Despite including harmful microplastics in its baby bottles, the Defendant goes to considerable lengths to mislead consumers into believing these products are safe, good for them, and BPA Free. The Defendant actively conceals the known risks associated with microplastic exposure, depriving parents of the ability to make informed choices about their children's health and well-being, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Newell is a consumer products company with a portfolio of "iconic brands" including Nuk. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. 954 Avenida Ponce DeLeon, Suite 205 - #10518 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com NIKE INC: Ellis Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA ELLIS is taking an appeal from a court order denying her motion for reconsideration and leave to amend in the lawsuit entitled Maria Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nike, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00632-MTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Plaintiff filed this class suit against the Defendants for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and other state law claims. On July 6, 2023, the Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. On July 27, 2023, the Plaintiff amended her complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on August 24, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint through an Order entered by Judge Matthew T. Schelp. On Apr. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 28 Order and for leave to amend, which the Court denied on June 10, 2024. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff was aware that her amended pleadings may have been deficient, yet she chose to proceed forward with her previously amended complaint anyway. In fact, the Plaintiff had seven months, from the Defendants' motion to dismiss on August 24, 2023, until the Court's Memorandum and Order on March 28, 2023, to seek additional leave to amend, but she chose to "stand or fall" on her Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's failure to request leave to amend until after a final order had been issued, a delay lasting over seven months, amounts to unexcused delay. As such, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion. The appellate case is captioned Maria Ellis v. Nike, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-2420, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 10, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on August 19, 2024; -- Appellant Maria Ellis's brief is due on August 19, 2024; and -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARIA ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adam M. Goffstein, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF A.M. GOFFSTEIN 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1910 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 - and - Daniel John Orlowsky, Esq. ORLOWSKY LAW LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1910 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Defendants-Appellees NIKE, INC., et al. are represented by: Beth Ann Bauer, Esq. HEPLER & BROOM 130 N. Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-0184 - and - Veronica Craig, Esq. WEIL & GOTSHAL Concourse Level 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 - and - Morgan Donoian MacBride, Esq. David Singh, Esq. Zhi Yang Tan, Esq. WEIL & GOTSHAL 4th Floor 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 346-4210 (650) 802-3000 NORTH STAR EMERGENCY: Stanley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Star Emergency Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jalon Stanley, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crossroad Services, Inc., Case No. 24CV082830 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 10, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." NorthStar EMS -- https://www.northstar-ems.us/ -- provides Advanced Life Support Emergency Medical Services and transport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq. Kwanporn Tulyathan, Esq. Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max William Gavron, Esq. William Lucas Marder, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: kagnew@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com lwlee@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com bill@polarislawgroup.com NUTRIEN: Court Seeks More Briefing & Documentation in Grayson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order directing the filing of supplemental briefing and documentation in connection with the parties' settlement in the lawsuit titled BOBBY GRAYSON, III, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00986-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.). On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff Bobby Grayson, III, filed a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement. The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiff's motion. On March 14, 2024, this case was reassigned to Judge Sherriff. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's motion and requires additional information in evaluating whether to preliminarily approve the parties' settlement in this class action. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefing or declarations addressing the following: 1. the estimated maximum value of the class members' claims and the basis for calculating those values; 2. the estimated low-end, average, and high-end payments to be made to class members; 3. the factual and legal basis for any settlement discounts from the potential maximum value of the claims; 4. the factual and legal basis for determining that the proposed settlement is "within an acceptable range of recovery for this type of litigation" (Declaration of Annabel Blanchard); 5. the factual basis for adding a new defendant, Crop Production Services, Inc., in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint; 6. the extent of discovery conducted by the Plaintiff as to Crop Production Services, Inc.; 7. the adequacy of the Plaintiff as the class representative, including as to claims against Crop Production Services, Inc.; 8. the extent of the Plaintiff's counsel's investigation of the claims, including whether the Plaintiff's counsel conducted interviews or depositions of potential class members other than the Plaintiff; 9. the evidence of commonality of the class members, including evidence regarding whether the class includes employees who are not or were not employed as delivery drivers; regarding the relationship between the Defendants; and regarding the assertions that "Class Members were expected to perform similar job duties and were subject to the same or similar operations and employment policies, practices, and procedures" and "the Defendants' recordkeeping practices with respect to the Plaintiff and Class Members were substantially the same during the time period at issue"; 10. whether the parties have served the proposed settlement on appropriate state and/or federal officials; and 11. the adequacy of the proposed notice, which does not provide an estimate or approximate range of potential individual payments to class members, and whether the parties intend to include a website where the class members can learn about the proposed settlement. Judge Sherriff notes that the Plaintiff's declaration in support of the motion for preliminary approval does not indicate he was employed by Crop Production Services, Inc. Some of the information to be provided in supplemental briefing -- such as the estimated value of the claims -- may impact a review of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement, Judge Sherriff says. The parties may provide any additional supplemental information they believe would assist the court in ruling on the pending motion. Counsel may also supplement their explanation of why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the new information provided. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file supplemental briefing and/or declarations addressing these issues within 21 days from the date of entry of this Order. The Plaintiff is also directed to file an amended class notice with its supplemental filing, correcting the proposed class notice to reflect the current case number, assigned judge, and courtroom. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kvvmhb7 from PacerMonitor.com. PANERA LLC: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case is styled as Selene Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007855 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 3, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Panera Bread -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html -- is an American chain of bakery-café fast casual restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com PATELCO CREDIT UNION: Antwerp Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Van Antwerp and Bradley Tanzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Patelco Credit Union, Case No. 3:24-cv-04226 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard their and at least 450,000 other individuals' personally identifying information ("PII"). In the course of providing services to its members, customers provided their PII, including names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account information. Patelco owes these individuals a duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute and common law, at all relevant times, Patelco utilized deficient data security practices, allowing its members' sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of malicious actors. On June 29, 2024, Patelco experienced a ransomware attack (the "Data Breach"). In this type of cyber-attack, hackers gain access to a company's computer systems, block access, and then demand a ransom payment to restore its systems and return stolen data. Despite the Data Brach being first detected on June 29, 2024, Patelco has failed to disclose what customer data was disclosed to cybercriminals, and it has not directly notified its members as to what data was stolen. These failures exacerbate the damages and risks to Class Members in violation of California. The notices that Patelco has posted on its website also obscure the nature of the cyberattack and threat it posed—failing to adequately inform Plaintiffs and Class Members how many people were impacted, how the cybercriminal remotely accessed its systems, whether the exfiltrated information was encrypted or anonymized, why it has not directly notified victims, or what specific remedial steps it has taken to safeguard PII within its systems and networks (or otherwise purge unnecessary information) to prevent further cyberattacks going forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Patelco members and Data Breach victims The Defendant Patelco is "one of the largest credit unions in the nation" and advertises "$9 billion in assets and over 450,000 members nationwide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union. St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Loses Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Jones Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed in the lawsuit styled JULIE JONES, et al., Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01082-L-DTF (S.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court in this putative class action asserting violations of California privacy laws is Defendant Peloton's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Peloton as the owner and operator of the website https://www.onepeloton.com for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a), Clause Four. The Plaintiff's claim arises from the Defendant's use of the third-party software called Drift, which was embedded into the Website chat feature. Chat communications with the Website are automatically intercepted and recorded by Drift, which creates transcripts of the conversations. Drift receives the communications while they are in transit because the imbedded code routes the communications directly to Drift. Website users are not informed that Drift is intercepting the communications but instead consumers believe they are interacting only with a Peloton representative. Drift allegedly harvests data from the chat transcripts it intercepts, and then interprets, analyzes, stores, and uses the data for a variety purposes. Information collected includes the full transcript of the conversation, the date and time the conversation began, the IP address of the visitor, the web browser they used to access the Website, the device used and which words triggered the Drift software to route the visitor to a particular Peloton representative. According to the Plaintiff, visitors to the Website often share personal information on the chat due to the nature of Peloton's business. She and other class members visited the Website within the class period using smart phones, and/or wifi-enabled tablets and laptops. On June 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting violations of CIPA, the UCL and California Constitution in relation to the unauthorized interception, collection, recording, and dissemination of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and data. On Aug. 16, 2023, the Defendant a motion to dismiss which the Court granted on March 12, 2024. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint containing a single CIPA Section 631(a) claim on March 15, 2024. On March 29, 2024, the Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On April 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a response in Opposition. On April 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a Reply. The Defendant seeks dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Defendant argues that the party exemption applies because the Plaintiff's factual allegations establish that Drift provides a tool that allows Peloton to record and analyze its own data in aid of its business, which means it functions as an extension of Peloton rather than as a third-party eavesdropper. According to Peloton, the Plaintiff's claim that Drift is a third-party because it uses the intercepted data to improve its AI chatbot is insufficient to show that the data is aggregated, re-distributed or sold to other vendors as required to be considered a third-party eavesdropper. Taking her allegations as true for purposes of the present motion, the Court finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Drift's software surreptitiously intercepts the data entered by Peloton's customers through the embedded API and uses the data for their own benefit and not for the sole benefit of the party to the communication, Peloton; therefore, Drift functions as a third-party eavesdropper within the meaning of section 631(a). For these reasons, the Court finds that the party exemption does not apply and the Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under clause two of Section 631(a). Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied on this ground. As noted, the Court finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim under clause two because she asserts that Drift uses intercepted communications to improve its SaaS platform, including its proprietary machine learning software, which yields a monetary benefit to Drift. In response, the Defendant argues only that the Plaintiff fails to state claim for clause one or two, therefore, her claim under clause three also fails. Judge Lorenz holds that the Plaintiff has stated a claim under clause three of Section 631 because she has maintained a claim under clause two. For the same reasons, the Plaintiff asserts a plausible claim for relief under clause four for aiding and abetting. In light of this above, the Court rules that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to these claims. The Plaintiff has chosen to withdraw her claim for injunctive relief, therefore, the Court dismisses the injunctive relief claim with prejudice. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot to this claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 5, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/tj3exwye from PacerMonitor.com. PENSKE LOGISTICS: Milam Suit Transferred to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Milam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penske Logistics LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00506 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01944-DJC-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor Litigation. Penske Logistics -- https://www.penskelogistics.com/ -- offers state-of-the-art transportation and distribution solutions to help you stay on track and avoid supply chain disruptions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brielle Daniele Edborg, Esq. Zachary Taylor Gershman, Esq. Jonathan Michael Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: zachary@lebelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq. Brittany M. Wunderlich, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 744-2200 Fax: (619) 744-2201 Email: atwinn@duanemorris.com bmwunderlich@duanemorris.com PENSKE TRUCK: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAIME GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV2024-1405, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Yolo to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00863 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. operates a truck rental and leasing company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Sona P. Patel, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com sona.patel@ogletree.com - and - Justin M. Dean, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com PHARMACARE US: Bid for Extension of Pretrial Dates Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered an order granting in part and denying in part joint motion for extension of pretrial deadlines: The parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines on July 12, 2024. On March 29, 2024, the Court certified three classes in this action: (1) a California Subclass for the claim that Defendant’s products contain a new unreported dietary ingredient (the "NDI claim"); (2) a Missouri Subclass for the NDI claim; and (3) a California Subclass for the claim that Defendant markets its products in a way that claims that they mitigate or prevent disease. The Court has set a hearing on July 17, 2024, to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding class notice. Absent that additional information, the Court will grant the joint motion in part and extend the case management deadlines as follows: 1. All fact discovery must be completed by September 16, 2024. 2. The parties shall designate their respective merits experts in writing by October 16, 2024. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 3. By Oct. 16, 2024, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by Nov. 13, 2024. 5. All merits expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Dec. 6, 2024. 6. All pretrial motions must be filed by Dec. 20, 2024. 7. All other dates and pretrial instructions set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order dated April 18, 2024 (ECF No. 214) will remain unchanged. The Joint Motion is otherwise DENIED. The Defendant markets and sells healthcare products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K9v3Nv at no extra charge.[CC] PLATINUM CHOICE: Kotlarsz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Platinum Choice Healthcare, LLC. The case is styled as Melanie Kotlarsz, Joseph Allen Davis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Platinum Choice Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80835-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Platinum Choice Healthcare -- https://www.platinumchoicehealthcare.com/ -- provides hospital indemnity insurance is a type of plan that pays a set amount, per day, per week, per month, and per visit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com POST CONSUMER: Landry Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alex Landry, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current citizens of Illinois and the United States v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 24-LA-0717 was removed from the Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit, County of St. Clair, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on July 3, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01661. 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 PRODIGY EDUCATION: Dulei Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prodigy Education (U.S.) Inc. The case is styled as Kirunis Dulei, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Prodigy Educ. (U.S.) Inc., Case No. CACE24009330 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 3, 2024). Prodigy Education, Inc. formerly Prodigy Game -- https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/ -- is a educational technology company focused on game-based learning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-907-1136 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com PROTOCOL AGENCY: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Protocol Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Protocol Agency, Inc., Case No. 24CV083397 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 15, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Protocol -- https://www.protocolagency.com/ -- is a boutique service provider in this industry because we customize our services to comply with our clients' needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. Michico Vartanian, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com mv@melmedlaw.com REDWIRE CORP: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEMEN v. REDWIRE CORPORATION et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 17, 2021), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply to plaintiff's reply in support of class certification and reply to plaintiff's response to defendants' Daubert motion. -- The Sur-reply and Reply shall both be filed no later than Aug. 6, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Redwire is an American aerospace manufacturer and space infrastructure technology company.[CC] RESONETICS LLC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER REYES, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. RESONETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01552-RBM-DTF (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order vacating class certification deadlines due to the Parties' settlement. The Parties further jointly move the Court for an Order to schedule a Case Management Conference regarding the status of settlement. The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint against Resonetics on July 19, 2023, in San Diego Superior Court and Resonetics removed to this Court on Aug. 23, 2023. The Class Action Complaint asserts wage claims on behalf of the Defendant's current and former employees. The Plaintiff filed a separate complaint in the San Diego Superior Court on Sept. 26, 2023, asserting a representative claim for civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and Defendant's current and former employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code sections 2699 et seq. On April 11, 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. All pre-class certification discovery shall be completed by all parties by Aug. 5, 2024 and a motion for class certification must be filed no later than Sept. 1, 2024. On May 22, 2024 the Parties attended mediation with Gail Glick. The Parties were able to reach a Class and PAGA settlement and are working on preparing the long-form settlement agreement. As part of the Settlement the Parties intend to file a consolidated complaint in the PAGA Action that includes the Class and PAGA claims. The Parties will then be filing a dismissal of this matter to allow for approval of settlement for all claims in the state court. The Parties agreed that the deadlines to complete pre-class certification discovery and the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification should be vacated. The Parties also agree that a Case Management Conference Regarding status of settlement is to be scheduled for 90 days from today Resonetics provides laser technology services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ATWbj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Robert Payaslyan, Esq. D. LAW, INC. 880 East Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: Emil@d.law R.Shkodnik@d.law R.Payaslyan@d.law - and - David Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 880 East Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq. Lana B. Nassar, Esq. Lisa Xu, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 E-mail: Guillermo.Escobedo@jacksonlewis.com Lana.Nassar@jacksonlewis.com Lisa.Xu@jacksonlewis.com RESORTS WORLD: Parties Must Submit Settlement Conference Request ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD ROBERTS, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. GENTING NEW YORK LLC, D/B/A RESORTS WORLD CASINO NEW YORK CITY, Case No. 1:14-cv-00257-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo Matsumoto entered an order denying the Defendant's remaining arguments in its motion for summary judgment that were not ruled on by Judge Glasser. -- The parties shall confer and submit a request for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Scanlon. The parties' joint request to Magistrate Judge Scanlon shall be submitted no later than July 31, 2024. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their request for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of a motion for class certification no later than July 31, 2024, and Defendant shall file a request for a pre-motion conference for its anticipated motion to strike Plaintiffs' jury demand by the same date. Any opposition by either party is due no later than Aug. 7, 2024. -- The Court finds that granting summary judgment to Defendant against six of the named Plaintiffs who purportedly entered into an Enhanced Severance agreement would be inappropriate based on the current record. -- The Court concurs with the parties that punitive damages are not available under the Federal WARN Act, but denies Defendant's request to strike Plaintiffs' demand for punitive damages under the N.Y. WARN Act without prejudice to the request being renewed prior to trial, given Defendant's arguments regarding the unavailability of punitive damages under New York law were made for the first time in its reply. On Jan. 14, 2014, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, commenced this action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Federal WARN Act"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") sections 860, et seq. ("N.Y. WARN Act"). On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding 59 new plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs include STEPHEN JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER MCLEOD, DAVID SHAW, ANITA JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER HUMPHRIES, JEFFREY WILKINS, LATANYA MARTIN-RICE, LAURA SANCHEZ, LUCY MUNOZ, NATALIO HERRERA, RADIKA KANHAI, ROGER SIERRA, YOO SUNG KIM, CHRISTINA LAMBRU, IRENE TSOROROS, MARIA DIAZ, CYNTHIA DURAN, JASPER JONES, ALLEN CHERFILS, LISA LUNDSREN, TERESA AREVALO, SYED A. HAQUE, AHMED TALHA, OLIE AHMED, JAMAL AHMED, SORWAR HUSSAIN, LUZ OSPINA, JOHNNY MURILLO, THOMAS DORGAN, SENECA SCOTT, ERIC LEE, WILLIAM BOONE, MARLENNI MINAYA, ISABEL PENA, CELESTE BROWN-POLITE, DWIGHT CURRY, RAWLO BENFIELD, JOSEPH BROWN, SANDRA MILENA- MARTINEZ, MARINO CANO, ABIGAIL APPIAHOTCHERE, DALIA TOPPIN, ANA MOREIRA, BETSABE TORRES, LORNA BENT, OSMOND WALKER, CONRAD HALL, VISHWANI SUKHRAM, ANNE GRONATA, BRUCE SMITH, NESTOR AMAYA, GUIDO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, WILLIE BALLENTINE, PETER VONTAS, FELIX GONZALEZ, MICHELLE LATIMER, VARISE WALLER, SOOKIA FREEMAN, CAMARCA FLOWERS, ANTONIO SALCEDO, JOEVEN CORTEZ, AND JUDITH ALLEN Genting owns and operates casino. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rejSo6 at no extra charge.[CC] RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies Class in Crews Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR., ET AL., v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3): For 1934 Act Claims: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian Class A common stock between Nov. 11, 2021, and March 10, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." The Class excludes those who purchased Rivian Class A common stock at the fixed IPO price. For 1933 Act Claims: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian Class A common stock between Nov. 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Both Classes exclude Defendants and their families, the officers, directors and affiliates of Defendants, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and James Stephen Muhl are appointed as Class Representatives. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is appointed as Class Counsel and Larson LLP is appointed as Liaison Counsel to the Class. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer and to submit an agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise Class Members of the damages sought and their rights to intervene, opt out, submit comments, and contact Class Counsel. The parties shall also jointly submit a plan for the dissemination of the proposed notice. The parties must work together to generate a class list to be used in disseminating class notice, and they must work together to create a notice that satisfies Rule 23. The proposed notice and plan of dissemination, as well as a proposed order granting approval, shall be filed with the Court on or before Aug. 23, 2024. To summarize, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Specifically, Plaintiffs have shown that, as to their 1934 Act claims, all elements are susceptible to proof on a class-wide basis, including reliance, from November 11, 2021, to March 10, 2022. The Plaintiffs allege that various Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b–5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rivian designs and manufactures electric vehicles ("EVs") and accessories and sells them directly to consumers and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A3rMJB at no extra charge.[CC] SALLY BEAUTY: Rios Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- IRIS RIOS is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Iris Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:24-CV-00912-JWH-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On May 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Orange County Superior Court, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge John W. Holcomb on June 28, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Iris Rios v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-4193, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 10, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner IRIS RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Farah Agharokh Mirabel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FARRRAH MIRABEL 1070 Stradella Road Los Angeles, CA 90077 SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Certification Bid Extended to August 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHIE ABLAZA, JOHN BARONE, LINDA CHESLOW, BETTY FELLOWS, MICHAEL FALCO, MELISSA ALDRIDGE, and LEE WEINMAN, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01942-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order enlarging time for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Class certification motion due July 19, 2024 Aug. 19, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification July 19, 2024 Aug. 19, 2024 expert disclosures due Class certification opposition Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 20, 2024 due Defendant's class certification Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 20, 2024 expert disclosures due Defendant's class certification Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 20, 2024 Daubert motions due Class certification expert Nov. 15, 2024 Dec. 16, 2024 discovery cut-off Class certification reply due Nov. 25, 2024 Dec. 25, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification Nov. 25, 2024 Dec. 26, 2024 Daubert motions and oppositions to Defendant's Daubert motions due: Defendant's oppositions to Dec. 23, 2024 Jan. 22, 2025 Plaintiffs' Daubert motions due On May 21, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' third joint stipulation enlarging time and modifying the Scheduling Order. On June 18, 2024, the Parties stipulated to vacate the Court's scheduling Order for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification while the Parties engaged in discussions regarding potential resolution and dismissal of this Action. Sanofi-Aventis develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZkUGk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Randi Singer, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: randi.singer@sidley.com SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHIE ABLAZA, JOHN BARONE, LINDA CHESLOW, BETTY FELLOWS, MICHAEL FALCO, MELISSA ALDRIDGE, and LEE WEINMAN, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01942-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order enlarging time for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Class certification motion due July 19, 2024 Aug. 19, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification July 19, 2024 Aug. 19, 2024 expert disclosures due Class certification opposition Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 20, 2024 due Defendant's class certification Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 20, 2024 expert disclosures due Defendant's class certification Oct. 21, 2024 Nov. 20, 2024 Daubert motions due Class certification expert Nov. 15, 2024 Dec. 16, 2024 discovery cut-off Class certification reply due Nov. 25, 2024 Dec. 25, 2024 Plaintiffs' class certification Nov. 25, 2024 Dec. 26, 2024 Daubert motions and oppositions to Defendant's Daubert motions due Defendant's oppositions to Dec. 23, 2024 Jan. 22, 2025 Plaintiffs' Daubert motions due On May 21, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' third joint stipulation enlarging time and modifying the Scheduling Order. On June 18, 2024, the Parties stipulated to vacate the Court's scheduling Order for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification while the Parties engaged in discussions regarding potential resolution and dismissal of this Action. Sanofi-Aventis develops, manufactures,, and markets pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dy5muU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Randi Singer, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: randi.singer@sidley.com - and - David R. Singh, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 E-mail: david.singh@weil.com SANTA MONICA: Martinez Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Martinez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Santa Monica Seafood Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05735 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2024) seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's biometric data in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's facility located at 6800 Santa Fe Drive, Hodgkins, IL from approximately August 2021 through approximately September 2023, as a machine operator and had his biometric information processed via a fingerprint scan as part of the time clock procedure for timekeeping and payroll purposes. However, the Defendant failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's fingerprint scans following each time punch or at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment, in violation of the state law. In addition, Defendant did not inform Plaintiff in writing that it was collecting or storing his biometric information, says the Plaintiff. Santa Monica Seafood Company is a wholesale seafood distribution company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PA: Posey Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ajani Posey, et al., v. Dr. Laurel R. Harry, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01191-MEM-LT (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class certification. Mr. Posey is prisoner at PA State Correctional Institution Frackville and housed under an overall unconstitutional environment. The State Correctional Institution at Frackville is located in Ryan Twp. of Schuylkill County. It was officially dedicated on April 16, 1987. The Facility is one of twenty-six Correctional Facilities and one Motivational Boot Camp. SCI Frackville is an accredited facilities by the American Corrections Association (ACA). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iG9F77 at no extra charge.[CC] SENDWELL INC: Champion Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CHAMPION, v. SENDWELL INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01143-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for an extension of time within which he shall move for class certification resulting in a new deadline of 30 days after the close of discovery but no earlier than Jan. 18, 2025. Sendwell will not be prejudiced by granting of the requested extension. Sendwell has not yet retained new counsel nor responded to the above-captioned action. On the other hand, the Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced absent an extension of time to move for class certification. The Plaintiff requires certain discovery to properly and fully evaluate his claims, effectively prosecute this case, and move for class certification. The Plaintiff has thus far been denied the opportunity to engage in any discovery because Sendwell's counsel withdrew from the case before conducting the Rule 26(f) conference. Moreover, good cause supports the extension to file for class certification because Sendwell's counsel has withdrawn from the case, no responsive pleading has been filed, no scheduling order has been entered, and no discovery has been conducted. This is the first extension sought by the Plaintiff and this motion is not made for the purpose of undue delay or in bad faith. The Plaintiff's counsel was unable to consult with Defendant Sendwell prior to filing the instant Motion because Sendwell is not represented by counsel. The Plaintiff filed his class action Complaint against the Defendant on April 19, 2024. Sendwell filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on May 20, 2024. The Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on May 31, 2024. On June 21, 2024, the Court denied Sendwell's Motion to Dismiss and ordered Sendwell to file its answer by July 8, 2024. Sendwell's counsel subsequently withdrew as counsel for Sendwell and the Court ordered Sendwell to file its answer by July 22, 2024. Sendwell provides campaign creation and deployment services with realtime statistic and metric reporting. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gHUMyA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Wertheim, Esq. LAWHQ, P.C. 299 S. Main St. #1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (385) 285-1090 E-mail: jim@lawhq.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al., v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order denying class certification. Because individuals who assent to a class action waiver are inadequate class representatives under Federal Rule 23, the Plaintiffs Bombin and Rood remain inadequate class representatives due to their notice of and assent to the COC and the class action waiver provided in the T&Cs, the Court says. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Adrian Bombin and Samantha Rood filed a Complaint alleging a class action breach of contract claim against Southwest Airlines, which was later amended in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filing. On Sept. 7, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Subsequently, Southwest provided Plaintiffs with notice of "new and contradictory" evidence regarding Plaintiffs ability to access the Contract of Carriage ("COC") on the website and mobile application, which was pertinent to the class certification issue. On April 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's previous decision. The Plaintiffs aver that the new evidence provided by Southwest supports that the Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives. The Plaintiffs maintain that they did not have direct access to the COC that contained a class action waiver provision preventing them from becoming adequate class representatives. Because of the lack of direct access to the COC, Bombin and Rood aver they did not have adequate legal notice of the class action waiver provision. The COC incorporated the class action waiver provision that was contained in the Terms and Conditions (T&Cs). For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is denied. In February 2020, Plaintiffs Bombin and Rood both purchased tickets through Southwest Airlines. Bombin booked a flight using Southwest's mobile application. Rood used Southwest's website (www.southwest.com) to purchase two tickets. Southwest offered Bombin and Rood a credit towards a future flight but not a cash refund. Both Plaintiffs allege a breach of contract under Southwest’s Contract of Carriage because Southwest refused to offer refunds for their flights. On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Bombin and Rood filed a Motion for Class Certification, asserting they were adequate class representatives for the claims in the Amended Complaint. On Sept. 7, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class as both Plaintiffs had notice of a class action waiver provision, which existed within the Terms and Conditions on both the website and the mobile application. Southwest Airlines is a major airline in the United States that operates on a low-cost carrier model. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XmlNsF at no extra charge.[CC] STARCO BRANDS: Bid for Class Cert. in Ryan Suit Due March 21, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN RYAN, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STARCO BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-00642-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order regarding briefing schedule for motion for class certification as modified by the court. -- Motion for Class Certification due: March 21, 2025 -- Opposition to Motion for Class April 18, 2025 Certification due: -- Reply on Motion for Class May 9, 2025 Certification due: -- Hearing on Motion for Class June 24, 2025 Certification: Starco distributes consumer products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s2j9uq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 2001 Union Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven Di Saia, Esq. Bailee B. Pelham, Esq. BUCHALTER 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Telephone: (949) 760-1121 Facsimile: (949) 720-0182 E-mail: sdisaia@buchalter.com STARCO BRANDS: Parties Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN v. STARCO BRANDS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00642-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter regarding briefing schedule for motion for class certification: 1. Plaintiff has expressed the intention to file a Motion for Class Certification as to the purported nationwide class and sub- classes identified in his Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed with this Court; 2. At the Initial Case Management Conference on July 9, 2024, the Court directed that all briefing on the Motion for Class Certification be submitted to the Court within 10 months of that Conference; 3. The Court also directed that a Stipulation for the briefing schedule on the Motion for Class Certification be submitted to the Court by July 17, 2024; and 4. The Parties, having met and conferred on a briefing schedule, agree to and submit the following proposed schedule for this Court's approval; 5. Plaintiff will file, and serve electronically by the close of business at 5:00 p.m, the Motion for Class Certification in sufficient advance of May 9, 2025 to allow for the timely submission of all briefing on the Motion pursuant to this Stipulation; 6. Defendant will file, and serve electronically by the close of business at 5:00 p.m, its Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification within 28 days of service of the Motion for Class Certification; 7. Plaintiff will file, and serve electronically by the close of business at 5:00 p.m, its Reply to the Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification within 21 days of service of the Opposition. Starco Brands markets consumer products through retail and online in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQwIRM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 2001 Union Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven Di Saia, Esq. Bailee B. Pelham, Esq. BUCHALTER 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Telephone: (949) 760-1121 Facsimile: (949) 720-0182 E-mail: sdisaia@buchalter.com SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bernstein Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ALTHEA BERNSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICE OF WISCONSIN, INC., Case No. 24-cv-892 (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Bernstein was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service of Wisconsin, Inc. is an ambulance company. [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 Tel: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com TEXAS TECH: Court Narrows Claims in Stewart Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE STEWART, v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00007-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting in part and denying in part UT's motion to dismiss. UT has shown that the plaintiff's race-based claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief are moot in the wake of SFFA and the repeal of Regents' Rule 40304. Those claims against the UT defendants are dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1). Next, the plaintiff has established his standing for his remaining race-based claims and has plausibly alleged that the defendants used racebased admissions preferences, but he has not plausibly alleged the use of sex-based admissions preferences. Accordingly, his Title IX claim and his sex-based Equal Protection claim are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). With no claims remaining against them, the individual UT defendants are dismissed entirely. The plaintiff’s Title VI, Section 1981, and Equal Protection claims based on racial preferences survive against all Tech defendants, and his Title VI claim survives against the institutional UT defendants for damages. The Court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order. However, the plaintiff's claims against UT cannot proceed with the claims against Tech in this Court. The UT defendants are improperly joined with the Tech defendants under Rule 20 because the claims against the two groups do not arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences. Once severed, the claims against UT are not properly brought in this division. But the claims could have been brought in Austin, and Austin is the most convenient venue for the parties. Accordingly, the Court grants UT’s motion to sever and transfer the claims against UT to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The Clerk of Court is directed to sever the claims against the remaining UT defendants -- University of Texas at Austin, UT Health Science Center at Houston, UT Medical Branch at Galveston, UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, and UT Southwestern Medical Center—into one separate action and transfer that new civil action to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. In sum, the Court finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an injury of unequal treatment based on his race that is traceable to the defendants’ admissions preferences and redressable by damages and by an injunction prohibiting the defendants from considering race. Thus, the plaintiff has sufficiently pled all three elements of standing for his remaining race-based claims. However, as discussed in detail below, the plaintiff has not plausibly alleged unequal treatment based on his sex, so he has failed to establish his standing as to his sex-based claims. In sum, access to sources of proof, costs of attendance, and considerations of other practical problems weigh towards transferring to Austin over Dallas. The factor of familiarity with the governing law weighs slightly in favor of Austin. The factors of compulsory process, localized interests, and conflict of laws are neutral. And the factor of court congestion weighs slightly towards Dallas. After balancing these factors, the Court concludes that UT has shown that the Western District, Austin Division is more convenient for the parties and witnesses. Thus, the case against UT is transferred to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, under Section 1406(a). George Stewart sues six public medical schools in the Texas Tech and University of Texas systems due to their alleged use of race and sex preferences in student admissions. The plaintiff, George Stewart, is a white male. He wished to become a physician and applied for admission at each of the defendant medical schools -- Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC), Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UT Houston), John Sealy School of Medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UT Galveston), Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UT San Antonio), and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern). A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=at8Nbk at no extra charge.[CC] TIKTOK INC: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH, 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 Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendants' application under local Rule 79-5 to file opposition to motion for class certification under seal: Document Portions to Be Sealed Defendants' Opposition to Page 1, lines 10, 15-18, 23-24 Plaintiffs' Motion for Page 2, lines 1-2 Class Certification Page 4, lines 6-13, 25-26 Page 5, lines 11-18 Page 6, lines 9-11 Page 7, lines 1-2 Page 8, lines 5-7 Page 9, lines 13-27 Page 10, lines 1, 8-9 Page 11, lines 7-8, 13-17 Page 12, lines 2-3, 19-20, 25-27 Page 13, lines 1-5 Page 14, lines 12-20 Page 15, lines 22-23 Page 16, lines 25-28 Page 17, line 20 Page 18, lines 17-20 Page 19, lines 1-3, 18-20 Page 20, lines 13-17 Page 21, lines 24-26 Page 22, lines 23-24 Exhibit 1 to the In its entirety Declaration of Sheryl Shapiro Bassin in Support of Defendants' Application Under Local Rule 79-5 For Leave to File Documents Under Seal Exhibit 2 to the Bassin In its entirety Declaration Exhibit 3 to the Bassin In its entirety Declaration Exhibit 4 to the Bassin In its entirety Declaration Although the Defendants' designations of confidential information may be somewhat overbroad, the information the Defendants wish to seal includes voluminous sensitive information that is properly filed under seal. TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AfD3ZV at no extra charge.[CC] TRUSPER INC: Court Denies Bid for Early Discovery in Ramirez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion for early discovery in the lawsuit titled ELIA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff v. TRUSPER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02012-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Elia Ramirez, brings this class action lawsuit against Defendant Trusper, Inc., d/b/a Musely, alleging that Musely allowed Meta to intercept their patients' healthcare data in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the California Constitution's invasion of privacy provision. Before the Court is Ramirez's administrative motion requesting discovery in support of Ramirez's opposition to Musely's pending motion to compel arbitration. Musely filed an opposition. Ms. Ramirez filed the present class action on April 2, 2024. On May 24, 2024, Musely filed a motion to compel arbitration. Musely argues that Ramirez agreed to an arbitration provision in the terms and conditions when she purchased her prescription online. The Parties stipulated to extend Ramirez's opposition to the motion to compel arbitration deadline to July 8, 2024. On June 10, 2024, Ramirez filed an administrative motion seeking discovery to use in support of her opposition to Musely's motion to compel arbitration. Musely filed its opposition on June 14, 2024. Ms. Ramirez disputes that she entered into a valid agreement to arbitration and argues that she requires discovery concerning contract formation. Specifically, Ramirez highlights that Musely submitted a declaration in support of the motion to compel arbitration describing how customers purchase products on the Defendant's website, including where the customer would see the links to the "terms" pages with information regarding the arbitration agreement. Ms. Ramirez argues that the declaration omits information necessary to resolve the contract formation dispute, including the functionality of the hyperlinks on the dates that she allegedly entered into the arbitration agreement, as well as information regarding alternative ways to purchase products. She Ramirez seeks limited discovery for the purpose of resolving the question of whether she and the Defendant formed an agreement to arbitrate, but she does not specify what information she seeks to discover. Musely argues that discovery is not permitted as of right under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") before the hearing of Musely's motion to compel arbitration. Instead, Musely urges the Court to wait until the Court has heard the fully briefed motion to compel arbitration before deciding whether additional discovery is necessary. The Court finds that Ramirez has failed to show good cause to permit early discovery for use in her opposition to Musely's motion to compel arbitration. First, Ramirez has not informed the Court what information she requires to oppose Musely's motion. Second, the Court cannot determine whether discovery is needed because the Court does not have the benefit of the Parties' briefing on the underlying motion to compel arbitration. Third, Judge Davila points out, the FAA's procedure allows for optional discovery, if necessary, after the Court has "heard" the motion to compel arbitration. Ramirez has failed to persuade the Court that departure from that procedure is necessary here. Therefore, the Court finds that Ramirez has failed to show "good cause" to permit early discovery. Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Ramirez's request for discovery at this time. Ramirez may re-raise her request in her opposition to Musely's motion to compel arbitration if necessary. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2929ap64 from PacerMonitor.com. TWITTER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Schobinger Suit Due August 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying briefing schedule on motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification shall be due by Aug. 23, 2024. 2. The Defendants' opposition shall be due by Sept. 16, 2024. 3. The Plaintiff's reply brief shall be due by Sept. 23, 2024. 4. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be set for Oct. 3, 2024, or another later date convenient for the Court. The Defendant has acted diligently in seeking Mr. Segal's deposition (i.e., subpoenaing him to appear on April 4, 2024) and contends that it would be unduly and unfairly prejudiced if denied the opportunity to depose Mr. Segal at least one full week prior to the deadline to file Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Parties have conferred and request that the Court further modify the briefing schedule for the Motion for Class Certification to allow sufficient time to complete the deposition of Mr. Segal prior to the deadline for Defendant to file its opposition to the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Twitter's former Chief Financial Officer, Ned Segal, made promises regarding the payment of bonuses to Twitter employees that are central to Plaintiff's claims. On May 23, 2024, the Parties filed a stipulation to modify the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On June 7, 2024, the Parties and Mr. Segal's counsel agreed to schedule his deposition to occur in person in San Francisco on Aug.7, 2024. On July 10, 2024, the counsel for the Parties agreed to reschedule a pending arbitration hearing in another matter to take place on the date that Mr. Segal had been scheduled to be deposed (Aug. 7, 2024), due to the unexpected need to reschedule the arbitration hearing (as a result of the arbitrator contracting COVID and having only limited available dates for continuing the hearing; and directing the Parties to reschedule other matters as needed so as to accommodate the new hearing dates) Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yYPFu0 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 The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Kassia Stephenson, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com UNITED AUTO: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Feb. 28, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Ferrara, et al. v. United Auto Supply of Syracuse, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00337-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to join any person as a party to Oct. 1, 2024 this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this Oct. 1, 2024 action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file a status Oct. 14, 2024 report on or before: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are July 10, 2024 to be exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must Aug. 16, 2024. be served by: -- All discovery in this matter is to be May 16, 2025 completed on or before: -- Class certification motions are to be Feb. 28, 2025 filed on or before: Established in 1946, United Auto Supply is a leader in the wholesale distribution of original equipment, aftermarket automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrQn7p at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Overrules BLMDC's Objection to Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia overrules BLMDC's objection to certification in the lawsuit titled BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C., et al., Plaintiffs v. WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01469-DLF (D.D.C.). The lawsuit arises out of the law-enforcement response to protests in Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020. Before the Court is Plaintiff Black Lives Matter, D.C. ("BLMDC")'s objection to the United States' Notice of Substitution under the Westfall Act. On June 1, 2020, protestors gathered in D.C.'s Lafayette Square to protest racism and police brutality. Police dispersed the protest with batons, rubber bullets, and pepper spray. In BLMDC's telling, the police had no legitimate basis to destroy the peaceable gathering and did so to suppress the demonstrators' message (Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint). Several protestors sued. Some, but not BLMDC, sought damages from the federal officials, who dispersed their protest (or authorized its dispersal) under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents and the First and Fourth Amendments (Third Amended Class Action Complaint). The Court held that Supreme Court precedent foreclosed those Plaintiffs' Bivens claims, and the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed. Judge Justin Walker authored a separate concurrence. As he saw things, despite the failure of their Bivens claims, the protestors might yet seek a remedy under D.C. law--although Judge Walker was not certain whether such a lawsuit could succeed. On remand, the protestors and BLMDC moved to amend their complaint to add claims against the federal officials under D.C. law. The Court granted their motion in part. As is relevant here, it authorized BLMDC to raise claims against the federal officials under the D.C. First Amendment Assemblies Act, which bars the imposition of time, place, or manner restrictions on protests based on the content of the beliefs expressed during the protest, D.C. Code Section 5-331.04(c). It also authorized BLMDC to raise negligence per se claims against those officials under D.C. tort law. The United States filed a Notice of Substitution under the Westfall Act. It argued that BLMDC's new claims could only proceed against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). BLMDC objects to the Notice of Substitution. It contends that its claims may proceed under the Westfall Act's constitutional-tort exception. The Westfall Act makes the FTCA's remedies "exclusive" for all claims within their scope. The Act does not apply, however, to a civil action against an employee of the Government, which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States, Judge Friedrich notes. The parties agree that BLMDC's action amounts to a civil action against employees of the Government. They also agree that its claims otherwise fall within the scope of the FTCA. That leaves one question: whether BLMDC's First Amendment Assemblies Act and negligence per se claims are "brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States." Judge Friedrich says they are not. Judge Friedrich opines that BLMDC's claims can succeed only under a broad construction of the Westfall Act's constitutional carveout, one on which an action is "brought for a violation of the Constitution" whenever it has the purpose or effect of remedying a constitutional violation. But BLMDC's broad construction is not the most plausible reading of the carveout. It follows that BLMDC's claims are not brought for a violation of the Constitution and that the Court must overrule BLMDC's objection to certification. Among other things, Judge Friedrich opines that BLMDC's negligence per se claim does not directly arise under the Constitution. And it does not require proof of a Constitutional violation as an element either. Thus, BLMDC's negligence per se claim does not qualify as a claim for a violation of the Constitution under the Westfall Act. For all these reasons, the Court overrules BLMDC's objection to certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 4, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/54nftssn from PacerMonitor.com. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Doe Civil Rights Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled DOE JEWISH USC FACULTY MEMBER 2004 and DOE JEWISH USC STUDENT 1987, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Trustees of THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a private public benefit corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCP01592, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05712 to the proceeding. The case asserts claims for violations of the Bane, Unruh and Ralph civil rights acts, as well as claims for negligence, breach of contract, assault, battery, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The Trustees of the University of Southern California (USC) controls the university, which is a California private public benefit corporation. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq. Tyler J. Scott, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 243-2719 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 E-mail: rgergesshields@jonesday.com tscott@jonesday.com VELOCITY MORTGAGE: Cranston Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRANSTON SERVICES, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Cranston Services, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Velocity Mortgage Capital, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00273-MSM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The nature of suit is stated as 4220 Foreclosure. On Nov. 14, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss/dissolve lis pendens. On Dec. 4, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On June 18, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss/dissolve lis pendens and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim through an Order entered by Judge Mary S. McElroy. The appellate case is captioned Cranston Services, LLC v. Velocity Mortgage Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1630, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July 11, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CRANSTON SERVICES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Corey J. Allard, Esq. 50 Power Rd. Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 338-6381 Defendants-Appellees VELOCITY MORTGAGE CAPITAL, LLC, et al. are represented by: Michael R. Hagopian, Esq. BROCK & SCOTT PLLC 23 Messenger St., 2nd Fl. Plainville, MA 02762 Telephone: (401) 217-8774 VISA INC: 7-Eleven and Target Suits Must Be Remanded to S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05746-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y.). IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand two actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Oct. 21, 2013, the two actions -- Target Corp. v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5745 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013); and 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5746 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013) -- were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to this Court for consolidation with In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1720) pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel"). For the reasons explained in this Suggestion of Remand, the Court issues a suggestion of remand to the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and Rule 10.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern District of New York, where they were joined by other similar cases. The consolidated cases included both class actions and individual actions. In April of 2006, the plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended class complaint that defined two classes: one seeking damages and the other seeking equitable relief. In November of 2012, the Court provisionally certified a class and preliminarily approved a class settlement agreement between class plaintiffs and the Defendants. Following preliminary settlement approval, three groups of merchants that had not previously appeared as named parties, including the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs, opted out of the settlement's damages class and filed their own complaints in other districts, all of which were ultimately transferred to the court and consolidated in the multidistrict litigation. The Panel ordered transfer to this Court for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs have been litigating their opt-out actions in this Court since then. The Court approved the settlement in 2013, but in 2016, the Second Circuit vacated certification of the class and reversed approval of the settlement. In November of 2016, the Court appointed counsel to two putative classes under Rule 23(b)(2) (the "Equitable Relief Class") and Rule 23(b)(3) (the "Damages Class") of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 2019, the Court approved a subsequent settlement between the Damages Class and the Defendants (the "2019 Settlement"), and in 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the approval in all material respects. Discovery as to the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") was completed around March of 2020. In December of 2020, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. In three separate decisions, the Court denied the Defendants' motion. In April of 2024, the Plaintiffs requested that the Court hold a status conference to establish a schedule for remaining pretrial procedures and trial, arguing that because all the pending summary judgment motions in their cases had been resolved, the cases were ready for trial. The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that there is still substantial supplemental discovery work that must be done and that the issues Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs wished to address at a conference were not ripe for resolution. The Court granted the request and held a status conference on June 13, 2024. At the conference, the Court indicated that the Plaintiffs' cases were likely ready for trial, and discussed whether the Defendants would waive their rights under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998), ("Lexecon rights") to have the case remanded to the Southern District of New York. The Court indicated that if the Defendants did not waive their Lexecon rights, the cases would be remanded to the Southern District of New York. The Court gave the Defendants until June 30, 2024, to inform the Court as to whether they would waive their rights to remand. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a letter containing relevant authorities under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and 28 U.S.C. Section 292 that the Plaintiffs assert would allow the Court to preside at the trial of the Target and 7-Eleven matters, if the Defendants exercise their Lexecon rights. On June 28, 2024, the Defendants notified the Court that they would not be waiving their Lexecon rights, and they requested that the Court issue a suggestion of remand to the Panel with respect to the Target and 7-Eleven actions. Later the same day, the Plaintiffs filed responses requesting that the Court's suggestion of remand include either (a) an invitation to the Southern District of New York to transfer the case back to this Court, or (b) a suggestion that the Second Circuit consider an intra-circuit assignment of Judge Brodie to sit in the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs do not oppose remand and submit that remand is now appropriate. Judge Brodie finds the Target and 7-Eleven actions are ready for trial. Discovery has been completed and all dispositive motions have been resolved. The Court declines the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs' request for transfer or reassignment. The Court declines to invite transfer back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and will not seek intra-circuit reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 292(b). Although the Court does not agree with the Defendants' suggestion that such actions are foreclosed by Lexecon, the Court agrees with the Defendants to the extent that such measures would be contrary to the purpose of Lexecon. For example, Judge Brodie says, the Court's familiarity with the Target and 7-Eleven actions is insufficient to override Mastercard's interest in having the case tried before a jury in the district in which it is headquartered. In addition, the purpose of consolidation in multidistrict litigation is to obtain efficiencies from coordinated discovery and pre-trial procedures; now that these steps are completed, trial before this Court is no more efficient than trial before a court in the Southern District of New York. Moreover, as the Court stated at the status conference on the Target and 7-Eleven actions, Judge Brodie points out that there's no difference between the Eastern District and the Southern District when it comes to location. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs elected to file suit in the Southern District of New York and they will not be prejudiced by trying their case before a judge in that district. For these reasons, the Court suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand these actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Suggestion of Remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Suggestion of Remand dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4rfy4mna from PacerMonitor.com. VISA INC: E.D.N.Y. Suggests Remand of Target Suit to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Target Corporation, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05745-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y.). IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand two actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Oct. 21, 2013, the two actions -- Target Corp. v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5745 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013); and 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5746 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013) -- were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to this Court for consolidation with In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1720) pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel"). For the reasons explained in this Suggestion of Remand, the Court issues a suggestion of remand to the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and Rule 10.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In October of 2005, several complaints asserting similar antitrust claims against Visa, Mastercard, and various issuing banks were consolidated for pretrial purposes and transferred to the Eastern District of New York, where they were joined by other similar cases. The consolidated cases included both class actions and individual actions. In April of 2006, the plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended class complaint that defined two classes: one seeking damages and the other seeking equitable relief. In November of 2012, the Court provisionally certified a class and preliminarily approved a class settlement agreement between class plaintiffs and the Defendants. Following preliminary settlement approval, three groups of merchants that had not previously appeared as named parties, including the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs, opted out of the settlement's damages class and filed their own complaints in other districts, all of which were ultimately transferred to the court and consolidated in the multidistrict litigation. The Panel ordered transfer to this Court for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs have been litigating their opt-out actions in this Court since then. The Court approved the settlement in 2013, but in 2016, the Second Circuit vacated certification of the class and reversed approval of the settlement. In November of 2016, the Court appointed counsel to two putative classes under Rule 23(b)(2) (the "Equitable Relief Class") and Rule 23(b)(3) (the "Damages Class") of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 2019, the Court approved a subsequent settlement between the Damages Class and the Defendants (the "2019 Settlement"), and in 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the approval in all material respects. Discovery as to the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") was completed around March of 2020. In December of 2020, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. In three separate decisions, the Court denied the Defendants' motion. In April of 2024, the Plaintiffs requested that the Court hold a status conference to establish a schedule for remaining pretrial procedures and trial, arguing that because all the pending summary judgment motions in their cases had been resolved, the cases were ready for trial. The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that there is still substantial supplemental discovery work that must be done and that the issues Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs wished to address at a conference were not ripe for resolution. The Court granted the request and held a status conference on June 13, 2024. At the conference, the Court indicated that the Plaintiffs' cases were likely ready for trial, and discussed whether the Defendants would waive their rights under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998), ("Lexecon rights") to have the case remanded to the Southern District of New York. The Court indicated that if the Defendants did not waive their Lexecon rights, the cases would be remanded to the Southern District of New York. The Court gave the Defendants until June 30, 2024, to inform the Court as to whether they would waive their rights to remand. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a letter containing relevant authorities under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and 28 U.S.C. Section 292 that the Plaintiffs assert would allow the Court to preside at the trial of the Target and 7-Eleven matters, if the Defendants exercise their Lexecon rights. On June 28, 2024, the Defendants notified the Court that they would not be waiving their Lexecon rights, and they requested that the Court issue a suggestion of remand to the Panel with respect to the Target and 7-Eleven actions. Later the same day, the Plaintiffs filed responses requesting that the Court's suggestion of remand include either (a) an invitation to the Southern District of New York to transfer the case back to this Court, or (b) a suggestion that the Second Circuit consider an intra-circuit assignment of Judge Brodie to sit in the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs do not oppose remand and submit that remand is now appropriate. Judge Brodie finds the Target and 7-Eleven actions are ready for trial. Discovery has been completed and all dispositive motions have been resolved. The Court declines the Target and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs' request for transfer or reassignment. The Court declines to invite transfer back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 and will not seek intra-circuit reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 292(b). Although the Court does not agree with the Defendants' suggestion that such actions are foreclosed by Lexecon, the Court agrees with the Defendants to the extent that such measures would be contrary to the purpose of Lexecon. For example, Judge Brodie says, the Court's familiarity with the Target and 7-Eleven actions is insufficient to override Mastercard's interest in having the case tried before a jury in the district in which it is headquartered. In addition, the purpose of consolidation in multidistrict litigation is to obtain efficiencies from coordinated discovery and pre-trial procedures; now that these steps are completed, trial before this Court is no more efficient than trial before a court in the Southern District of New York. Moreover, as the Court stated at the status conference on the Target and 7-Eleven actions, Judge Brodie points out that there's no difference between the Eastern District and the Southern District when it comes to location. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs elected to file suit in the Southern District of New York and they will not be prejudiced by trying their case before a judge in that district. For these reasons, the Court suggests that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand these actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Suggestion of Remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Suggestion of Remand dated July 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yp2rfyck from PacerMonitor.com. WEBCOLLEX LLC: Gutierrez Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Sub-Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC d/b/a CKS Financial, Case No. 2:23-cv-00988-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 14, 2024 will move the Court for an Order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying a class in this action arising from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"). The Plaintiff seeks to represent and is a member of the Class is defined as: "All consumers with whom Defendant engaged in debt collection communications with utilizing an initial written collection communication substantially similar to the e-mail sent to the Plaintiff since (1) one year prior to March 27, 2023." The Plaintiff also seeks to represent the California Sub-Class consisting of: "All consumers in the State of California with whom the Defendant engaged in debt collection activities with utilizing an initial written collection communication substantially similar to the e- mail sent to the Plaintiff since (1) one year prior to March 27, 2023." The Plaintiff also requests that she be appointed as the Class Representative, and that her counsel in this action be appointed as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3pVr6C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com WELLPOINT WASHINGTON: Mendoza Class Cert Bid Due April 18, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADELINA MENDOZA, v. WELLPOINT WASHINGTON, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00497-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order setting discovery and certain pretrial deadlines: Event Date JURY TRIAL SET FOR 9:00 a.m. on To be set later Deadline for joining additional parties Sept. 27, 2024 Deadline for filing amended pleadings Oct. 4, 2024 All motions related to class certification Feb. 18, 2025 discovery must be filed by Discovery on class certification issues Mar. 18, 2025 completed by Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion Apr. 18, 2025 for class certification in accordance with LCR 7 Deadline for parties to meet and confer 21 days following and propose a case schedule for further ruling on class proceedings, including dispositive motions certification The Court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification and reviewing the parties’ subsequent joint status report. Counsel for Plaintiff shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiff at any time decide not to seek class certification. SETTLEMENT If this case settles, counsel shall notify Natalie Wood via email at natalie_wood@wawd.uscourts.gov as soon as possible. Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to give the Deputy Clerk prompt notice of settlement may be subject to such discipline as the Court deems appropriate. In most cases, the Court will take one of two courses when parties notify it of settlement. Wellpoint is a coordinator of Medicaid managed healthcare benefits in Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oasoYe at no extra charge.[CC] XTO ENERGY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 4 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Brown entered an amended case management order as follows: 1. The deadline for Defendant to depose Oct. 18, 2024 Charles Waddingham II and Carol Waddingham with respect to issues related to class certification shall be: 2. The parties shall complete the ADR Oct. 11, 2024 process they selected by: 3. A post-mediation video status Oct. 30, 2024 conference is scheduled for: 4. Plaintiffs shall file their motion Nov. 4, 2024 for class certification, memorandum in support and all supporting evidence by: XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil principally operating in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4dLrnJ at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***