/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240731.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 31, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 153
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nelson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Rhymes Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Sullivan Class Suit Alleges
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Intercepts Confidential Info, Cabral Says
ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Riley Claims
AMSTED INDUSTRIES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Toliver Claims
ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS: Smith Sues Over Biometric Data Collection
AUTOMATIC DATA: Ylitalo Balks at Unlicensed Sales Personnel
BAYER CORPORATION: Newman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BEIERSDORF INC: Schwartz Sues Over Aquaphor Products' False Ads
BEL USA HOLDINGS: Oppong Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
BIKERS AGAINST DRUNK: Fouda Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
BLADE URBAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Says
BMW OF NORTH: Class Cert Briefing Date Modified to August 5
BOW PLUMBING: Braswell Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
CALZEDONIA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Pollitt Suit Alleges
CANPACK US: Taramelli Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Proto Suit Alleges
CDL 1000: Kroner Seeks Account Managers' Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
CHARLES MACHINE: Remillard Bid for Class Certification Vacated
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Court Sets Class Certification Dates in Vernon
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Court Dismisses Willis Suit
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Bid to Temporarily Maintain Jurisdiction OK'd
CRYO-CELL INT'L: Lehr Drops False Advertising Claims
DIRECT DIGITAL: Serrano Sues Over 10.4% Share Price Drop
EVENT TICKETS: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Drip Pricing & Hidden Fees
EVENT TICKETS: Hernandez Sues Over Drip Pricing & Hidden Fees
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Hohler Says
EVOLVE BANK: Rayam Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
GAT AIRLINE: Court Junks Manu Bid to Remand
GENERAL MILLS: Cereal Products Contain Lead, Tobin Suit Alleges
GRAND INVESTMENT: Tully Sues Over Failure to Provide Proper Wages
GRAYWOLF TRUCKING: Santos-Alba Seeks Delivery Workers' OT Wages
HUDSON VALLEY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says
JULIA TESTA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Picon Suit Alleges
LOANCARE LLC: Tederick Seeks to Certify Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid for Relief from Untimely Filing Tossed
LT BY ILYA: Luxtailor.com Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says
LUNELLA RISTORANTE: Medina Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MULTICARE HEALTH: Uses Tracking Tools to Collect Info, Small Says
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Saletsky Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
ODDITY TECH: Faces Hoare Securities Suit over Share Price Drop
PANERA LLC: Faces Weddle Class Action Suit in E.D. Missouri
PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Warren Says
PCG CLAIMS: Faces Insured Class Action Suit Over Purchase Agreement
R&P PLACE: Licona Suit Seeks Cooks' Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
RARE HOSPITALITY: Faces Shareef FLSA Suit Over Tip Credit Claims
SANITAS USA: Fails to Pay Lab Technicians' OT Wages, Neal Says
STEVE CORSI: Court Stays Filyaw Action
TAFT ELECTRIC: Faces Cisneros Class Suit in Calif. State Court
TICKETMASTER LLC: Spencer Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
TRANS UNION: Court Orders to Unseal Docket Filings in Brooks Suit
UTGR LLC: Pfeiffer Sues Over Poker Dealers' Unpaid Wages
XIAO-I CORP: Faces Milev Suit Over 89% Share Price Drop
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nelson Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Nelson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04053-RMG (D.S.C.,
July 21, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Mr. Nelson is a resident and citizen of Saint Petersburg, Florida.
He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants include 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.)
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Rhymes Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Rhymes v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04049-RMG (D.S.C.,
July 19, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Mr. Rhymes is a resident and citizen of Saint Petersburg, Florida.
He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants include 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.)
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Sullivan Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SULLIVAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04041-RMG (D.S.C.,
July 19, 2024) is a class action seeking for or damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF 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, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Mr. Sullivan is a resident and citizen of Jefferson County,
Kentucky. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his military
career. He was diagnosed with Testicular Cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS
& SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-ininterest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES,
INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, Alabama 35244
Telephone: (205) 988-9253
Facsimile: (205) 788-4896
E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Intercepts Confidential Info, Cabral Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CABRAL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-01521 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2024) is a class action suit
brought against Defendant for violating the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
The Defendant owns and operates the Abercrombie website,
www.abercrombie.com, which sells apparel and accessories.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and consumers, the Defendant knowingly and
willfully assists a third party with intercepting confidential
communications that contain consumers' sensitive financial
information. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's violation
of the CIPA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Orange County, California who
purchased a product from the website. Specifically, the Plaintiff
purchased a clothing item on April 23, 2024. When purchasing the
product on the website, the Plaintiff entered his personally
identifiable information and credit card information to complete
the transaction.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. operates as a stores and conducts
direct-to-consumer operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
ADVANCE AUTO: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Riley Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RILEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00397 (E.D.N.C., July 10, 2024) is a
class action against Advance Auto Parts, Inc. for its failure to
adequately secure and safeguard his and other similarly situation
individuals' personally identifying information, including but not
limited to names and email addresses.
On information and belief, starting in or about mid-April 2024, an
unauthorized party began a series of hacks into the systems of
Snowflake, Inc., which is Advanced Auto's cloud storage vendor,
ultimately obtaining the PII of approximately 358,000 current and
former employees of AAP, as well as 380 million AAP customer
profiles, including Plaintiff's.
As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the PII of AAP's current and former employees, employment
candidates, and customers, including Plaintiff and the proposed
Class Members, was stolen. The Plaintiff brings this class action
lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class
Members' PII that they collected and maintained, and its failure to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members
of the types of information accessed, and that such information
remains subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is a retailer of automotive aftermarket
parts located in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
- and -
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
imcloughlin@shulaw.com
AMSTED INDUSTRIES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Toliver Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL OLIVIA TOLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMSTED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED,
BURGESS NORTON MFG. CO., INC., SMW MFG., INC., d/b/a THE AMSTED
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05747 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs, and
other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the common law claim of unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was hired as an hourly non-exempt employee around
December 2013. The Plaintiff asserts that she and the putative
Collective members were not paid their promised hourly wage for all
work performed, and they were not paid overtime, as required by the
FLSA, in weeks in which they worked more than 40 hours.
Amsted Industries Incorporated is a diversified global manufacturer
of industrial components serving primarily the railroad,
automotive, commercial vehicle, construction and building
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS: Smith Sues Over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanya Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Antech Diagnostics, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05849 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2024) seeks redress and
curtailment of Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of
the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The complaint alleges that Antech has collected and stored the
thumbprint scan of each employee who was required to use the
thumbprint scanning technology as part of Antech's timeclock
procedure. Each thumbprint scan that Antech extracts is unique to a
particular individual in the same way that facial geometry or
voiceprint uniquely identifies a particular individual. However,
Antech failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' thumbprint scans following each time punch or at the
conclusion of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' employment in
violation of the BIPA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked at Antech's facility located in Oak Brook,
Illinois and had her biometric information processed via a
thumbprint scan as part of the time clock procedure for timekeeping
and payroll purposes.
Antech Diagnostics, Inc., operates a nationwide network of
integrated veterinary diagnostic laboratories.[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
AUTOMATIC DATA: Ylitalo Balks at Unlicensed Sales Personnel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Ylitalo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., ADP, Inc.,
and American Century Investments Services, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-07635 (D.N.J., July 9, 2024) is a class action brought
against Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for
fraud in the inducement, as well as gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
During the Class Period, ADP sold SIMPLE IRAs, the funds for which
are invested in American Century Investments' One Choice FOFs,
comprised of exclusively ACI owned and managed mutual funds, as
selected and sold at the time of sale of the SIMPLE IRAs, to the
class, through ADP employees who are unlicensed and unregistered.
American Century Investments -- the designated "investment advisor"
for the funds -- participated in training the unlicensed and
unregistered ADP employees to sell SIMPLE IRA plans, the suit
says.
ADP and ACI failed to disclose to consumers that their unlicensed
and unregistered personnel are required to sell a certain number of
SIMPLE IRAs or were otherwise provided incentives to sell SIMPLE
IRAs, the funds for which are invested in ACI's One Choice FOFs,
comprised of exclusively ACI owned and managed mutual funds, as
selected and sold at the time of sale of the SIMPLE IRAs, asserts
the suit.
Plaintiff Dale Ylitalo is a citizen of Naples, Florida. Ylitalo
owns and operates R4 Construction, LLC.
Automatic Data Processing provides human resources management
software and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391-7000
Facsimile: (201) 307-1086
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Robert H. Goodman, Esq.
PARRISH & GOODMAN, PLLC
13031 McGregor Blvd., Suite 8
Telephone: (813) 643-4529
E-mail: rgoodman@parrishgoodman.com
jparrish@parrishgoodman.com
kcumbee@parrishgoodman.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
BAYER CORPORATION: Newman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYSHA NEWMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No.
7:22-cv-07087-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move before
the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, for an Order, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to:
(i) certifying a class defined as
"all persons who, within the applicable statute of
limitations
period, purchased in the State of New York any of the
Defendants' One A Day Vitacraves Products for personal,
family, or household purposes";
(ii) appointing Tanysha Newman as representative of the Class,
and
(iii) appointing Max S. Roberts, Caroline C. Donovan, and L.
Timothy
Fisher of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel.
Pursuant to the Court's May 14, 2024 Civil Case Management Plan,
opposition papers, if any, shall be filed by Aug. 30, 2024, and
reply papers, if any, shall be filed by Sept. 21, 2024.
The Defendant is a German multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8cltwF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
ltfisher@bursor.com
BEIERSDORF INC: Schwartz Sues Over Aquaphor Products' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA SCHWARTZ, an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. BEIERSDORF, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04394-AGT (N.D. Cal., July
19, 2024) contends that the Defendant negligently or carelessly
misrepresented, omitted, and concealed from consumers material
facts regarding the quality and characteristics of its Aquaphor
Baby Healing Ointment and Aquaphor Children's Healing Ointment,
including that the Products were specially formulated or otherwise
uniquely suitable for babies or children.
The truth, however, is that the Baby, Children's, and Adult
Aquaphor products all have the exact same formula and ingredients.
The Defendant puts the same ointment into three separate products
with different labels. Consumers are being deceived and
overcharged, the Plaintiff avers.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers in the United States, alleging
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.
The Plaintiff brings further causes of action for breach of express
and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation/fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Defendant
to cease marketing the Products using the misleading and unlawful
tactics, destroy all misleading, deceptive, and unlawful
materials, conduct a corrective advertising campaign, restore the
amounts by which it has been unjustly enriched, and pay restitution
damages and punitive damages, as allowed by law.
Ms. Schwartz is a resident of California and purchased the Baby,
Children's, and Adult Aquaphor products several times during the
Class Period from Walgreens and Target stores in Berkeley and
Oakland, California.
The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets healing
ointment products for babies, children, and adults under the brand
name Aquaphor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
BEL USA HOLDINGS: Oppong Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bel USA Holdings
Florida LLC. The case is styled as Monique Oppong, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bel USA Holdings
Florida LLC doing business as: Discountmugs, Case No.
1:24-cv-22788-KMW (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Bel USA Holdings Florida LLC doing business as: Discountmugs are
one of the largest promotional products businesses in the
U.S.A..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Eric Berman, Esq.
1650 SE 17th Street 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (865) 603-7365
Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
BIKERS AGAINST DRUNK: Fouda Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bikers Against Drunk
Drivers Inc. The case is styled as Zacharia Fouda, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Bikers Against Drunk
Drivers Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01255-DMS-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 22,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Bikers Against Drunk Drivers Inc. (BADD) --
https://store.baddworldwide.com/ -- is a 41-year-old community
organization aiming to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and
its consequences through promotion and awareness to the mainstream
in malls, major events, annual tours and the media.[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: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
BLADE URBAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLADE URBAN AIR MOBILITY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05193 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.blade.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
June 3, 2024, in an attempt to book a flight from Defendant and to
view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. This denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment
of the goods, and services of the website by being unable to book a
flight, as well as other products available online and to ascertain
information relating to Defendant's helicopter flights, booking
information and availability, as well as other types of goods,
merchandise, safety information, pricing and privacy policies. The
access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of
Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and deter Plaintiff
on a regular basis from accessing the website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Blade Urban Air Mobility is an aviation company headquartered in
New York City and incorporated in Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
BMW OF NORTH: Class Cert Briefing Date Modified 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 Hon. Judge Andre M. Espinosa entered 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 Oct. 2, 2024.
In accordance with this Court's Order, the Plaintiffs served their
opening brief on May 22, 2024.
BMW markets and sells motor vehicles. The Company offers vehicle
accessories and interior and exterior parts, apparel and
accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers vehicle
financing and leasing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zbcnzy 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
BOW PLUMBING: Braswell Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSELYN BRASWELL, et al.,
v. BOW PLUMBING GROUP INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00025-ECM-KFP (M.D.
Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(i) granting final approval of the Settlement,
(ii) certifying the Settlement Class; and
(iii) granting Plaintiffs' counsel's motion for attorney's fees
and
costs.
The Defendant manufactures plumbing products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ne7Px9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kirby D. Farris, Esq.
Calle M. Mendenhall, Esq.
Malia D. Tartt, Esq.
FARRIS, RILEY & PITT, LLP
The Gray Building
1728 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 324-1212
Facsimile: (205) 324-1255
E-mail: kfarris@frplegal.com
cmedenhall@frplegal.com
mtartt@frplegal.com
CALZEDONIA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Pollitt Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Calzedonia USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05054 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Falconeri.com" to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Calzedonia provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use Falconeri.com.
He tried to learn more information about the goods and services
offered by the company on June 17, 2024 but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Calzedonia's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Pollitt is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Calzedonia specializes in men's and women's clothing including
shirts, T-shirts, cardigans, pants, knitwear, sweatshirts,
outerwear, hats and scarves.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
CANPACK US: Taramelli Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON TARAMELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANPACK US, LLC, and CANPACK GROUP, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03004 (E.D. Pa., July 10, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants seeking to recover Plaintiff's
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee at Defendants' location in Olyphant, Pennsylvania since
May 2012. The Plaintiff asserts that he and those similarly
situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were
paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not
include Defendants' shift differentials or bonuses as required by
the FLSA.
Canpack US, LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that
manufactures packaging solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam S. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC
P.O. Box 88
Oreland, PA 19075
Telephone: (267) 994-6952
E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Thomas V. Nafziger, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
tnafziger@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
mh@melmedlaw.com
CDK GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Proto Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALDO PROTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168 (N.D. Ill.,
July 22, 2024) alleges that threat actors were able to access and
exfiltrate sensitive personally identifiable information relating
to dealerships' customers stored in CDK's software-as-a-service
platform.
On June 19, 2024, a cyber-attack prompted the Defendant to shutdown
most of its systems "out of an abundance of caution." While CDK
attempted to restore some of its systems later that day, the
Defendant suffered a second cyber-attack, prompting the Defendant
to take its systems offline again. The sequence of cyber-attacks
resulted in a two-week disruption to Defendant's SaaS platform.
As a direct and proximate result of CDK's failure to implement and
follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII—names, contact information, Social Security numbers,
employment history, and proof of income—is now in the hands of
cybercriminals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their
PII—risks which may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes.
As such, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff brings claim for negligence, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking damages and
injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient
data security practices to safeguard the PII in the Defendant's
possession in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from
reoccurring in the future.
Mr. Proto is an adult who is and was a citizen of the State of
Connecticut.
CDK is a SaaS provider, that provides automotive dealers with a
software platform to run all aspects of their operations, including
sales, financing, inventory, service, and back office
functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
Chicago IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
gary@lcllp.com
CDL 1000: Kroner Seeks Account Managers' Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN KRONER, On behalf of herself and a class of all those
similarly situated v. CDL 1000, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06169 (N.D.
Ill., July 22, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
unpaid commissions, pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that CDL 1000 has uniformly classified these
employees as "exempt" and pays them all the same way -- a base
salary plus commissions, with no additional pay for overtime. It
requires them to work nine-hour per day shifts, five days per week,
and additional hours outside of this schedule. Thus, they regularly
work overtime. The employees' primary job function, booking loads
of freight with customers and carriers, amounts to direct,
individual sales and is "nonexempt" work.
CDL 1000 did not pay the Plaintiff and the putative class members
overtime or any other additional compensation for the hours they
worked in excess of 40 per week. Furthermore, CDL 1000 failed to
keep records of the hours worked each week by Plaintiff and the
putative class members in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL, says
the suit.
Plaintiff Kroner is a former employee of CDL 1000 and worked for
the company as an Account Manager.
CDL 1000 is a third-party transportation logistics company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq.
Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com
pcowlin@hq-law.com
CHARLES MACHINE: Remillard Bid for Class Certification Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.; THE TORO COMPANY; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-02639-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order vacating class certification
hearing and deadlines:
1. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
vacated.
2. All deadlines related Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
are vacated.
The Defendant is an appliances, electrical, and electronics
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JBYCY2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Court Sets Class Certification Dates in Vernon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORLIS VERNON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CLOSETS BY DESIGN INC. and CBD FRANCHISING INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-01180-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead
entered an order setting the following deadlines:
Event Date
Affirmative class certification 120 days after a
decision
expert disclosures on the pending motion to
dismiss
Rebuttal class certification 14 days after affirmative
expert disclosures class certification
expert
disclosures
Completion of depositions of class 28 days after rebuttal
class
certification experts certification expert
disclosures
Deadline to file Motion for class 28 days after deadline to
certification complete depositions of
class certification
experts
Deadline to file Opposition to 28 days after motion for
motion for class certification class certification
Deadline to file Reply to motion 28 days after reply to
for class certification motion for class
certification
The Local Civil Rules set all other deadlines. Except as provided
for in Judge Whitehead’s Chambers Procedures, the dates listed in
this order and set by the Local Civil Rules are firm and cannot be
changed by agreement between the parties. If any of the dates
identified in this Order or the Local Civil Rules fall on a weekend
or federal holiday, the act or event must be performed on the next
business day.
All counsel and pro se parties must be familiar with and follow the
District’s Local Rules, Electronic Filing Procedures for Civil
and Criminal Cases, and General Orders, which can be found on the
Court’s website at https://www.wawd.uscourts. gov/. All counsel
and pro se parties must also follow Judge Whitehead’s Chambers
Procedures, which are available at
https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/ whitehead-procedures.
If this case settles, the parties must notify Mr. Cogswell as soon
as possible at grant_cogswell@wawd.uscourts.gov. An attorney who
fails to give prompt notice of settlement may be subject to
sanctions or discipline under LCR 11(b).
Closets By Design provides home closets, garages, home offices,
wall beds, media centers, laundry rooms, pantries, and hobby room
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ulqcd at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Court Dismisses Willis Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order authorizing the
parties' Stipulation to Vacate Class Certification Order and
Dismiss the Action With Prejudice.
-- The Court's Class Certification Order dated Nov. 8, 2023, is
vacated.
-- The class claims are dismissed without prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer
products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan,
New York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q5AiVh at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Bid to Temporarily Maintain Jurisdiction OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.S., individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, v. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a New York corporation, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03232-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres
entered an order granting motion to temporarily maintain
jurisdiction over action for the sole purpose of adjudicating any
disputes arising from the Parties' meet-and-confer process, which
shall occur no later than six months from the date of the
Stipulation, at which time the Parties will address any concerns
regarding either Party's good faith performance of the terms of the
Stipulation, including whether any extension of the Stipulation,
the provisions of which expire as of Dec. 31, 2024, is warranted.
As part of the Stipulation, Columbia has agreed to prospective
relief responsive to Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, and Plaintiff will withdraw her Emergency Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and dismiss her equitable claims
with prejudice and all other claims without prejudice.
Columbia University is a research university and offers learning
environment for undergraduates and graduate students in various
scholarly and professional fields.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UYVSvl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carrie Goldberg, Esq.
C.A. GOLDBERG, PLLC
16 Court Street, 33rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11241
Telephone: (646) 666-8908
E-mail: carrie@cagoldberglaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
David I. Mindell, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
ascharg@edelson.com
dmindell@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
Gabrielle E. Tenzer, Esq.
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, 63rd Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 763-0883
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com
gtenzer@kaplanhecker.com
CRYO-CELL INT'L: Lehr Drops False Advertising Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2024, that the complaint styled
"Lindsey Lehr v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc.," (Case No.
50-2023-CA-000091, January 6, 2023) filed in the Circuit Court for
Palm Beach County, Florida, was dropped on January 18, 2024.
Said class action named the company as defendant and asserting
claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who entered
agreements with the company for umbilical cord blood storage
services since May 2018.
The complaint alleged that the company's advertising does not
accurately represent the value and efficacy of its services and
asserted claims (and sought unspecified damages) under Florida law.
On March 14, 2023, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case
No. 9:23-cv-80405-AMC), and on March 21, 2023, moved to compel
arbitration and stay the case.
On October 10, 2023, the court granted the company's motion to
compel arbitration and stayed the case. On October 27, 2023, the
plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration and statement of claims
with the American Arbitration Association, and on January 18, 2024,
the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claims dropping her
class action allegations against the company. On March 19, 2024,
the company filed an answering statement and counterclaim in
response to the plaintiff's claims.
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. is a blood and organ bank company
based in Florida.
DIRECT DIGITAL: Serrano Sues Over 10.4% Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
MIKE SERRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC., MARK WALKER,
DIANA DIAZ, and SUSAN ECHARD, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02567
(S.D. Tex., July 9, 2024) is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired Direct Digital common stock during the period from April
17, 2023 through March 25, 2024, inclusive for Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
facts, including that: (i) the Company's transition towards a
"cookie-less" advertising environment was accelerated and would
impact revenue in 2024; (ii) the Company's alternatives to
third-party cookies, including planned investments in artificial
intelligence and machine learning to build on first-party data
sources, would not be viable alternatives to third-party cookies
and similar tracking technologies; (iii) the Company did not have
adequate solutions to address the impending phase out of
third-party cookies by Google; and (iv) based on the foregoing,
Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the effectiveness of Direct Digital's platform and related
financial results, growth, and prospects, says the suit.
On March 26, 2024, Direct Digital announced that it missed revenue
estimates for the fourth quarter of 2023, citing
lower-than-anticipated demand, a delay in the release of Tier 1
publishers from beta testing, and proactive efforts by Direct
Digital to accelerate its transition towards a "cookie-less"
advertising platform.
Then, on April 2, 2024, Direct Digital disclosed that a material
weakness had been "identified in [its] review of internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023."
On this news, Direct Digital's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or
10.4%, from $14.31 per share on April 1, 2024 to close at $12.82
per share on April 2, 2024, further injuring investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, asserts the suit.
Direct Digital is an end-to-end, full-service programmatic
advertising platform that provides advertising technology,
data-driven campaign optimization, and other solutions to markets
on both the buy- and sell-side of the digital advertising
ecosystem.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
EVENT TICKETS: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Drip Pricing & Hidden Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC., Case No.
2:24-at-00920 (E.D. Cal., July 19, 2024) contends that the
Defendant sold tickets online using drip pricing and hidden fees --
advertising one price for the ticket, only to tack on mandatory
fees at the very end.
Prior to March 2024, Event Tickets Center used drip pricing, and
hid the true price of the ticket until the purchase was almost
complete. Because Event Tickets Center waited until the very end
of the checkout process to disclose the true price (in hard to see
gray print), it was difficult for consumers to accurately compare
ticket prices across other event ticket platforms. Not only did
this frustrate comparison shopping, but it impeded competition and
led consumers to pay more for their ticket than they otherwise
would have, the suit says.
On April 19, 2022, Ms. Hernandez purchased two concert tickets
through Event Tickets Center's website, www.eventticketscenter.com.
During the checkout process, Event Tickets Center represented that
the total would be $206 for two tickets. Ms. Hernandez believed
that the total of these tickets would cost $206. But at the very
end of the checkout process, in small gray font buried in the fine
print, Event Tickets Center added additional fees. This made the
actual ticket price $307.40, not $206, as Event Tickets Center had
previously represented.
Event Tickets Center also failed to disclose the amount of the fee.
In the final price, a general reference was made to "service" and
"delivery fees." The amount of each fee, or the total amount of the
fees, was not disclosed after the purchase. Thus, consumers did not
know how much they were paying in fees, or what fees they were
paying, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of California consumers
who were also charged hidden fees by Event Tickets Center.
The Plaintiff and the class were injured as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's conduct because (a) they paid an illegal fee,
(b) they would not have purchased the tickets if they had known the
truth, and/or (c) they overpaid for the tickets because the tickets
were sold at a price premium due to the misrepresentation.
Event Tickets is a secondary ticket marketplace where consumers can
purchase resale tickets to thousands of national and local
events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
EVENT TICKETS: Hernandez Sues Over Drip Pricing & Hidden Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-01983-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal., July 19, 2024) contends that the
Defendant sold tickets online using drip pricing and hidden fees --
advertising one price for the ticket, only to tack on mandatory
fees at the very end.
Prior to March 2024, Event Tickets Center used drip pricing, and
hid the true price of the ticket until the purchase was almost
complete. Because Event Tickets Center waited until the very end of
the checkout process to disclose the true price (in hard to see
gray print), it was difficult for consumers to accurately compare
ticket prices across other event ticket platforms. Not only did
this frustrate comparison shopping, but it impeded competition and
led consumers to pay more for their ticket than they otherwise
would have, the Plaintiff avers.
On April 19, 2022, Ms. Hernandez purchased two concert tickets
through Event Tickets Center's website, www.eventticketscenter.com.
During the checkout process, Event Tickets Center represented that
the total would be $206 for two tickets. Ms. Hernandez believed
that the total of these tickets would cost $206. But at the very
end of the checkout process, in small gray font buried in the fine
print, Event Tickets Center added additional fees. This made the
actual ticket price $307.40, not $206, as Event Tickets Center had
previously represented.
Event Tickets Center also failed to disclose the amount of the fee.
In the final price, a general reference was made to "service" and
"delivery fees." The amount of each fee, or the total amount of the
fees, was not disclosed after the purchase. Thus, consumers did not
know how much they were paying in fees, or what fees they were
paying.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of California consumers
who were also charged hidden fees by Event Tickets Center.
The Plaintiff and the class were injured as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's conduct because (a) they paid an illegal fee,
(b) they would not have purchased the tickets if they had known the
truth, and/or (c) they overpaid for the tickets because the tickets
were sold at a price premium due to the misrepresentation.
Event Tickets is a secondary ticket marketplace where consumers can
purchase resale tickets to thousands of national and local
events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Hohler Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RACQUAL HOHLER, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No.
2:24-cv-02518-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn., July 22, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to adequately secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying
information.
In a July 8, 2024 filing with the Office of the Maine Attorney
General, Evolve disclosed that 7,640,112 individuals were impacted
by the Data Breach. According to the Company, hackers accessed the
Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrated customer data between
February and May 2024, including, at least, the names, Social
Security numbers, bank account numbers, and contact information of
"most" of the Company's personal banking customers, as well as
certain other customers of its "Open Banking" partners. The hackers
also encrypted certain data within Evolve's systems and demanded a
ransom payment, which the Company refused to pay. As a result of
the Defendant's refusal to pay the ransom, the hackers leaked the
exfiltrated data to the internet, the suit adds.
Further exacerbating the Plaintiff's injuries, the Defendant has
yet to formally inform Plaintiff of the Data Breach. Instead, the
Plaintiff learned that her PII was stolen through news reports
of the Data Breach on July 2, 2024.
As a proximate result of the Data Breach and the Defendant's lack
of notice, the Plaintiff has spent time and will continue to spend
time for the foreseeable future dealing with the consequences of
the Data Breach, including by monitoring her accounts and credit
reports for potentially fraudulent activity, the Plaintiff avers.
Accordingly, the Defendant has offered insufficient assurances that
all of the Plaintiff's PII or copies thereof have been recovered or
destroyed, or that the Defendant has adequately enhanced its
security practices or dedicated sufficient resources and staff to
avoid similar breaches of its network in the future.
The Plaintiff is a residential tenant of a property management
company doing business in Dallas, Texas that forced the Plaintiff
and other tenants to pay their rent through a service run by Bilt
Technologies, Inc., which contracts with Evolve for its back-end
banking services.
Evolve is a financial services company located in Memphis,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS &
GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St, Ste 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
EVOLVE BANK: Rayam Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------
BHARATH RAYAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02494-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., July 10, 2024) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information of approximately 7,640,112 customers, including their
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, phone
numbers, bank account numbers, and debit card numbers.
According to the complaint, the PII compromised in the data breach
was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of
those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity
thieves. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure
to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect its customers' PII from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit says.
Evolve Bank & Trust is a Tennessee-based financial institution
providing banking and financial solutions to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
GAT AIRLINE: Court Junks Manu Bid to Remand
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ULUALOFAIGA MANU,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GAT
AIRLINE GROUND SUPPORT, INC., and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-01988-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand.
Within 30 days of the electronic filing date of this Order, the
parties are ordered to file a joint status report with the Court
with proposed dates for filing the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Court will then issue an amended scheduling
order.
Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant that a 20% violation rate is
a reasonable estimate for calculating the amount in controversy for
Plaintiff's first and second causes of action and will include
$2,506,359.33 toward the $5,000,000.00 amount in controversy
requirement.
Therefore, the Court finds the minimum amount in controversy
requirement under CAFA is satisfied and the Court declines to
address the additional calculations.
On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant class action
against Defendant, alleging violations of the California Labor Code
and California Business and Professions Code in the Sacramento
County Superior Court.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant: failed to pay all minimum wages;
failed to pay all overtime wages; did not provide requisite meal
periods; did not provide requisite rest periods; failed to pay
necessary business expenses; failed to timely pay all compensation
due and owing upon discharge; provided inaccurate wage statements;
and engaged in unfair competition.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt ramp
agent from December 2022 to April 2023.
GAT is an aviation services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YjuH11 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MILLS: Cereal Products Contain Lead, Tobin Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TOBIN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-04397 (N.D.
Cal., July 19, 2024) contends that the Defendant fails to disclose,
and materially omits, that its chocolate-flavored Cocoa Puffs
cereal products contain a substantial and dangerous amount of
lead.
According to independent testing and analysis, the amount of lead
contained in an average-size bowl of the Products exceeds the
California Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Daily Level ("MALD").
Lead affects almost every organ and system in the body and
accumulates in the body over time, leading to severe health risks
and toxicity, including inhibiting neurological function, anemia,
kidney damage, seizures, and in extreme cases, coma and death.10
28. Lead exposure and accumulation is particularly dangerous to
children. Despite the failure to disclose that the Products contain
lead, the Defendant makes other disclosures on the box label of the
Products, including that the Products "MAY CONTAIN WHEAT
INGREDIENTS" and "Contain Bioengineered Food Ingredients". These
Disclosures reasonably lead consumers to believe that the
potentially negative aspects of the Products have been disclosed,
when in fact, the Defendant fails to warn consumers that the
Products contain lead, the suit avers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered economic
injury based on their purchase of the Products, which they would
not have bought had they known that the Products contain lead.
Mr. Tobin is a citizen of California who purchased the Products in
this judicial district during the class period.
General Mills offers cereals, yogurt, refrigerated dough, and
baking products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Naomi Spector, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLP
3451 Via Montebello, Ste.192-212
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Telephone: (310) 400-1053
Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com
GRAND INVESTMENT: Tully Sues Over Failure to Provide Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph John Tully, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRAND INVESTMENT GROUP; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 24LBCV01417 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July
8, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to
provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest
periods, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties,
Violation of Unfair Competition Law, Private Attorneys General
Act.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal
breaks because meal breaks were regularly missed, late or short
because of understaffing and there being no one available to
relieve Plaintiff for their meal. Also, Plaintiff was required to
remain on premises and on duty. Despite not being provided with
compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these
missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest breaks because meal breaks
were regularly missed, late or short because of understaffing and
there being no one available to relieve Plaintiff for their meal.
Also, Plaintiff was required to remain on premises and on duty.
Despite not being provided with compliant rest breaks, Defendant
did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff's
regular rate of pay.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not
accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other
things. Due to Defendants' failure to pay all wages due to
Plaintiff during their employment, it follows that Defendant failed
to pay all wages due at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment as
well. Therefore, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for waiting
time penalties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants.
GRAND INVESTMENT GROUP is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
GRAYWOLF TRUCKING: Santos-Alba Seeks Delivery Workers' OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANNS SANTOS-ALBA, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated v. GRAYWOLF TRUCKING INC, ABDULLAH NEVRUZ,
individually, YILDIRIM DEYER, individually, and CENK NEVRUZ,
individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-07908 (D.N.J., July 19, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey law.
The lawsuit says that the Plaintiff worked six days per week, from
7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, but was paid no overtime at a rate of
time-and-a-half his regular per each hour worked over 40 per week.
The Plaintiff was paid a fixed salary of $200 per day, and an
additional fixed salary of $600 a week from 2021 to October 2022,
and $640 a week from October 2022 to Sept. 29, 2023. The
Plaintiff's pay rate did not change depending on the number of
hours worked.
Due to the Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiff and
the FLSA Collective are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery worker from
Oct. 7, 2021, to Sept. 29, 2023.
Graywolf is a trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
HUDSON VALLEY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hudson Valley Brewery, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05518
(S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
"Hudsonvalleybrewery.com," to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
Hudsonvalleybrewery.com. Firstly, she tried to purchase beverages
on June 12, 2024, and then she tried again on June 13, 2024. All
these times she was unable to complete the purchase independently
because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hudson
Valley Brewery's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Ms. Karim is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Hudson Valley provides to the public the website
Hudsonvalleybrewery.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view craft
beers, wines, and ciders, as well as company merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
JULIA TESTA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Picon Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Julia Testa, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05521 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Juliatesta.com" to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Julia Testa provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Juliatesta.com. She tried to purchase a flower bouquet on June 14,
2024, but she was unable to complete the purchase independently
because of the many access barriers on the Defendant's website. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Julia
Testa's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Julia Testa provides to the public the website "Juliatesta.com"
which offers flowers, custom bouquets, and floral services for
different events and holidays.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
LOANCARE LLC: Tederick Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY TEDERICK and LISA
TEDERICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LOANCARE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00394-RAJ-LRL (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying this case to proceed as a class action;
-- appointing Plaintiffs representatives of the proposed class;
and
-- appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the proposed
class.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the Class defined as:
"All natural persons who were residing in West Virginia and
credited by LoanCare with an additional principal payment on a
home loan before the next scheduled periodic-payment due date,
at
any time from Sept. 20, 2018, through the present."
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Sept. 20, 2022. The
Complaint pleaded causes of action under the West Virginia Consumer
Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"), unjust enrichment, and
conversion.
The Plaintiffs are a hardworking couple who diligently made excess
mortgage payments to save on interest and own their home as quickly
as possible. The Plaintiffs made a number of such principal-only
prepayments in an effort to reduce the outstanding loan principal.
LoanCare is an approved servicer for the U.S. mortgage industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mHOiDD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew C. Skinner, Esq.
Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
SKINNER LAW FIRM
Charles Town, WV 25414
Telephone: (304) 725-7029
Facsimile: (304) 725-4082
E-mail: andrewskinner@skinnerfirm.com
sskinner@skinnerfirm.com
- and -
Anthony Joseph Majestro, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC
405 Capitol St., Ste. P1200
Charleston, WV 25301
E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid for Relief from Untimely Filing Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Breonnah Fitzpatrick, et
al., v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06841-JGB-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for relief from untimely filing of their
class certification motion.
The Plaintiffs' reason for failing to timely file their class
certification motion is that the Plaintiffs' counsel's purported
misreading of the Scheduling Order. The Court concludes that the
Plaintiffs' counsel's mistake was unjustified. This factor weighs
heavily in favor of denying the relief Plaintiffs request, the
Court says.
Having considered the Plaintiff's lack of diligence and the
resulting waste of the Court's resources, the Court finds that
further delay in this action would be contrary to the interest of
judicial economy and the principle of judicial efficiency, the
Court adds.
The operative complaint in this matter was filed on Dec. 2, 2022,
by the Plaintiffs Breonnah Fitzpatrick and Christopher Officer
against the Defendants City of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation ("LADOT") and Does 1 through 10.
The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. section
1983 injunctive relief, also brought under Article I section 13 of
the California Constitution; (2) Fourth Amendment violation under
42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) Fifth Amendment violation (unlawful taking)
violation under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (4) violation of Cal. Civ.
Code section 52.1 (Bane Act); (5) violation of Cal. Const. Art. I
§ 13; (6) violation of Due Process under 42 U.S.C. section 1983;
(7) violation of Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and
(8) Eighth Amendment (excessive fines clause) violation under 42
U.S.C. section 1983.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation’s film and television industry. Near its iconic
Hollywood sign, studios such as Paramount Pictures, Universal and
Warner Brothers offer behind-the-scenes tours.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v7OjHz at no extra
charge.[CC]
LT BY ILYA: Luxtailor.com Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lt By Ilya, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05059 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website "Luxtailor.com" to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled
customers through their website. The Plaintiff has made an attempt
to visit and use Luxtailor.com. He tried to learn more information
about the goods and services offered by the company on June 10,
2024, but was unable to do so independently because of the many
access barriers on the Defendant's website, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lt
By Ilya's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Lt By Ilya specializes in custom tailoring, garment alterations,
and the renovation of couture and vintage pieces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
LUNELLA RISTORANTE: Medina Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONATO ROSALES MEDINA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUNELLA RISTORANTE, INC. (D/B/A
LUNELLA) and ROSSANA RUSSO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05205
(S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for Plaintiff's unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor
Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.
Plaintiff Rosales was employed by the Defendants at Lunella
restaurant as a dishwasher and cleaner from approximately July 6,
2022, until October 1, 2023.
The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant under
the name "Lunella," located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MULTICARE HEALTH: Uses Tracking Tools to Collect Info, Small Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL SMALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A MULTICARE,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05552-LK (W.D. Wash., July 10, 2024) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of millions of other patients, whose medical privacy was violated
by MultiCare's use of tracking and data collection tools by
Alphabet, Inc. d/b/a Google and Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta.
The Plaintiff, a MultiCare patient, alleges that Defendant
installed Google and Meta Collection Tools on their public website,
https://www.multicare.org/, and their patient portal available at
https://www.multicare.org/patient-resources/mychart/, to
simultaneously collect and divulge users' confidential health
information and protected health information to Google and Meta in
violation of federal and state laws. MultiCare purposively and
intentionally installed the Google and Meta Collection Tools on its
Web Properties and configured the Google and Meta Collection Tools
to transmit and disclose Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information to Facebook, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and for
millions of similarly affected persons, and therefore brings causes
of action for (i) violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act; (ii) breach of express contract; (iii) breach of
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) breach of implied
contract; (v) negligence; (vi) breach of fiduciary duty; (vii)
unjust enrichment; (viii) invasion of privacy and (ix) violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Multicare Health System is a not-for-profit American health care
organization based in Tacoma, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Saletsky Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE SALETSKY, individually and for others similarly situated v.
NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., Case No. 9:24-cv-80838 (S.D. Fla., July 10,
2024) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from NextEra Energy, Inc. under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Saletsky has worked for NextEra as a Solar Project
Manager since approximately May 2023 through the present. He
asserts that he regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but
NextEra does not pay him and other employees overtime compensation
at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40. Throughout his employment, NextEra has
misclassified him as an independent contractor to avoid paying him
overtime wages, says the Plaintiff.
NextEra Energy, Inc. is an American energy company with its
headquarters in Juno Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ODDITY TECH: Faces Hoare Securities Suit over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HOARE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. ODDITY TECH LTD., ORAN HOLTZMAN, LINDSAY DRUCKER MANN,
SHIRAN HOLTZMAN-EREL, MICHAEL FARELLO, and LILACH PAYORSKI, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05037 (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Oddity securities between July 19, 2023 and May 20, 2024, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Oddity overstated
its AI technology and capabilities, and/or the extent to which this
technology drove the Company’s sales; (ii) Oddity's repeat
purchase rates and revenues were, at least in part, derived from
unsustainable and deceptive sales and advertising practices; and
(iii) Oddity downplayed the true scope and severity of ongoing
civil litigation against the Company and/or its subsidiaries, the
Plaintiff contends.
On July 19, 2023, Oddity conducted its initial public offering
("IPO"), issuing over 12 million of its Class A ordinary shares to
the public at the offering price of $35.00 per share for
approximate proceeds, after applicable underwriting discounts and
commissions, and before expenses, of $57.26 million to the Company
and $337.83 million to certain selling shareholders, including the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
Leading up to and following Oddity's IPO, the Defendants widely
portrayed the Company as a disruptor in the cosmetics industry. In
particular, the Defendants differentiated Oddity from traditional
brick-and-mortar retailers by asserting that the Company used
proprietary AI technologies to target consumer needs.
On May 21, 2024, NINGI Research published a report regarding
Oddity, alleging that the Company "completely misled investors
about every critical aspect of its business."
On this news, Oddity's Class A ordinary share price fell $3.02 per
share, or 7.37%, to close at $37.97 per share on May 21, 2024.
Oddity’s Class A ordinary share price continued to decline by an
additional $1.30 per share, or 3.42%, over the following two
consecutive trading sessions, closing at $36.67 per share on May
23, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff acquired Oddity securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Oddity sells beauty, hair, and skin products under the "Il Makiage"
and "SpoiledChild" brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
PANERA LLC: Faces Weddle Class Action Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case
is captioned as Plaintiff Messiah J. Weddle, individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00850-NCC (E.D. Mo, Jun 19, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Noelle C. Collins.
The suit is brought over breach of fiduciary duty, demanding 5M in
damages.
Panera operates as a chain of bakery-cafes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq.
William Bernard Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com
wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
PATELCO CREDIT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Warren Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAARON WARREN, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION; and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 24CV082757 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
July 9, 2024) is a putative class action arising from Patelco
Credit Union's negligent failure to implement and maintain
reasonable cybersecurity procedures and practices regarding the
sensitive and confidential personal information PCU obtains from
its banking customers, and the consequent cybersecurity breach of
its systems that occurred on or around June 29, 2024.
According to the complaint, due to its lack of adequate
cybersecurity measures, PCU suffered a data breach around June 29,
2024. That breach exposed personal information of certain
individuals to unauthorized third parties. On June 30, 2024 PCU
e-mailed Plaintiff and the Class Members and announced it was a
victim of a serious security incident. This required the credit
union to shut down some of their day-to-day banking systems to
remediate the incident.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a class for negligence,
negligence per se, declaratory judgment, common law invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment. The Plaintiff also brings claims for violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and for invasion of
privacy based on the California Constitution.
Patelco Credit Union is a regional credit union based in Dublin,
California. PCU provides its banking customers with business and
personal banking services and products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
PCG CLAIMS: Faces Insured Class Action Suit Over Purchase Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
INSURED ADVOCACY GROUP, LLC v. PCG CLAIMS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-05532 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2024) is a class action asserting
that PCG has failed to comply with the terms of the First Party
Claims Non-Recourse Sale and Assignment Agreement ("Purchase
Agreement").
On June 10, 2022, PCG executed the Purchase Agreement with PMC
Funding. After the Purchase Documents were executed, PMC Funding
assigned its rights under the Purchase Documents to IAG. PCG
contracted with MMA through a Master Services Agreement dated April
28, 2022, wherein MMA hired PCG to provide the Estimates for the
claims pursued by MMA on behalf of insureds, and MMA agreed to pay
for the Estimates through MMA's entitlement to attorney's fees and
costs in connection with the insured's cases against insurance
carriers. After purchasing the Accounts, MMA was accused of
perpetrating an organized scheme to defraud the very insureds for
whom the Estimates were prepared.
PCG breached the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement is a
valid, enforceable contract. IAG performed under Purchase Agreement
by paying PCG for the Accounts as set forth in the Purchase
Documents. IAG has suffered injury as a result of PCG's breach in
the form of monetary loss in an amount not less than $774,250.84.
IAG is entitled to recover for damages caused by PCG's breach of
contract, the suit asserts.
PCG further breached the Purchase Agreement by violating its
requirement to repurchase accounts. Section 7 of the Purchase
Agreement provides that the Plaintiff has the right to require PCG
to repurchase any account sold to the Plaintiff in the event that
PCG is in breach of any warranty or representation and warranty
with respect to such account.
On March 25, 2024, IAG sent PCG a notice of default and made demand
for immediate repayment of all amounts owed under the Purchase
Agreement.
As of the date, PCG has not made such repayment. In the
alternative, PCG sold Accounts to IAG in exchange for payment of
$774,250.84 from IAG to PCG. Those Accounts have been deemed
legally uncollectible, rendering the Accounts worthless. PCG does
not get to keep IAG's money, and IAG is entitled to rescission of
the contract and return of its funds.
IAG brings this suit to enforce its rights as to the agreement and
for the return of its funds from PCG.
PCG provides services relating to managing loss insurance claims to
various customers, including property damage estimating services,
appraisals, expert witnesses, and building consultants, and
insurance umpires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colleen Fox, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006-3606
Telephone: (202) 378-5795
E-mail: Colleen.fox@huschblackwell.com
R&P PLACE: Licona Suit Seeks Cooks' Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
PORFIRIO LICONA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. R & P PLACE INC. d/b/a POPEI'S CLAM BAR and
RALPH REALE, Case No. 2:24-cv-05075 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2024) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff performed non-exempt work for the Defendants
including preparing food and cooking. The Plaintiff regularly
worked more than 40 hours in a work week but was not paid overtime.
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a fixed salary in combination of
check and cash that did not vary according to the actual number of
hours worked by the Plaintiff each workweek, the suit alleges.
Additionally, the Plaintiff often worked more than 10 hours in a
single day. But the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
spread-of-hours pay for each day in which their spread of hours
exceeded 10 hours.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from 1992 to
February 2024.
R & P Place is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
RARE HOSPITALITY: Faces Shareef FLSA Suit Over Tip Credit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE OLSEN and ARSHAD SHAREEF, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00803 (W.D. Tex., July 19, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant pays its servers and bartenders below the federal minimum
wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit says that the Defendant maintained a policy and practice
whereby tipped employees were required to perform non-tip producing
side work unrelated to the employees' tipped occupation. As a
result, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members were engaged in dual
occupations while being compensated at the tip credit rate. While
performing these non-tip generating duties, they did not
interact with customers and could not earn tips.
Further, the Defendant required Plaintiffs and the Class Members to
perform non-tip producing work prior to the opening of the
restaurant, in the middles of their shifts, and after the
restaurants closed. The Defendant required the Plaintiffs and Class
Members to remain at the restaurants after they had closed for
business and when there was no opportunity to earn tips, to perform
manual labor cleaning duties. At times, they spent 31 minutes to
two hours performing non-tip producing work before the restaurant
was open, in the middle of their shifts, and after the restaurant
was closed.
As a result of these violations, the Defendant has lost the ability
to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate the Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate,
unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked, the suit
asserts.
Plaintiff Olsen worked at the Longhorn Steakhouse in Webster, Texas
as a server and bartender. He was paid at the rate of approximately
$2.13 per hour.
Plaintiff Shareef worked at the Longhorn Steakhouse at the Stone
Oak location in San Antonio, Texas and at the Live Oak location in
San Antonio, Texas a server and bartender. He was paid at the rate
of approximately $2.13 per hour.
Plaintiffs Olsen and Shareef worked for the Defendant from December
1, 2018 to September 1, 2022 and from January 2022 to July 2022,
respectively.
The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants nationwide
known as Longhorn Steakhouse.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 770046
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
SANITAS USA: Fails to Pay Lab Technicians' OT Wages, Neal Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KHALIL NEAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SANITAS USA, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; SANITAS CARE,
P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation; and GUIDEWELL EMERGENCY
MEDICINE AND DOCTORS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation;
Case No. 1:24-cv-22783 (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2024) alleges that the
Plaintiff was incorrectly and unlawfully paid less than the number
of hours he worked and was contractually obligated to be paid.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he and those similarly
situated were not paid for all hours worked due to an automatically
deducted daily 30-minute break which was unpaid by the Defendants
even when such breaks were worked and not taken.
The Plaintiff brings an action for unpaid wages under a Breach of
Contract for wages theory (Count One), and other relief pursuant to
Florida law on behalf of himself and similarly situated Techs
throughout Florida for the Florida Breach of Contract Class.
The Plaintiff also brings an action for unpaid overtime wages
(Count Two), and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of himself and similarly situated Techs nationwide as
a FLSA Collective Class.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2022 through
February 2024, as a "Medical Lab Technician" during his entire
period of employment.
Sanitas is a multinational health business group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
533 Versailles Dr., Second Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
E-mail: dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
mlytle@lblaw.attorney
STEVE CORSI: Court Stays Filyaw Action
--------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Filyaw v. Corsi, et al.,
Case No. 4:24-cv-03108 (D. Neb., Filed: June 11, 2024), the Hon.
Judge Brian C Buescher entered an order granting unopposed motion
to stay.
-- The deadlines relating to Plaintiff's motion to certify class,
Filing No. 9, including Defendants' deadline to oppose the
motion,
are stayed pending further order of the Court.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]
TAFT ELECTRIC: Faces Cisneros Class Suit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TAFT ELECTRIC
COMPANY. The case is captioned as Javier Cisneros, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. TAFT ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Case No. 2024CUOE026686 (Cal. Super., June 26, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey G. Bennett.
The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Taft is an electrical contractor based in Southern California and
serving from Los Angeles to the Bay area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yang, Seung L., Esq.
The Sentinel Firm, APC
www.thesentinelfirm.com
355 S Grand Ave, Ste 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152
Telephone: (213) 985-1150
E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Spencer Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON SPENCER, GERRY MCAULEY, and RYAN JOSSART individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-05760 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information of hundreds of
millions of individuals, including but not limited to, names,
contact information, and payment card information such as encrypted
credit or debit card numbers and expiration dates.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to
Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would
protect it against disclosure -- was compromised and unlawfully
exfiltrated due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised was
exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves.
Even worse, hacking group, ShinyHunters, publicly confirmed it
obtained the PII of hundreds of millions of Defendants' customers,
says the suit.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals
whose PII was acquired during the Data Breach.
Ticketmaster, LLC is the wholly owned subsidiary of Live Nation
headquartered in West Hollywood, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
TRANS UNION: Court Orders to Unseal Docket Filings in Brooks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III
v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Karen Spencer Marston entered an order that the Clerk shall
unseal the following docket filings:
1. Doc. No. 47: Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to
Certify
Class
2. Doc. No. 47-2: Deposition of James Garst
3. Doc. No. 47-8: Deposition of Mary Wang-Chang
4. Doc. No. 47-19: March 24, 2023 Declaration of Jonathan Jaffe
5. Doc. No. 52: Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/
TransUnion offers more complete and multidimensional information
for informed decisions that create opportunities for your
business.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rjvlO8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UTGR LLC: Pfeiffer Sues Over Poker Dealers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
TRACY PFEIFFER, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. UTGR, LLC d/b/a Bally's Twin River
Lincoln Casino Resort and Bally's Tiverton Casino & Hotel and Twin
River-Tiverton, LLC d/b/a Bally's Tiverton Casino & Hotel,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00268-JJM-PAS (D.R.I., July 9, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' conduct in failing to pay for
Plaintiff's training and onboarding that constitutes a willful
violation of the federal and state laws. As a result, the
Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the Class for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages for all unpaid work, along with liquidated
damages in the amount of the unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
costs and attorneys' fees, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was hired on February 13, 2023 to work as a poker
dealer in Defendants' Twin River Lincoln Casino Resort.
UTGR, LLC, d/b/a Bally's Twin River Lincoln Casino Resort and
Bally's Tiverton Casino & Hotel, operates casinos, resorts, and
hotels located in Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. PUSHEE
100 Midway Road, Suite 16
Cranston, RI 02920
Telephone: (401) 214-9820
Facsimile: (401) 214-9840
E-mail: mpushee@pusheelaw.com
- and -
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
XIAO-I CORP: Faces Milev Suit Over 89% Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
BOZHIDAR MILEV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. XIAO-I CORPORATION, HUI YUAN, WEI WEING, WENJING CHEN,
XIAOMEI WU, JUN XU, ZHONG LIN, H. DAVID SHERMAN, AC SUNSHINE
SECURITIES LLC, SBI CHINA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, PRIME
NUMBER CAPITAL LLC, GUOTAI JUNAN SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED,
GKL CORPORATE/SEARCH, INC, and GREGORY K. LEE., Case No.
653294/2024 (N.Y. Sup., June 26, 2024) is a securities class action
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Xiao-I
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and related prospectus issued in connection with Xiao-I's March 8,
2023 initial public offering ("IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.
On March 6, 2023, Xiao-I filed with the SEC an amended registration
statement on Form F-1/A, which served as the operative registration
statement for the IPO and was filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4).
On March 8, 2023, the Registration Statement was declared effective
by the SEC.
On March 13, 2023, Xiao-I filed with the SEC the final prospectus
for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of
the Registration Statement and is, together with the Registration
Statement, the "Offering Documents."
In the IPO, Xiao-I sold 5,700,000 American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
at $6.80 per share, raising a total of US $38,760,000 in gross
proceeds, before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions
as well as other estimated offering expenses.
The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Offering Documents were false or misleading
because the Defendants understated the risks posed to the Company
by the failure of seven of their shareholders to complete Circular
37 Registrations in compliance with Chinese law, and the resulting
harm that that could cause to the Company and its investors. The
Offering Documents contained further misstatements of material fact
and/or material omissions. Specifically, the Offering Documents did
not fully disclose the true state of the Company's internal control
weaknesses which caused the above misstatements and omissions.
Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from the Company's Registration Statement,
Xiao-I's share price has fallen significantly below its IPO price,
damaging the Plaintiff and Class members. The price of Xiao-I ADS's
have fallen by approximately 89% (as of market close on July 25,
2024), as compared to the IPO price, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff acquired Xiao-I securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO and
suffered damages as a result of the securities law violations and
false or misleading statements or material omissions.
Xiao-I offers a wide range of business services in AI, covering
natural language processing, computer vision, machine learning and
cloud computing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***