/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240801.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 154
Headlines
51 ST: Class Certification Related Deadlines Continued in Solis
ALLETE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Canada Pension
AMAZON INC: Judge Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Securities Class Action Over Fraud
CACHE INTEGRITY: Faces Class Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
CALGARY, AB: Businesses Sue Over Catastrophic Water Main Break
CARDCONNECT CORP: Obringer Sues Over Improper Business Practices
CARE AT HOME: Court Junks Nqadolo Bid to Amend Complaint
CARGURUS INC: Curley Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
CDK GLOBAL: Collision Centers Sue Over Data Breach
CENCORA INC: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Residents Sue Over Prolonged Power Outages
CLUB 360: Court OK's Bid for Approval of Class Cert Notice
CROCS INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Bid
DEERE CREDIT: Cornelius Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal
DG YUENGLING: McAlexander Bid to Set Aside Judgment Tossed
DOXIM INC: Poplawski Files Suit Over Data Breach
DRIL-QUIP: Faces Steamfitters Local 449 Suit in Delaware Court
DUKE ENERGY: Mable Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
EACO CORP: To Settle Suit Filed Against Subsidiary
ELIZABETH CABRASER: Larkin Files Bid for Class Certification
EVERI GAMES: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Tossed
EXPEDIA INC: Echevarria Bid for Partial Class Status Nixed
FCA US: Court Modifies Case Management Schedule in Clayton Lawsuit
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
FEDEX CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 7, 2025
FLAGSTAR BANK: Bid for Continuance of Briefing Schedule Tossed
GABALESAM LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property
GEICO: Court Narrows Claims in Yorba Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Cashon Files FCRA Suit in D. South Carolina
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Gur-Ravantab Gets Initial Nod
GOLDCO DIRECT: Ashworth Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
GOODYEAR TIRE: McMiller Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
GUARD FORCE: Carey Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status
HARD ROCK: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Security Protocols
HARD ROCK: Fans Seek Refund After Copa America Final Chaos
HEALTH CADDIES: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Cooper Suit
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Bid for Clarification Tossed
HORIZON HOBBY: Figueroa Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
JAMES LEBLANC: Violated ADA & Rehabilitation Act, Court Says
JASPER COUNTY, SC: McDowell Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JOHN BURLEW: Court Tosses Plaintiff's Bid for Class Certification
JRK PROPERTY: Perrault Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief
JUICY'S VAPOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Reply
JUICY'S VAPOR: Schmitendorf Suit Seeks More Time to File Reply
KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Doe Suit
KEYSTONE PREMIER: Court Narrows Claims in Ortiz Suit
KUBI HOMES: Chavez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
MARLOU CORP: More Time to Provide Collective Members' Info Sought
MARYLAND: Connor Suit Seeks Class Certification
MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Court Modifies Discovery Dates in Delisle
MENZIES AVIATION: Sayas, King Appointed as Class Counsel
META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Cert. in E.H. Suit Due Nov. 13
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 5, 2025
MORGAN & MORGAN: Walker Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
MURPHY-HOFFMAN COMPANY: Murray Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
NCAA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
NEW HORIZONS MEDICAL: Murray Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
NIKE RETAIL: Seeks to Strike Certain Evidence in Cruz Suit
NOMADIK COMPANY: Miller Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
NORFLEET LAND SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PAYCOR INC: Must Complete Third-Party Discovery within 60 Days
PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Premarin/Premplus Class Actions
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Hellman Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
PRA EVENTS: Hyneman Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status
PREMIUM BRANDS: O'Dea Sues Over False Price Discounts
PRIDE INDUSTRIES: Minix Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Moss Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
RESERVOIR RESTAURANT: Dugan Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
RESONETICS LLC: Court Vacates Class Cert Deadlines in Reyes
RICHARD LLOYD: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ROCHESTER, MN: Bid for Summary Judgment vs THRE Partly OK'd
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Dismissed in De Tagle Suit
SCARLETT'S CABARET: Settles Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violation
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action, Senate Inquiry
SNOWFLAKE INC: Layman Files Suit in D. Montana
SNOWFLAKE INC: Lewis Files Suit in D. Montana
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Altman-Chapman Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Graham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Lewis Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
STREAM INNOVATIONS: Vogelsang Alleges Illegal Debt Collection
SYUFY ENTERPRISES: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRUIST BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to March 4, 2025
UNITED DEBT: Miller Wins Renewed Class Cert Bid
UNITEDLEX CORP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Krant Suit
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Record Status Conference Set for August 12
US TSUBAKI: Pepperling Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
VICOR CORP: Pouladian Sues Over False Info Disclosure
WAKEFERN FOOD: Barnes Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
WALT DISNEY: Thompson Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Gutierrez Set for August 14
WYNDHAM VACATION: Plaintiffs Allowed to Refer Confidential Info
XAVIER BECERRA: Standing Order Entered in Ardelyx Class Suit
[*] Federal Courts Grapple With Privacy Class Action Claims
*********
51 ST: Class Certification Related Deadlines Continued in Solis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSA SOLIS, an individual,
on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. 51 ST. & 8TH AVE. CORP., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-01161-JES-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Pettit
entered an order granting in part joint motion to continue class
certification related deadlines:
After consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties and
being advised of the status of the case, including the upcoming
private mediation and status of discovery, the Court finds good
cause exists to grant in part the joint motion.
1. The parties shall advise the Court via the undersigned's
e-file
no later than Aug. 15, 2024 as to the outcome of the July
26,
2024 mediation.
2. The Court amends the deadline for completing all discovery
related to class certification to Nov. 14, 2024. In doing so,
the Court reiterates fact and class discovery are not
bifurcated, and the parties will not be afforded significant
time following the Court's ruling on class certification to
conduct additional fact discovery.
3. The parties must raise any discovery disputes regarding class
certification issues with the Court in sufficient time to
obtain
a ruling by the Nov. 14, 2024 deadline. This order does not
alter or extend the deadline to raise a discovery dispute set
forth in the undersigned's Chambers Rule IX.
4. The Court amends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion
for
class certification to Dec. 2, 2024.
As these dates have been continued numerous times, the Court
cautions the parties that absent extraordinary circumstances,
further extensions of time will not be granted.
On July 2, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion requesting the
Court amend the deadlines:
(1) to complete class discovery from July 8 to November 14,
2024,
and
(2) for Plaintiff to file her class certification motion from
October 6 to December 13, 2024.
On July 19, 2024, the Court held a Status Conference regarding the
status of discovery and the parties' pending request.
The Defendant provides hotel services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yVdtQo at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLETE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Canada Pension
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, the
firm is investigating ALLETE, Inc. (NYSE: ALE), relating to its
proposed merger with a partnership led by Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and Global Infrastructure Partners. Under the
terms of the agreement, ALLETE stockholders will receive $67.00 per
share in cash for each share of common stock owned as of the
closing of the transaction.
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO ACT. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
August 21, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/allete-inc/. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
AMAZON INC: Judge Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a proposed class action accusing e-commerce giant
Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab of misleading customers about the
benefits of its subscription service Prime, causing them to pay a
hidden $9.95 delivery fee for some Whole Foods purchases.
U.S. District Judge Tana Lin in Seattle federal court ruled, opens
new tab on Thursday, July 18, that the consumer lawsuit for now
failed to adequately make a claim of deceptive practices under a
Washington state consumer protection law.
The plaintiff had not shown which Amazon ads she relied on to
believe there was "free delivery" from Amazon-owned Whole Foods,
the judge said. Lin also said the service fee for deliveries was
shown on two webpages during the checkout process.
Amazon and attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond
to requests for comment on Friday.
Lin said the plaintiff could file an amended lawsuit focused on the
claim that some consumers might think free delivery from Whole
Foods was guaranteed for the entirety of Prime membership.
Amazon bought Whole Foods in 2017 for $13.7 billion.
The consumer lawsuit filed in 2022 alleged Amazon's marketing about
Whole Foods deliveries for Prime members is "false, misleading and
likely to deceive a reasonable consumer."
Attorneys leading the case have estimated there are hundreds of
thousands of members in the class, including customers who signed
up for Prime for free deliveries from Whole Foods.
Amazon had touted "free delivery" for Prime Members on some Whole
Foods deliveries, but in 2021 began charging them and other
customers a "service fee" for those orders.
In a filing, Amazon told the court that the benefits of Prime
membership are subject to change, and that Amazon has "sole
discretion" to add or remove perks such as free delivery.
The company denied violating the Washington state consumer
protection law, which prohibits deceptive advertising and other
unfair practices. [GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased securities of American Airlines Group Inc. ("American
Airlines" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AAL) between January 25, 2024
and May 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that American Airlines' sales
and distribution strategy was not driving the revenue projected and
instead, was actually driving customers away from American Airlines
as the strategy and its attested poor execution made it more
difficult for customers to access American Airlines' services.
The Complaint further alleges that on May 28, 2024, the Company
reported the prompt termination of its Executive Vice President and
Chief Commercial Officer, Vasu S. Raja, along with an abrupt
reduction in its short-term guidance. During a conference
presentation on May 29, 2024, the Company attributed its lowered
guidance to a softness in consumer bookings, a domestic supply and
demand imbalance, and a reduction in capacity growth, according to
the complaint. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants announced
that the reduced consumer bookings were significantly due to the
changes the Company made to their sales and distribution strategy,
that they did not execute their strategy properly, and that they
will now be modifying their strategy in an attempt to recapture the
customers their strategy drove away. As a result, Defendants
reduced their second quarter fiscal year 2024 projections, notably
cutting their projections for the Company's operating margin by a
full percentage point and adjusted earnings per share for the
quarter by more than 17%. On this news, the price of the Company
stock declined by more than 13% on May 29, 2024.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of American
Airlines should contact the Firm prior to the September 16, 2024
lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Securities Class Action Over Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 9, 2024, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court in the
District of New Jersey against Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
(Automatic), ADP, LLC (ADP) and American Century Investments
Services, Inc. (ACI) (collectively, Defendants), Case No.
2:24-cv-07635. The Complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, including Section 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 1106, N.J.S.A. 49:3-71, Florida Deceptive and unfair
Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), including allegations that Defendants
engaged in a course of business which operated as a fraud upon the
purchasers of ADP's Simple IRAs, during the Class Period, which is
July 9, 2021 through July 9, 2024.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all investors who
purchased ADP's Simple IRAs, during the Class Period. You may move
the Court no later than September 17, 2024, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
If you want to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Tiffany Peintner
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: trp@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com
Contacts
Tiffany Peintner
trp@federmanlaw.com [GN]
CACHE INTEGRITY: Faces Class Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortell Law LLC filed the attached Class Action Complaint on July
19 in Anchorage Superior Court on behalf of ten named Plaintiffs
who are former wards of Thomas McDuffie and Cache Integrity
Services and all others similarly situated against McDuffie, Cache
Integrity Services, Deputy Director of the Office of Public
Advocacy Beth Goldstein, Director of Adult Protective Services
Anthony Newman, and the State of Alaska.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants neglected their duties under
Alaska Statutes, and State Law to protect Plaintiffs, who are
disabled adults in guardianships and conservatorships.
Plaintiffs sued their former guardian and conservator, Thomas
McDuffie, the nonprofit he directed, Cache Integrity Services, and
State officials, Beth Goldstein, Anthony Newman, and the State of
Alaska.
According to the Class Action Complaint, Defendants Beth Goldstein
and the State of Alaska were instrumental in recommending,
referring, and transferring some 122 cases to McDuffie and Cache
Integrity Services, failed to verify that McDuffie had an active
license, and despite numerous reports of harm that McDuffie and CIS
were egregiously neglecting their wards, Newman, Goldstein, and the
State of Alaska failed to report, investigate, or act on reports of
harm and Goldstein continued to recommend McDuffie for court
appointments.
McDuffie, as Director of Cache Integrity, breached his statutory
fiduciary duty to file reports, visit clients, place clients in
appropriate living situations, preserve client assets, and make
sure they were safe and their property was secure.
McDuffie instead failed to even visit some of his wards, was not
reachable, failed to file and pay income and property taxes, sold
clients' real property for a fraction of its market value, made
unauthorized withdrawals of as much as $100,000 from client funds,
failed to apply for benefits, failed to establish trusts, did not
keep accurate records, did not file reports required by the court,
and otherwise grossly neglected his duties to Plaintiffs.
The Class Action Complaint alleges that the State of Alaska, Beth
Goldstein, and Anthony Newman breached their statutory fiduciary
duties toward the plaintiffs. Goldstein is alleged to have written
a grant for Cache Integrity Services, recommended McDuffie and
Cache Integrity Services despite extremely worrisome reports of
harm, failed to report on McDuffie and Cache Integrity Services'
failure to file reports mandated by the court, and also alleges
that the State of Alaska and Goldstein were negligent toward
Plaintiffs, causing them loss of money, property, as well as
medical damages, extreme emotional distress and other dignitary
harms.
The lawsuit alleges that numerous reports of harm were filed with
Adult Protective Services about Cache Integrity Services and Thomas
McDuffie's neglect of their clients, but that Director Anthony
Newman and the State of Alaska breached their statutory duties to
investigate or act on these reports of harm, which compounded and
prolonged the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
Caitlin Shortell, Counsel for Plaintiffs said,
“The State and responsible officials as well as private guardians
and conservators like Thomas McDuffie and Cache Integrity Services,
are responsible under Alaska Statutes and State law to protect
disabled individuals in guardianships and conservatorships.
Defendants were shockingly irresponsible towards Plaintiffs and
subjected them to severe and irreparable harm, causing them to lose
millions of dollars in savings, their homes, benefits they rely
upon to live. Rather than look out for Plaintiffs, the State dumped
over 100 guardianship and conservatorship cases onto an unsuitable
and unscrupulous party and then failed to do a thing when family
members and assisted living homes filed reports of harm with Adult
Protective Services. Months after the court appointed Defendant
Goldstein as Special Investigative Conservator and ordered that she
retain a forensic accountant, no forensic accountant has been
retained and Plaintiffs still don't have the money and property
that was misappropriated and mismanaged by McDuffie and Cache
Integrity Services. We had hoped that Goldstein and the State of
Alaska would act, but their ongoing negligence and failure to
protect Plaintiffs has necessitated the filing of this Class Action
Complaint. We are seeking damages and injunctive relief for
Plaintiffs and all 122 former wards of Thomas McDuffie and Cache
Integrity Services." [GN]
CALGARY, AB: Businesses Sue Over Catastrophic Water Main Break
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Weber, writing for Global News, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Calgary
over a major water main break claiming businesses lost significant
revenue.
In a statement of claim filed July 17, Angel's Cafe, located near
the June 5 rupture, alleges the city knew the failed pipe was made
of lower-grade materials and should have moved to prevent the
failure.
"The city knew or ought to have known about the Bearspaw water
main's state of disrepair before the rupture and was required to
take reasonable steps to prevent a catastrophic premature failure
from arising," the document says.
The break in the pipe, which carries 60 per cent of the city's
water, caused major disruptions for the city's 1.6 million
residents and those in surrounding communities. It flooded a
neighbourhood and forced a boil-water advisory in that part of the
city.
All residents were asked to cut their water use by 25 per cent.
They were urged to flush toilets less often and take shorter
showers. Watering lawns and gardens was forbidden for weeks, unless
it was from rain barrels.
The lawsuit has to be certified by the courts to proceed as a class
action. Angel's Cafe is currently the only plaintiff named in the
claim.
The allegations have not been proven in court. The city and
city-owned utility provider Enmax Corp., also named as a defendant,
did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The cafe's lawyer, Clint Docken, said there's ample evidence that
the pipe was in danger of failing.
The lawsuit alleges there have been at least 600 previous
catastrophic failures of the same kind of pipe.
"These failures were well-documented and widely publicized," the
lawsuit says.
The document says the pipe, which dates from the 1970s, uses
reinforcing wire that isn't sufficiently protected against
corrosion. The document also says the pipe uses concrete that's
porous and prone to erosion.
The suit says eight additional weak spots were uncovered during the
repairs.
"All of these weak points existed before the rupture and were
capable of being detected by the city," the document says.
Angel's Cafe says in the lawsuit that it was forced to remain
closed on weekends that usually generate big revenue, such as
Father's Day and Canada Day.
The lawsuit says the cafe also suffered damage from the rupture,
including a broken water heater and toilet. As well, it alleges the
city failed to provide water to the cafe, despite promises to do
so.
The suit alleges Enmax failed to provide an alternative water
supply to the cafe, despite a contract to provide water services.
Docken said he's heard from other area businesses that suffered
similar losses.
"There will be dozens of businesses in the immediate area," he
said.
The pipe has since been replaced and is operating at up to 70 per
cent capacity. Indoor water use has returned to normal, although a
ban restricts Calgarians to watering their lawns one hour a week.
[GN]
CARDCONNECT CORP: Obringer Sues Over Improper Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD E. OBRINGER PAC, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a ADVANCED
SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARDCONNECT CORP., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-03034 (E.D. Pa., July 11, 2024) is a class action complaint
against the Defendant seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory relief from CardConnect in connection with its improper
business practices in the sale of merchant processing services.
CardConnect provides merchant services to small businesses and
their owners, including Richard Obringer and his physician
assistant staffing company, ASA. CardConnect's role is to ensure
that payment card transactions are processed correctly. In exchange
for these services, CardConnect receives a small percentage of each
transaction and specific, agreed-upon fees. CardConnect has direct
access to the merchant's bank account and takes its cut before
passing the customer payments through to the merchant each month.
The complaint alleges that CardConnect deceives merchants like
Plaintiff into paying much more than agreed upon by sneaking
unauthorized junk fees into customers' billing statements each
month. CardConnect induces merchants to retain its merchant
services by promising specific, agreed-upon fees and rates for
payment processing services included in boilerplate contracts. But
then CardConnect unilaterally charges new, expensive fees that the
customers never agreed to pay, the suit says.
The Plaintiff thus brings this action to seek reimbursement of the
fees that CardConnect improperly charged and collected, and to
prevent CardConnect from continuing to impose unauthorized charges
upon its customers.
CardConnect Corp. provides payment processing and technology
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolayers.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
CARE AT HOME: Court Junks Nqadolo Bid to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANDE NQADOLO, et al., v.
CARE AT HOME, LLC, et al., Case No. (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari
Dooley entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend.
The Court said that the Plaintiffs' motion is meritless. The Court
agrees with Defendants that "enough is enough." After two years of
extensive discovery and then briefing on Plaintiffs’ motions for
conditional and class certification, it became manifest that
Plaintiffs were attempting to proceed on theories of liability that
were contained nowhere in the Amended Complaint.
The Court denied the certification motions and Plaintiffs now seek
to file a Second Amended Complaint to essentially restart the case
so as to litigate the claims Plaintiffs could have, but did not,
bring when the case was first filed.
Unfortunately, it is entirely consistent with Plaintiffs' wasteful
strategy throughout this litigation to attempt to relitigate issues
that the Court has decided multiple times.
The Plaintiffs Nande Nqadolo and Pamela Mangali move for leave to
amend their complaint more than two years after they commenced this
action, nearly two years after they filed an Amended Complaint, and
four months after the Court denied their first motion for leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs seek, essentially, to restart this putative class
action against Defendants, Care at Home, LLC, Suzanne Karp, and
Daniel Karp, by asserting a theory of liability the Court
previously held was asserted for the first time in their motions
for class and conditional certification; namely, that Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs owed overtime because their meal and sleep
periods were not regularly scheduled. Having failed to obtain class
or conditional certification on claims which had not been pled in
the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs simply seek to assert such claims
in a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants oppose the motion.
Care at Home provides home care and caregiving services.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7xJAE6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CARGURUS INC: Curley Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarGurus, Inc. The
case is styled as Heather Curley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CarGurus, Inc., Case No. 2477CV00731
(Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., July 22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
CarGurus, Inc. -- https://www.cargurus.com/ -- is a Cambridge,
Massachusetts-based automotive research and shopping website that
assists users in comparing local listings for used and new cars,
and contacting sellers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 723-7700
CDK GLOBAL: Collision Centers Sue Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Teresa Moss, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that two
collision centers are plaintiffs in the newest class action suit
filed in federal court against CDK following a cyber attack that
shut down and disrupted the company's services for weeks.
Smith Collision Center and Broadway Precision Collision, both
located in Ada, Oklahoma, join plaintiffs Manderbach Ford, located
in Hamburg, Pennsylvania, and DLR Auto Group, located in Agoura
Hills, California, in a class action suit filed in the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division court July 12.
It is one of about 10 civil actions filed against the company since
June 24. Jay Kay Collision Center has also filed suit in the same
court June 25.
The newest suit alleges CDK failed to maintain adequate data
security measures, which led to the foreseeable event of a data
breach.
"Many car dealerships rely on CDK Global's software, including its
DMS, for their entire sales process, including to generate
necessary paperwork, store sales contracts, manage vehicle
inventory, secure financing, and register new vehicles," the
document says. "Car dealerships, automotive repair shops, and other
automotive businesses also rely on CDK Global's software to
schedule customer appointments, track and obtain parts, manage
service requests, process payroll, and perform other critical
tasks."
Smith Collision Center and Broadway Precision Collision depend on
CDK software to order and obtain parts necessary to complete
scheduled vehicle repairs because it orders parts from dealerships
who use CDK software to manage part inventory and process part
orders, it says.
It says both couldn't order and obtain the parts necessary to
complete scheduled vehicle repairs. As a result, the businesses
suffered damages associated with the interruption of its business
operations, including loss of fixed operating costs and losses
related to its inability to fulfill service requests.
Jay Kay Collision Center also claimed in their suit, that the cyber
attack made the business unable to order parts causing a delay in
the ability to repair vehicles. It also alleges the business had
more expenses because employees had to deal with the delays and
interruptions and manually ordering parts.
"The delay in repairing automobiles due to the Data Breach has
adversely affected insurance company cycle times and rental car
authorizations, and has delayed Plaintiff receiving payment for its
repairs," the suit states. "Plaintiff gets paid after completing
the repairs, and Plaintiff is delayed in being able to complete
repairs due to an inability to get parts as a result of the Data
Breach."
The newest suit quotes J.D. Power estimates expecting new vehicle
sales in June to drop about 100,000 vehicles or more than 7%
compared to the same time period in 2023. It also uses estimates
from an Anderson Economic Group analysis that found dealer losses
could reach $944 million.
Earlier this week AutoNation, the second largest dealership group
in the U.S., warned that the attack will have a large impact on its
second quarter earnings, according to Yahoo Finance.
CDK has promised financial relief to more than 15,000 dealerships
impacted by the attack, according to CBT Global.
Media has reported the company likely paid a $25 million ransom to
Eastern European hacking group BlackSuit following the attack that
caused systems first to shut down on June 19.
The system remained offline for nearly two weeks, with most systems
restored by late July 3 and early July 4.
Mandiant, a Google subsidiary, released a report last month that
shows ransomware increased in 2023 compared to 2022. This includes
a 75% increase in posts on data leak sites and a more than 20%
increase in Mandiant-led investigations.
It says 2023 was a record-breaking year with more than $1 billion
paid to ransomware attackers. [GN]
CENCORA INC: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Margie Lopez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2403162 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 19, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01508.
The Complaint alleges three causes of action: Violations of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; Violations of the
California Consumer Privacy Act; and Violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Duffy, Esq.
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Residents Sue Over Prolonged Power Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Zuvanich, writing for Houston Public Media, reports that three
Hurricane Beryl-related lawsuits were filed in Harris County this
week against CenterPoint Energy, including a pair of class-action
petitions seeking more than $100 million apiece, in response to
prolonged power outages associated with the storm as well as a
fallen power line that caused "life-changing injuries" to a Houston
man.
Behind the class-action lawsuits are a pair of high-profile Houston
attorneys -- former mayoral and city council candidate Tony Buzbee
and Michael Fertitta, the son of hospitality mogul and Houston
Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta.
Buzbee filed his suit Monday, July 15, on behalf of Berg
Hospitality Group, which includes Killen's BBQ, Saltwater Grill and
other popular restaurants in the Houston and Galveston areas.
Michael Fertitta's law firm filed its petition Wednesday on behalf
of area residents Delmy Flores, Erin Greaney and Peter Hawn.
All those plaintiffs say they lost electricity for 48 hours or more
in the aftermath of the Category 1 hurricane that passed almost
directly over Houston on July 8, resulting in lost wages and income
as well as spoiled food they had been refrigerating or freezing.
More than 2.2 million homes, schools and businesses -- roughly 80%
of the customers served by CenterPoint -- lost electricity at the
peak of the storm, and hundreds of thousands remained without power
more than a week afterward.
"CenterPoint was negligent in the maintenance of its lines and
equipment, properly investing in infrastructure, adequately
preparing for the hurricane, and properly conducting power
restoration operations," states the lawsuit filed on behalf of
residents. ". . . CenterPoint failed its customers in a low-level
Category 1 hurricane; it is terrifying to imagine the extent of
power grid failure that would be caused by CenterPoint's
ineptitudes should a Category 5 hurricane make landfall in the
Greater Houston area."
CenterPoint declined to comment on the lawsuits, saying in an email
that is it the company's "approach not to comment on pending
litigation."
The utility, which owns and operates electrical infrastructure in
the Houston area and distributes power to much of the region, has
faced mounting criticism from local and state officials in the
aftermath of last week's hurricane. The Public Utility Commission
of Texas has launched an investigation into CenterPoint's storm
preparedness and response, and a special Texas Senate committee
including Houston-area lawmakers has been formed to address the
matter.
Among the 22 storm-related deaths that have been confirmed in the
Houston area, the widespread power outages during a summer heat
wave contributed to more than half of those fatalities, according
to local medical examiner's offices.
One of the lawsuits filed this week claims a Houston man was
severely injured on July 11 when a tree-damaged power line fell on
him at his Lakewood Forest home. Carlos Ruvalcaba suffered second-
and third-degree burns, has required multiple surgeries and is
coping with depression, according to the lawsuit, which seeks more
than $1 million in damages.
The suit alleges CenterPoint was negligent in failing to properly
inspect and maintain its power lines as well as trees and other
vegetation around those lines, along with failing to properly warn
Ruvalcaba about dangerous conditions, among other claims.
"(CenterPoint) acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of
(Ruvalcaba's) health and safety," the lawsuit states. "(CenterPoint
was) constructively and subjectively aware of the extreme risk
posed by the conditions which caused (Ruvalcaba's) injury, but did
nothing to rectify them."
Both of the class-action petitions describe CenterPoint as a highly
profitable monopoly in the region and accuse the company of fraud,
saying it made false representations to customers and did not
adequately communicate about outages and restoration times. They
cited the absence of an online outage map when the storm hit, which
prompted Houston-area residents to use the map feature on the
Whataburger app to figure out which parts of the region were most
impacted, and say the map CenterPoint subsequently launched
contained inaccuracies.
CenterPoint had previously removed an outage map from its website
in May after a deadly derecho windstorm knocked out power to more
than 900,000 customers in the Houston area.
The lawsuit filed by Buzbee, on behalf of the local restaurants,
also says they are resorting to legal action because "government
thus far has woefully failed to force CenterPoint to do what any
reasonable entity in its position would and should do."
"Of course, if a member of the proposed class fails to pay its bill
on time, CenterPoint will disconnect and refuse to provide
electricity," the petition also states. "Yet, when CenterPoint
negligently fails to provide power, even though it has promised to
do so and has a legal obligation to do so, it figuratively shrugs
its shoulders, claims ignorance, and blames its failures on the
weather or other external forces, claiming it had no idea or clue
that the event causing the disruption would be so bad or could
wreak such havoc.
"The members of the proposed class have had enough. If the proposed
class members were to conduct their businesses in the manner that
CenterPoint does, they would quickly be out of business." [GN]
CLUB 360: Court OK's Bid for Approval of Class Cert Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARAK GOLAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, V. CLUB 360 LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo
Marshall entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for approval
of notice of class certification and notice plan.
The Defendant shall provide any information necessary to facilitate
the dissemination of notice in accordance with the notice plan no
later than Aug. 6, 2024.
The Court having already found for Plaintiff on the issues of
numerosity, commonality, predominance, typicality, adequacy and
superiority pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with
respect to the proposed Class.
Club 360 offers personal training, fitness classes, boxing,
physiotherapy and sports massage.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rljjrJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
CROCS INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, RUBY
CORNEJO, and TIFFANY AVINO, each an individual, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v.
CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order sealing portions of the Opposition
Motion and the Motion to Strike, inclusive of exhibits and
declarations.
In support of its Administrative Motion, Crocs submits the
accompanying Declaration of Caitlin Hickey.
At the request of the Plaintiffs' counsel, Crocs has also redacted
a limited set of personal details regarding Plaintiffs from the
public record to protect Plaintiffs' privacy. These redactions are
specific and carefully considered, ensuring only personal
information is excluded from public access.
Crocs is an American footwear company based in Broomfield,
Colorado, that manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam
footwear. Crocs, Inc.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hhRQqT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Becca Wahlquist, Esq.
Caitlin Hickey, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 547-4900
Facsimile: (213) 547-4901
E-mail: BWahlquist@kelleydrye.com
CHickey@kelleydrye.com
DEERE CREDIT: Cornelius Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN CORNELIUS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. DEERE CREDIT
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00025-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- preliminarily approving the parties' class action settlement
Agreement;
-- accepting the proposed agreed order submitted by the parties,
-- appointing him as class representative, and
-- appoint his counsel as Class Counsel.
The Agreement requires DCSI to pay $1.5 million into a
non-reversionary common fund from which participating Settlement
Class Members will receive payments. Participating Settlement Class
Members are expected to receive at least $2,500 each—a tremendous
result by any measure. In exchange, Settlement Class Members will
release certain claims under the TCPA against DCSI.
As a result of arm’s length negotiations before an experienced
neutral, Plaintiff Melvin Cornelius and Defendant Deere Credit
Services, Inc. ("DCSI") reached an agreement to resolve this class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Agreement defines a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3)
comprised of: All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom
Deere Credit Services, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a
Deere Credit Services, Inc. customer or accountholder, (3) in
connection with which Deere Credit Services, Inc. used an
artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from February 2, 2020 through
June 25, 2024.
Deere provides financing services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xtcomi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Steven H. Koval, Esq.
THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
3575 Piedmont Rd., NE 15
Piedmont Center, Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 513-6651
E-mail: Steve@KovalFirm.com
DG YUENGLING: McAlexander Bid to Set Aside Judgment Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY JAMES MCALEXANDER,
v. D.G. YUENGLING & SON, INCORPORATED, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-03331-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May
entered an order denying the motion to set aside the judgment; the
motion for sanctions; the motion for class certification; and the
motion to appoint counsel.
The Plaintiff Zachary James McAlexander is restricted from filing
in this Court, as set out in Part III.
As the Court has repeatedly explained, there is no legal basis for
setting aside the judgment or reopening the case. For this reason,
appointment of counsel is also unwarranted, as one of the factors
the Court is to consider when adjudicating a motion for appointment
of counsel is whether the case appears meritorious.
The motion for sanctions does not state what offensive conduct the
attorneys undertook that Plaintiff finds sanctionable. And because
Plaintiff's claims have been dismissed on statute-of-limitations
grounds, he cannot adequately represent the interests of the class.
Since this case was closed on Nov. 5, 2021, the Plaintiff has filed
at least eleven meritless motions. The need to respond to these
motions has caused significant and wasteful expenditure of both the
Court's resources and Defendants'.
Notably, this appears to be part of a pattern of vexatious conduct,
as filing restrictions were also entered against Plaintiff in two
other cases in this Court.
Consequently, the Court will not accept Plaintiff's future filings
for immediate docketing but will instead screen them and determine
whether to authorize their filing. These restrictions will avoid
further waste of judicial resources.
Accordingly, the Court imposes the following restriction on all pro
se pleadings the Clerk receives from Plaintiff for filing in this
case:
The Clerk shall not docket any further pro se pleadings the Clerk
receives from Plaintiff for filing in this case except a notice of
appeal, which, if filed, shall be processed in the normal course.
Whenever the Court receives a prohibited filing, the Clerk shall
note on the docket that the prohibited filing has been received and
retain the filing in the case correspondence file. The Clerk shall
impose this restriction upon any pro se filing presented by
Plaintiff Zachary James McAlexander in this case.
D.G. Yuengling provides alcoholic beverages.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZeLyU9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOXIM INC: Poplawski Files Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
ALEX POPLAWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOXIM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-11798-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 11, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendant's alleged unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect
the personal identifiable information of thousands of individuals,
including Plaintiff, that was exposed in a major data breach of
Doxim's network in violation of its legal obligations.
On December 30, 2023, an unauthorized third-party gained access to
Doxim's inadequately protected computer systems and took files from
its network. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class Members had
their confidential personal identifiable information exposed.
According to Defendant and based on the limited information
provided to the public to date, the PII exposed in the breach
included names, mailing addresses, email addresses, Social Security
numbers, and financial account numbers. Due to Defendant's
negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit
identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives
of thousands of individuals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
Class, seeking remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory
damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief,
reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies the
Court deems proper.
Doxim, Inc. is a customer communications management and
engagement-technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
DRIL-QUIP: Faces Steamfitters Local 449 Suit in Delaware Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dril-Quip, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 8, 2024, that on March 21, 2024, a purported
Company stockholder filed a putative class action complaint
captioned "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Dril-Quip, Inc.,
et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0284-LWW (Del. Ch.).
The Steamfitters Complaint alleges that members of the company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing, in
connection with the proposed merger with Innovex Downhole Solutions
Inc., to enter into a stockholders agreement with Amberjack Capital
Partners requiring Amberjack to vote in favor of the Board of
Director's nominees at the company's 2025 annual meeting of
stockholders and prohibiting certain transfers from Amberjack
directly to activist stockholders not through public market sales.
The Steamfitters Complaint further alleges that Innovex and
Amberjack aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks an order certifying a class
of the company's stockholders, finding that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties and that Innovex and Amberjack aided and
abetted the directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties, enjoining
enforcement of the challenged provisions of the stockholders
agreement, and awarding the plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' and
experts' witness fees and other costs.
Dril-Quip, Inc., develops technologies for the energy industry
based in Texas.
DUKE ENERGY: Mable Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duke Energy
Corporation. The case is styled as Carl Mable, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Duke Energy Corporation, Case No.
1:24-cv-00117-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla., July 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Duke Energy Corporation -- https://www.duke-energy.com/ -- is an
American electric power and natural gas holding company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
James Lee Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
EACO CORP: To Settle Suit Filed Against Subsidiary
--------------------------------------------------
Eaco Corporation 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 in January 2023, a class action
lawsuit was filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court
against Bisco, a subsidiary of the company, alleging wage and hour
violations and related claims.
The class action covers a class of former and current employees of
Bisco who were employed between January 13, 2019 and the present
time. The company is currently negotiating a settlement agreement
and expects the aggregate settlement amount to be $7.5 million,
which settlement agreement when finalized will be subject to court
approval.
In March 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added
claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Both parties requested to stay the litigation pending mediation,
which mediation commenced in April 2024. As a result of the
mediation, the parties agreed in principle to settle this matter.
EACO Corporation is a holding company based in California.
ELIZABETH CABRASER: Larkin Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Billy F. Larkin, v.
Elizabeth J. Cabraser et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00190-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for class certification.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated July 16, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rEPJg5
at no extra charge.[CC]
EVERI GAMES: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VALENZUELA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EVERI GAMES INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00257-MRA-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order
denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by no
later than Oct. 7, 2024.
The Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded facts to support plausible
individual claims of violations of federal and state labor laws.
The facts are sufficient at the pleading stage of the litigation.
They "demonstrate or suggest that member[s] of the putative class
had similar work experiences," and that "Defendant had statewide
policies or practices giving rise to the Plaintiff's causes of
action." As such, the Court denies Defendant's request to strike or
dismiss the class allegations.
The Plaintiff Valenzuela filed this wage and hour case against the
Defendants, on Sept. 13, 2023, in Los Angeles County Superior
Court. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in
state court on Nov. 17, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on March
4, 2024.
Everi Games allegedly required Plaintiff to be "on-call" from the
end of one shift to the start of the next shift, paying Plaintiff
$7.50 an hour for that "on-call" time, which is "well below the
California minimum wage."
The Plaintiff was employed by Everi Games as a Field Technician, a
non-exempt position, from August 2021 to Sept. 16, 2022.
Everi is a corporation that leases slot machines to casinos in
California and provides around-the-clock servicing and maintenance
of slot machines.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2RncQH at no extra
charge.[CC]
EXPEDIA INC: Echevarria Bid for Partial Class Status Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO ECHEVARRIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V.
EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, and ORBITZ,
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22621-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Federico Moreno entered an order motion for partial class
certification:
The Plaintiff, Mario Echevarria, requests to represent a class with
claims under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. The
putative class members seek remuneration against the Defendants for
trafficking in Plaintiff's property, which was confiscated by the
Cuban government.
The putative class members claim ownership interests in properties
where twenty Iberostar hotels currently sit.
Echevarria requests the Court certify an issues class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4)centered on five core liability
issues, such as whether the Expedia Defendants trafficked in the
properties, whether the trafficking was knowing and intentional,
whether the Expedia Defendants benefit led from the trafficking,
whether the Expedia Defendants obtained authorization from the
class members to sell the hotel bookings, and whether the Expedia
Defendants compensated class members for the bookings.
Echevarria proposes a two-step procedure.
First, the Court would adjudicate the core liability issues, and
then in phase two address each class member's individual ownership
and damages issues. Because the Court finds the Rule 23
requirements are not met and the proposal unmanageable in a case
where individual ownership issues predominate, the Court denies the
motion for class certification.
After having the benefit of oral argument, it is adjudged that the
motion for the partial class certification is denied.
Echevarria proposes the following class definition:
"All U.S. nationals(as defined at 22 U.S.C. section 6023(15))
who
own a claim to real property in Cuba that was confiscated by
the
Cuban government prior to March 12,1996, where now stands a
hotel
that was operated by Iberostar, for which reservations were
offered and sold through Expedia, at any time after January
30, 2018."
This class definition excludes (a) Defendants, their officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents,
and attorneys; and (b) any judges or justices involved in this
action and any members of their immediate families.
Expedia is an online travel agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=79Q9RW at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Court Modifies Case Management Schedule in Clayton Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA CLAYTON, et al., v.
FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12995-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order modifying case management
schedule.
On June 26, 2024, the Court held a status conference to address
issues raised through Defendant FCA US LLC's motion to extend time
and request for status conference.
At the status conference, the Court directed the Parties to submit
a proposed order concerning the remaining briefing schedule, to be
modeled after Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the Case
Management Schedule, with certain modifications in accordance with
the Court's direction at the status conference.
By July 22, 2024, FCA US shall (i) file its opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, (ii) disclose its
experts under Rule 26(a)(2), and (iii) file any Daubert challenges
to Plaintiffs' experts.
By Aug. 23, 2024, FCA US shall depose Plaintiffs' expert Orell C.
Anderson.
Also, by Aug. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall depose FCA US's
experts, if any. By July 22, 2024, FCA US shall provide Plaintiffs
with its experts' availability for deposition to take place on
mutually available days and times.
By Sept. 12, 2024, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file (i) their reply
in support of their motion for class certification, (ii)
oppositions to FCA US’s Daubert challenges, and (iii) any Daubert
challenges to FCA US’s experts.
At least 10 days prior to the class certification hearing,
Plaintiffs' Counsel shall disclose to FCA US's Counsel any cases
that Plaintiffs intend to cite or rely upon at oral argument in
response to FCA US's replies or sur-replies relating to Mr.
Anderson.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fDJHzw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
lsheets@lsccounsel.com
mrobb@lsccounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
Fred Fresard, Esq.
Ian Edwards, Esq.
KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD
100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 888.2970
E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com
tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com
scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com
fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com
ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Troy Nicholas MacDermott,
v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, BOP, Collette S. Peters, Director,
BOP, in her official capacity, Case No. 0:24-cv-01984-JMB-DTS (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan entered an order that:
-- adopting the Report and Recommendation (R&R);
-- denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class denied without
prejudice as premature; and
-- denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Class Counsel without
prejudice as premature.
BOP is responsible for all Federal prisons and provide for the
care, custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQpzvC at no extra
charge.[CC]
FEDEX CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 7, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL BARRERA ALMONTE,
et al., v. FEDEX CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-03224-KMW-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Skahill
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Initial written discovery requests shall July 24,
2024
be served by:
-- The time within which to seek amendments Aug. 30,
2024.
to the pleadings or to add new parties
will expire on:
-- The deadline to serve Plaintiffs' motion April 7,
2025
for class certification and disclose
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert
Reports is:
-- The deadline to serve Defendants' June 6, 2025
Opposition to Class Certification, disclose
Defendants' Expert Reports, and serve
Defendants' Daubert Motions to Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Experts is:
-- The deadline to serve Plaintiffs' Reply to Aug. 5, 2025
Class Certification, serve Plaintiffs'
Rebuttal Class Certification Expert
Reports, serve Plaintiffs' Daubert
Opposition; and serve Plaintiff' Daubert
Motions to Defendant's Class Certification
Experts is:
-- The deadline to serve Defendant's Daubert Sept. 19,
2025
replies and Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Daubert motions is:
-- The deadline to serve Plaintiffs' Daubert Oct 20, 2025
replies is:
FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
focused on transportation, e-commerce and business services based
in Memphis, Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Rl2tM at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLAGSTAR BANK: Bid for Continuance of Briefing Schedule Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Victoria Johnson v.
Flagstar Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01626-MRA-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order
vacating the stay and denying the parties' request for a
continuance of class certification briefing schedule.
The Court's class certification briefing schedule is intended to
"foster the efficient treatment and resolution of [this] case.
Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken
seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage that is to
enforce the deadlines."
The parties' request for a continuance, contained within the
parties' JSR and without the required declaration, does not comply
with the Court’s clear instructions. Moreover, the reasons given
for the requested continuance do not satisfy the good cause
standard. Plaintiff brought this action against Flagstar over a
year ago. The Court initially ordered Plaintiff to move for class
certification no later than April 4, 2024. The parties' JSR
constitutes their third request to extend the briefing schedule.
The parties state in general terms that the extension is needed to
facilitate ongoing settlement discussions and conserve resources
but neglect to provide the Court with information about when the
next mediation is scheduled and how preparation for the mediation,
which has been contemplated for several months, would interfere
with their obligations to timely resolve class certification.
The Plaintiff Victoria Johnson commenced this putative class action
in San Bernardino County Superior Court on April 19, 2023.
On Feb. 26, 2024, this case was reassigned. Upon reassignment, the
parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement, in which they
requested that the Court revise the class certification briefing
schedule.
The Court issued a Minute Order on March 25, 2024, stating that the
parties could file a motion or joint stipulation for a continuance
of the class certification briefing schedule, provided the request
was accompanied by a declaration setting forth due diligence and
good cause for the proposed extension.
The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation to stay the case
pending mediation and continue the class certification briefing
schedule.
Flagstar accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services
for the public.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wfkfZg at no extra
charge.[CC]
GABALESAM LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. GABALESAM LLC and SABOR CATRACHO
RESTAURANT & MERCADITO CORP. d/b/a DELICIAS EN MIAMI, Case No.
1:24-cv-22754-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Although well over 30 years has passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their
facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ADA
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires
landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance.
The subject commercial property and restaurant is open to the
public and is located in Miami, Florida. The individual Plaintiff
visits the commercial property, to include visits to the commercial
property and business located within the commercial property on May
25, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that
directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial
property. He often visits the Commercial property and business
located within the commercial property in order to avail himself of
the goods and services offered there, and because it is
approximately 3 miles from his residence and is near other business
and restaurant he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the
commercial property within 2 months from the date of the filing of
this Complaint, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
GABALESAM LLC, owned and operated a commercial property and
conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public
accommodation in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Emails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
GEICO: Court Narrows Claims in Yorba Suit
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS YORBA, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
3:24-cv-00031-GPC-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, Seven, and Eight.
The Court grants leave to amend on all counts except Counts Five
and Seven, which it dismisses with prejudice. The motion to dismiss
did not challenge Count One and the Court denies the motion to
dismiss Count Six. It also denies the motion to dismiss the class
allegations related to Counts One and Six.
The Court grants the motion to dismiss. Because Plaintiff may be
able to add additional facts sufficient to plausibly allege
liability for meal and rest break violations, the Court grants
leave to amend.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. Because
Plaintiff may be able to fix these defects, the Court grants leave
to amend. “To be clear, the Court is not requiring [Plaintiff] to
identify a calendar week or particular instance where he was denied
wages, but only to plead specific facts that raise a plausible
inference that such an instance actually occurred.
Accordingly, the court denies the motion to dismiss or strike the
class allegations as to Counts One and Six. The Court does not
address the class allegations as to the other counts because it has
already dismissed those claims.
On Nov. 27, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, Plaintiff
filed suit for this putative wage and hour class action on behalf
of himself and other hourly non- exempt direct and contracted
temporary employees of Defendant in California.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in and continues to engage
in illegal pay practices.
For the First and Sixth Causes of Action, the Complaint alleges two
fairly broad classes:
Minimum Wage Class: "All current and former hourly non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants as direct employees as well as
temporary employees employed through temp agencies in California at
any time from four (4) years prior to the filing of the initial
Complaint in this matter through the date notice is mailed to a
certified class who were not paid at least minimum wage for all
time they were subject to Defendants' control."
Wage Statement Class: "All current and former hourly non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants as direct employees as well as
temporary employees employed through temp agencies in California at
any time from one (1) year prior to the filing of the initial
Complaint in this action through the date notice is mailed to a
certified class who received inaccurate or incomplete wage and hour
statements."
GEICO is an American auto insurance company headquartered in Chevy
Chase, Maryland. In addition to auto insurance, GEICO provides
motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat, snowmobile, travel, pet, event,
homeowner, renter, and jewelry insurance options.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ml7JjH at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Cashon Files FCRA Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is styled as Richard Cashon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Verisk Analytics Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-03856-RMG (D.S.C., July 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick Graham Maiden, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE (MT PL)
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 216-9000
Email: gmaiden@motleyrice.com
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Gur-Ravantab Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMIR GUR-RAVANTAB, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038-TNM (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered an order:
-- granting the motion for preliminary approval of class action
Settlement, and
-- denying as moot the motion to intervene.
The settlement agreement's proposed notice plan appears reasonable
under the circumstances. The Court therefore approves it, and
orders class counsel to implement it.
In sum, then, the Court concludes that each of the Rule 23(e)(2)
factors is likely satisfied. It therefore believes that it is
"likely to be able to approve the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2),"
following notice to the class and a hearing on the settlement
agreement.
The Plaintiffs Emir Gur-Ravantab and Emily Lama, former students of
Georgetown University, sued the University over its COVID policies.
They challenged the University's decision to switch to online-only
education in the Spring 2020 semester. But they did not do so
alone. Instead, they brought a putative class action, claiming to
represent all students who were enrolled at Georgetown at that
time.
The Court denied their first motion for class certification. Now,
they move to substitute new class representatives and seek
"preliminary approval of a class action settlement."
The Plaintiffs are former Georgetown students who claim they were
stiffed. They say they were promised in-person education during the
Spring 2020 semester. Instead, the University gave them remote
education during the Spring 2020 semester. They claim that a remote
education is worth less than an in-person one, but that Georgetown
never paid them the difference. In essence, it took their money,
but gave them less than they paid for.
Georgetown University is a private Jesuit research university.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJLfL2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOLDCO DIRECT: Ashworth Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldco Direct LLC.
The case is styled as Beth Sarver Ashworth, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Goldco Direct LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-06144 (C.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.
Goldco -- https://goldco.com/ -- is one of the premier Precious
Metals IRA companies in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
GOODYEAR TIRE: McMiller Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela McMiller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-04459 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 3, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-rt-55035-SL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company --
https://corporate.goodyear.com/us/en.html -- is an American
multinational tire manufacturer headquartered in Akron, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW - CHICAGO
55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: pgeske@mcgpc.com
- and -
Jordan Ruvolo Frysinger, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W Wacker Dr., 9th Fl
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
GUARD FORCE: Carey Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY CAREY, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GUARD FORCE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No.
1:24-cv-21942-JB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
-- conditionally certifying this action as a collective action,
and
-- permitting, under supervision, notice to all Security Guards
who
worked more than 40 hours within one or more workweeks, and who
earned wages designated as either "Health and Welfare," or
"Health
and Well-being," or "H&W," while working for the Defendant at
any
time within the three years preceding the date notice is
sent."
Each putative class member was subject to common unlawful policies
and practices, in that: Plaintiff and other Security Guards who
worked more than forty (40) hours in one or more workweeks, and
earned H&W wages, were not properly paid overtime premiums for all
their overtime hours worked because GFI failed to include the H&W
pay when it calculated their regular rate of pay and resulting
overtime rate of pay.
This common policy and practice, on its own, merits notice to the
putative collective.
Because all Security Guards who worked overtime hours and earned
H&W wages while working for GFI are/were subject to these policies
and practices, the putative collective is appropriately defined as:
All Security Guards who worked for GFI, at any time from three
years prior to the date of the Court's Order granting notice to the
present, who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks,
and who earned H&W pay which GFI did not include in the calculation
of their regular rate of pay and resulting overtime rate of pay.
Through the policies and practices, GFI has denied, and continues
to deny, proper overtime wage compensation to all of its Security
Guards who worked overtime hours and were paid H&W wages.
The Court says that the Plaintiff has met his light burden to
facilitate notice to potential class members under Eleventh Circuit
precedent.
Accordingly, he respectfully requests that this Court permit and
supervise notice to all current and former Security Guards who
worked overtime hours while working for Defendant within the three
years preceding the notice being issued.
The Company offers armed and unarmed physical security guard, point
of entry screening, prisoner transportation, patrol, maritime
interdiction support.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MnrjYP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
cseldin@forthepeople.com
HARD ROCK: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Security Protocols
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBC6 reports that more lawsuits have been filed related to the
chaos at the Copa America final at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami
Gardens on Sunday, July 14.
More than two dozen people were arrested and the game between
Argentina and Colombia was delayed for over an hour when
out--of--control crowds breached security gates at the stadium.
A class action lawsuit was filed July 19 against Hard Rock Stadium
and soccer organizations CONMEBOL and CONCACAF on behalf of Das
Nobel and other fans who were denied entry to the match.
"This Complaint seeks redress for a class of invitee fans who paid
money to attend the Copa America Final football match between
Argentine and Columbia ("Final Match") at Hard Rock Stadium but
were denied entry because of Defendants' failure to implement
adequate security protocols that resulted in mass chaos, injuries,
and ultimately, the Defendants' decision to open the stadium to
thousands of unticketed fans and to exclude ticketed invitee fans
like Plaintiff and the Class Members," the suit states.
Nobel spoke with NBC6 after the game, saying he traveled to Miami
from Dallas with his family and spent around $7,000 on tickets.
"And we watched hundreds of other families with kids that are
stranded with tickets. And we saw that multiple times, people were
let in without going through security check, let alone the
ticketing check. So it put a lot of the people in danger within the
stadium," Nobel said.
Another lawsuit filed July 17 on behalf of three people claims they
were denied entry to the event despite having valid tickets when a
large crowd started rushing the venue.
The plaintiffs -- Marta Pintos, Eduardo Martinez and Nicolas Osorio
-- filed the suit against Hard Rock Stadium and CONMEBOL, saying
they suffered monetary loss, emotional distress and other damages.
"The unlawful entry of individuals into the arena was a foreseeable
consequence of Defendants' failure to implement adequate crowd
control measures, security protocols, and ticket verification
processes," the suit claims.
A similar lawsuit was filed against the stadium and CONMEBOL by fan
Jackie Martinez.
"The defendants failed to provide a safe and secure environment for
ticket holders, thereby engaging in deceptive and unfair trade
practices," Martinez's suit states.
Yet another lawsuit was filed by Isabel Quintero, claiming she
"suffered severe injuries" when she was denied entry to the game
and was "pushed, trampled, and slammed into objects as a result of
the Defendants complete disregard for safety of its invitees."
All of the individual lawsuits seek damages in excess of $50,000.
CONMEBOL released a statement regarding fan refunds.
"Fans who purchased tickets on the primary market and were denied
entry to the match are encouraged to reach out to Ticketmaster to
request a refund. Ticketmaster will take the claim and provide next
steps to the customer," the statement read. "Fans who purchased
tickets on the secondary market should direct their refund request
to the entity from which they purchased."
In a statement released on X the day of the match, Hard Rock
Stadium representatives wrote they would work "in partnership with
CONMEBOL to address individual concerns."
But CONMEBOL pointed the finger at Hard Rock Stadium in a recent
statement, stating in part that they were "subject to the decision
made by Hard Rock Stadium authorities" and that preparation
recommendations made to Hard Rock authorities "were not taken into
account."
Hard Rock Stadium representatives denied these allegations in a
statement released, writing they implemented and exceeded
CONMEBOL's security recommendations. [GN]
HARD ROCK: Fans Seek Refund After Copa America Final Chaos
----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Royal and Carlos Suarez, writing for ABC6, reports that a
federal class action lawsuit was filed Friday, July 19, on behalf
of ticketed fans who were not allowed into the Copa America finals
match at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, after
"thousands of unticketed fans" breached security, prompting them to
shut the stadium gates.
Listed as defendants in the lawsuit are Hard Rock Stadium,
international soccer organizations South American Football
Confederation and the Confederation of North, Central America and
Caribbean Association Football, and security firm Best Crowd
Management.
An estimated 65,300 tickets were sold for the match between
Argentina and Colombia on July 14.
The match had to be delayed for more than an hour after fans
without tickets forcibly attempted to enter the stadium, according
to a stadium spokesperson. After the security breach, a decision
was made to reopen the stadium gates "for a short period of time to
all fans to prevent stampedes and serious injury at the perimeter,"
a stadium spokesperson said at the time - noting a "serious concern
of fans being crushed in an attempt to enter."
The lawsuit claims the defendants "failed to implement an adequate
and reasonable security and safety plan," including not hiring
enough security personnel, failing to predict the size of
"unticketed attendees" and not establishing a perimeter to check
for tickets.
"The scene that unfolded was on television and social media was
astonishing, bloodied fans, parents protecting children from
criminal acts, fans assaulting each other, stadium staff and local
police," the complaint states.
The complaint says the defendants should have foreseen the chaos
that erupted, and they ignored their duty to protect ticket
holders.
The lead plaintiff, Das Nobel, said he paid nearly $10,000 for four
tickets and almost $15,000 for travel and lodging arrangements. He
alleges he did not see anyone scanning tickets when he arrived at
the stadium. Instead, he saw the Southeast gate was shut and
locked, according to the lawsuit.
Noble said he and his family waited for hours to get into the
stadium, before they returned to their hotel. During their wait, he
said he "witnessed dozens of fans climbing onto a storefront,
breaking into the stadium, scaling fences, and throwing backpacks
over," according to the complaint. Noble alleges he was not allowed
into the stadium to watch the match.
"Hard Rock Stadium was responsible for implementing the security
plans negotiated with CONMEBOL and CONCACAF and implementing
protocols designed for fan safety. Hard Rock Stadium hired BEST
security for additional assistance," the complaint states.
The South American Football Confederation, or CONMEBOL, said that
they were "subject to decisions made by the Hard Rock Stadium
authorities" and that certain procedures "were not taken into
account."
In response, Hard Rock Stadium said in a statement that it
"implemented, and in many cases exceeded CONMEBOL's security
recommendations throughout the tournament and the Final."
The lawsuit seeks full ticket refunds, interest and reimbursement
for travel expenses for people who paid to enter the stadium but
were denied entry. The class would consist of people who purchased
tickets but were not allowed to watch the match in the stadium.
The complaint does not seek damages related to any personal
injuries.
Hard Rock Stadium and CONMEBOL told CNN separately that they cannot
comment on litigation.
When asked about refunds for ticketholders who were not allowed
into the stadium, a stadium official told CNN that "fans who
purchased tickets on the primary market and were denied entry to
the match are encouraged to reach out to Ticketmaster to request a
refund. Ticketmaster will take the claim and provide next steps to
the customer. Fans who purchased tickets on the secondary market
should direct their refund request to the entity from which they
purchased."
The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean
Association Football, or Concacaf, told CNN, "It would not be
appropriate for us to comment on legal matters."
CNN has reached out to Best Crowd Management for comment.
Another lawsuit was filed by ticket holder Jacqueline Martinez on
July 15.
Martinez said she bought four tickets for more than $4,000 to
attend the match with her family, but they were unable to enter the
stadium because of the crowds. Martinez is seeking $50,000 in
damages to cover a refund for their expenses and emotional
distress, according to the complaint. [GN]
HEALTH CADDIES: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Cooper Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANISSA COOPER, on her own
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HEALTH CADDIES,
INC., a Florida corporation, and PETER PUCCIA, individually, Case
No. 9:24-cv-80279-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald
Middlebrooks entered an order that:
1) Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action and Authorize Notice
to
Potential Class Members is granted.
2) The Plaintiff, Janisa Cooper, is appointed as the
Representative
of the Collective with authority to negotiate and appear at
settlement conferences and mediations on behalf of the
collective.
3) The law firm of USA Employment Lawyers—Jordan Richards,
PLLC,
and attorneys Jordan Richards, Esquire, and Michael V.
Miller,
Esq., are appointed as counsel for the Collective.
4) On or by July 30, 2024, the Parties must meet and confer and
jointly submit a revised class definition to the Court.
Further,
they must submit to the Court a jointly executed proposed
Notice
of FLSA Collective Action and Opportunity to Joint as Opt-in
Plaintiff. If no agreement can be reached, the Parties must
submit their definitions and proposed Notices to the Court by
that same date.
5) On or by Aug. 2, 2024, the Defendants must produce a complete
list, electronically formatted in an Excel spreadsheet, of
the
names of all Insurance Sales Agents— including their last
known
home addresses, cellular telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
and the last four digits of social security numbers—who
were
ever employed by the Defendant any time between March 12,
2021,
and March 12, 2024.
On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff Janisa Cooper filed a Complaint
against the Defendant for alleged unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the FLSA. (
The Plaintiffs' proposed class is:
"All Insurance Sales Agents employed by Defendant in Florida
during
the previous three (3) years of the date of filing a Complaint
in
this action (March 12, 2024), who were misclassified as
independent
contractors, and who worked more than forty (40) hours in a
workweek."
Caddie is an EMR-integrated billing software platform that curates
billing and diagnosis codes for each patient encounter and
automates claim.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vwGU2P at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Bid for Clarification Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND, MICHAEL
MCDERMOTT and KELLEY MCDERMOTT, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP
WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1 LLC, and OPVHHJV, d/b/a
PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Bryan entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification or Limited Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order related to their Washington's
Residential Landlord Tenant Act ("RLTA") claims.
.
The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of
these portions of the Order is warranted. They have not pointed to
a "manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or
legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention
earlier with reasonable diligence."
Moreover, they have also failed to show that clarification of the
Order is necessary. The Order provides an adequate explanation
regarding which of Plaintiffs' RLTA claims survived summary
judgment.
As the parties seeking class certification, it will be the
Plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate that their theories of recovery
are amenable to class wide resolution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The relevant standards and law for considering whether a class
should be certified will apply. The Plaintiffs' Motion for
Clarification or Limited Motion for Reconsideration should be
denied.
The tenant-Plaintiffs in this case allege that the Defendants use
illegal leases and engage in practices that violate the Plaintiffs'
rights under RLTA.
The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants breached their duty
of good faith and fair dealing and were unjustly enriched.
On July 2, 2024, the Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Order”) was
entered.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party’s last known address. Dated this 18th day of July, 2024.
Home Partners is a national real estate investment and property
management conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tu9y90 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HORIZON HOBBY: Figueroa Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kimberly Figueroa, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Horizon Hobby, LLC, was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
July 19, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-61286-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Horizon Hobby, LLC -- https://www.horizonhobby.com/ -- is an
American multinational hobby-grade RC radio control model and model
train manufacturer and distributor.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew A. Keilson, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP
1055 Howell Mill Road, Ste. 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Phone: (678) 372-0408
Email: mkeilson@wtlaw.com
JAMES LEBLANC: Violated ADA & Rehabilitation Act, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL., V.
JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL., Case No. 5:18-cv-00541-EEF-MLH (W.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Foote entered an order that the
Defendants, in their official capacities, are violating the Eighth
Amendment rights of the Class and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act (RA) rights of the Subclass.
The Defendants are hereby enjoined from the following:
1) continuing to violate the Eighth Amendment rights of all
inmates in extended lockdown—the Class—through the
unconstitutional conditions of confinement and provision of
deficient mental health services; and
2) continuing to violate the ADA and RA rights of inmates with
a
qualifying mental illness—the Subclass.
Additionally, Defendants are ordered to remedy the constitutional
and ADA and RA violations as previously enumerated. The Court
incorporates in this opinion the injunctive and declaratory relief
outlined in the remedial order and filed in connection with this
opinion.
In conclusion, the Plaintiffs met their burden in proving that
there are widespread, systemic violations of the ADA and RA that
continue to occur and will continue to occur into the future
without the Court's intervention.
DWCC has not remedied its failure to accommodate inmates with
mental illness before housing them on the South Compound or before
employing force or using discipline against them.
Moreover, DWCC violates the ADA in its methods of administration
through its adoption of an under-inclusive definition of mental
illness and by failing to maintain and implement an adequate system
by which inmates can request and receive reasonable accommodations
for their mental illness.
The Defendants failed to provide any evidence that they have
remedied these deficiencies since the liability phase of trial.
Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to remedy the
violations of their protections under the ADA and RA.
Inmates at David Wade Correctional Center ("DWCC") filed this class
action suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging the
conditions of confinement and delivery of mental health services on
extended lockdown. The Defendants are correctional officials at
DWCC and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
("DOC").
The Plaintiffs allege that the policies and practices in place at
DWCC violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Previously, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In doing so, it certified a class of all prisoners
who are or will be subjected to extended lockdown at DWCC that will
pursue the Eighth Amendment claims (the "Class") and a subclass
consisting of all individuals on extended lockdown at DWCC who have
or are perceived as having a qualifying disability related to
mental health -- as defined by the ADA -- that will pursue the ADA
and RA claims (the "Subclass").
The Class and the Subclass are represented by the Named Plaintiffs,
though the Named Plaintiffs did not testify at either phase of
trial.
The Plaintiffs are Disability Rights Louisiana ("Disability
Rights") (formerly known as Advocacy Center of Louisiana) and a
group of inmate representatives who were housed on extended
lockdown at DWCC at the time of the lawsuit's filing -- Bruce
Charles, Carlton Turner, Larry Jones, and Ronald Brooks.
LeBlanc serves as the Secretary of the DOC, a position he has held
since 2008.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PRqqJB at no extra
charge.[CC]
JASPER COUNTY, SC: McDowell Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buford "Chad" McDowell and
Rachel Riley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. Jasper County, Case No. 9:23-cv-04706-RMG (D.S.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the class
as defined in Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint, pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Jasper County is the southernmost county in the U.S. state of South
Carolina.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IsugNW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brady R. Thomas, Esq.
Daniel S. Haltiwanger, Esq.
Grace M. Babcock, Esq.
RICHARDSON THOMAS, LLC
1513 Hampton Street, First Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 281-8150
E-mail: brady@richardsonthomas.com
dan@richardsonthomas.com
grace@richardsonthomas.com
JOHN BURLEW: Court Tosses Plaintiff's Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE DOE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN BURLEW, in his
official capacity as Daviess County Attorney, and on behalf of all
County Attorneys in their official capacities, Case No.
4:24-cv-00045-GNS (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg Stivers entered
an order that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied.
2. Based on the Court's ruling on class certification, the
preliminary injunction is modified to apply to the Defendant
John Burlew only who shall be ENJOINED from enforcing KRS
17.544 against Plaintiff John Doe.
Because Doe has not been injured by the other Kentucky County
Attorneys and Fox prohibits him from relying on the injuries of a
plaintiff class to establish standing, Doe’s motion to certify
the class of defendants is denied.
Doe also moves to certify a plaintiff class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(2). Doe's motion suffers from two deficiencies,
each of which prevent certification: there is insufficient
information for the Court to determine whether the class meets Rule
23(a)'s numerosity or adequacy of representation requirements.
Accordingly, because Doe has not satisfied the numerosity or
adequacy requirements, his class certification motion is denied
The Plaintiff Doe filed this action on his own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated against the Defendant John Burlew, in
his official capacity as Daviess County Attorney and on behalf of
all County Attorneys in their official capacities.
The Plaintiff Doe asserts two claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
for violations of his constitutional rights under the First
Amendment. In particular, the Plaintiff Doe asserts that the
challenged law violates his right to speak anonymously and is
unconstitutionally overbroad.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bvgDqq at no extra
charge.[CC]
JRK PROPERTY: Perrault Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSIMILIANO PERRAULT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JRK
PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., JRK RESIDENTIAL GROUP, INC., UTILITY
BILLING, INC., and TEWKSBURY APARTMENTS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10746-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending time to file reply brief in support of
motion for class certification.
Mr. Perrault moves that the current deadline of July 19, 2024, for
filing his reply brief in support of the pending motion for class
certification be extended to July 29, 2024.
The Plaintiff states that the parties are currently engaged in
settlement discussions that may obviate the need for filing such
brief, thus conserving the parties' resources.
The Defendants' counsel has indicated their assent to this motion.
JRK is a real estate investment and management firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sP48VQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch Street
Framingham MA 01701
Telephone: (508) 872-1261
E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com
- and -
John R. Yasi, Esq.
YASI & YASI, P.C.
2 Salem Green
Salem MA 01970
Telephone: (617) 741-0400
E-mail: john.yasi@yasiandyasi.com
JUICY'S VAPOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schmitendorf v. Juicy's
Vapor Lounge, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02293 (D. Kan., Filed July 26,
2022), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order granting
unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply as to motion
for class certification.
-- Reply deadline: Aug. 2, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Juicy's is a vape shop, offering the widest selection of vapor
products.[CC]
JUICY'S VAPOR: Schmitendorf Suit Seeks More Time to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY SCHMITENDORF,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JUICY'S VAPOR LOUNGE INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-02293-TC-GEB (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his reply in
support of the Motion for Class Certification up to and
including
Aug. 2, 2024, and
-- granting Plaintiff all such other relief to which the Court
deems
him justly entitled.
No prior extensions of this deadline have been sought or ordered.
Lead counsel Avi Kaufman has been preparing Plaintiff's reply.
However, while traveling out-of-country, Mr. Kaufman's laptop was
damaged and rendered inoperable, leaving him unable to complete the
reply before returning to his office. Mr. Kaufman is set to return
on July 31, 2024. Mr. Kaufman reached out to counsel for the
Defendant regarding the need for an extension, and Defendant's
counsel indicated that the Defendant is unopposed to the requested
extension.
No party would be prejudiced by the requested extension, and the
request is not being made for any improper purpose or motive, or
for purposes of delay. If Mr. Kaufman's laptop had not been
damaged, the reply would have been filed within the current
deadline.
In accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order, the Plaintiff
filed his Motion for Class Certification on May 24, 2024. The
Defendant filed its response on June 21, 2024.
Juicy's is a vape shop, offering the widest selection of vapor
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7H2xfb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Cory Nelson, Esq.
MCN LAW LLC
12433 Antioch Rd. # 25442
Overland Park, KS 66225
Telephone: (913) 358-5800
E-mail: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Doe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, et al., v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-02865-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Peter Kang entered an
order resolving discovery disputes regarding requests for
production:
To the extent the Parties raised new related disputes at the July
18th Hearing, those disputes are either resolved as stated at the
hearing and as set forth, or were withdrawn at the July 18th
Hearing.
As an initial matter, the Parties originally raised certain
disputes with the Court regarding Plaintiffs' responses to Kaiser's
first set of discovery requests.
At the July 18th Hearing, the Parties confirmed that they have
resolved all of these issues and thus further Court action is not
necessary.
In connection with the instant discovery disputes, the Parties
report ongoing disagreement as to whether Phase II discovery has
commenced, as well as whether certain discovery requests exceed the
scope of Phase I discovery.
The Court notes that, generally, discovery in a putative class
action at the precertification stage is limited to certification
issues, such as the number of class members, the existence of
common questions, typicality of claims, and the representatives’
ability to represent the class. In this case, discovery has not
been bifurcated, although it has been phased. The Parties, and the
Court, recognize that there is overlap between class discovery and
merits discovery.
The case is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiffs
against Kaiser. The Plaintiffs allege that Kaiser has unlawfully
embedded code in its website, including its patient portal and
mobile applications, that allows third-party social media and ad
tech companies to intrude upon, read, intercept, and use the
Plaintiffs' sensitive personal and medical information without the
Plaintiffs' knowledge and consent.
Kaiser is a care providers.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vc9Dep at no extra
charge.[CC]
KEYSTONE PREMIER: Court Narrows Claims in Ortiz Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ORTIZ, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. KEYSTONE PREMIER
SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC, MICHELLE MACFARLANE, and MICHELLE ELLIS,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01509-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline
Mehalchick entered an order that:
-- Defendants' motions to dismiss Count I are granted.
-- Count I is dismissed with prejudice.
-- The motions to dismiss Count II as asserted against Ellis and
MacFarlane are granted, and Count II as asserted against Ellis
and
MacFarlane is dismissed without prejudice.
-- The motions to dismiss Count II as asserted against Keystone
are
denied. The motions to dismiss Count III are denied.
-- The motions to strike are denied.
On Oct. 2, 2022, Ortiz closed on a purchase of real estate in
Tannersville, PA and completed a Closing Disclosure Form.
Ortiz filed the instant Complaint, alleging the following Counts
against Keystone, as well as against MacFarlane and Ellis in their
individual capacities, for the overcharge of notary services: Count
I -- Violation of RULNA, 57 Pa. Cons. Stat. section 301; Count II
--Unjust Enrichment; and Count III -- Violation of UTPCPL.
Keystone is a Pennsylvania licensed title insurance agency.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P0l08C at no extra
charge.[CC]
KUBI HOMES: Chavez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kubi Homes LLC, et
al. The case is styled as James Chavez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Kubi Homes LLC, Kubi Marketing
Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-01779-DMF (D. Ariz., July 19, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Kubi Homes LLC -- https://www.kubihomes.com/ -- buys houses
nationwide, as-is in any condition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan A Giribaldo, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd., Ste. 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Phone: (737) 310-3211
Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
MARLOU CORP: More Time to Provide Collective Members' Info Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA WHEELER and KARISSA
ANN HUGH, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, v. MARLOU CORPORATION d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM, a Nevada
corporation, and RITA CAPOVILLA, Case No. 2:23-cv-01556-APG-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
time for the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with
"the names and last known mailing and email addresses of all
collective action members" pursuant to the Court's Order Granting
Motion for Conditional Certification, which is currently due on
July 16, 2024.
The Parties specifically agree that the Defendants will have until
July 26, 2024, to provide this information to the Plaintiffs'
counsel.
This is the first request for an extension of time regarding the
Defendants' obligation to provide putative collective action
members' information as required by the Court.
The instant request for an extension is necessary due to the
Defendants' counsel's heavy workloads, which includes lead counsel
for the Defendants' (Laurent Badoux) current participation in a
trial. This request is made in good faith and not for the purpose
of delay.
Marlou Corporation is in the Night Clubs business.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhuBD8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LITCHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
729 Boylston St 2000
Boston, MA 02116
- and -
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Sean W. McDonald, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER, ROSENFELD, P.C.
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
The Defendants are represented by:
Laurent R.G. Badoux, Esq.
Kelsey E. Stegall, Esq.
Emil S. Kim, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Camelback Esplanade
2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 474-3600
Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
E-mail: lbadoux@littler.com
kstegall@littler.com
ekim@littler.com
MARYLAND: Connor Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CONNOR, et al., for
themselves and those similarly situated, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01423-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class
pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2); and
-- granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and proper.
The Maryland Department of Health is an agency of the government of
Maryland responsible for public health issues. The Department is
headed by a Secretary who is a member of the Executive
Council/Cabinet of the Governor of Maryland. Currently the
secretary is Laura Herrera Scott.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ex0FMU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
E-mail: gardnerd@publicjustice.org
- and -
Regan Bailey, Esq.
Liam McGivern, Esq.
JUSTICE IN AGING
1444 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 683-1990
E-mail: RBailey@justiceinaging.org
LMcGivern@justiceinaging.org
- and -
Sheila S. Boston, Esq.
Samuel Lonergan, Esq.
Robert Grass, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Telephone: (212) 836-8000
Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
E-mail: Sheila.Boston@arnoldporter.com
Samuel.Lonergan@arnoldporter.com
Robert.Grass@arnoldporter.com
MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Court Modifies Discovery Dates in Delisle
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELSEY DELISLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
McKendree University, Case No. 3:20-cv-01073-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Staci Yandle entered an order modifying discovery dates
set forth in the Joint Report:
A. Discovery Procedures:
Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests
for
documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be
filed
unless on order of the Court.
B. Pretrial and Trial Deadlines:
As initially set by the Court, this case is set for a Final
Pretrial Conference on March 26, 2026, at 9:30 a.m and Jury
trial on April 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in the Federal
Courthouse,
Benton, Illinois.
All "Daubert" motions (seeking to exclude expert
testimony/evidence) filed pursuant to Fed. R. Evid 702 and/or
703 must be filed by the dispositive motion deadline. Counsel
is
advised that Daubert motions not filed in accord with this
deadline will be denied as untimely filed.
McKendree University, formerly McKendree College, is a private
university in Lebanon, Illinois. Founded in 1828 as the Lebanon
Seminary, it is the oldest college or university in Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LBwrCQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MENZIES AVIATION: Sayas, King Appointed as Class Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORA PATRICIA AMAYA, et
al., v. MENZIES AVIATION (USA), INC. et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-05915-HDV-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera
entered an order granting application for appointment of C. Joe
Sayas, Jr., Esq. And David P. King, Esq. as class counsel.
Menzies provides aircraft ground handling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yr53CE at no extra
charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Cert. in E.H. Suit Due Nov. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.H. and C.S., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04784-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Orrick entered an order approving the following deadlines:
Event Deadline
Completion of Fact Discovery Sept. 11, 2025
Motion for Class Certification and Nov. 13, 2025
Plaintiffs' Class Expert Reports
Last Day to Amend Pleadings Nov. 13, 2025
Opposition to Class Certification and Feb. 12, 2026
Meta's Class Expert Rebuttal Reports
Reply in Support of Class Certification April 2, 2026
and Plaintiffs' Class Expert Reply Reports
Hearing on Class Certification May 6, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bvbcAs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Previn Warren, Esq.
Abigail Burman, Esq.
Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
401 9th Street NW Suite 630
Washington DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 386-9610
E-mail: pwarren@motleyrice.com
aburman@motleyrice.com
mjasinski@motleyrice.com
- and -
James M. Wagstaffe
Steven J. Adamski
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN
CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP
6633 Bay Laurel Place
Avila Beach, CA
Telephone: (805) 543-0990
E-mail: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com
adamski@ammcglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Caroline A. Lebel, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
clebel@cooley.com
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 5, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms,
Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No.
3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick
entered an order setting new case schedule deadlines as follows:
Event Current Modified
Deadline Deadline
Deadline for First Settlement Nov. 8, 2024 May 9, 2025
Conference
Close of Fact Discovery Oct. 18, 2024 April 18,
2025
Motion for Class Certification Feb. 14, 2025 June 27,
2025
(and Plaintiffs' class expert
reports)
Opposition to Class April 25, 2025 Sept. 5,
2025
Certification (and Meta's class
expert reports)
Reply in Support of Class June 27, 2025 Nov. 7,
2025
Certification (and Plaintiffs'
class expert reply reports)
Hearing on Class Certification July 16, 2025 Dec. 3,
2025
Motion
Expert Discovery Deadline Feb. 27, 2026 July 17,
2026
Dispositive and Daubert Motions March 13, 2026 July 31,
2026
Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business
insight solutions.
A copy of the Court's orderdated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EXckxs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (2060 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com
lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Caroline A. Lebel, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
clebel@cooley.com
MORGAN & MORGAN: Walker Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Walker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville
PLLC, Brad Milkwick, Case No. CE24-00694 was removed from Superior
Court of Glynn County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia on July 19, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-LGW-BWC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Morgan & Morgan -- https://www.forthepeople.com/ -- is America's
Largest Personal Injury Law Firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel Catherine Bramblett, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
Promenade Tower-20th Flloor
1230 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 868-2044
Fax: (404) 868-2010
Email: rbramblett@bradley.com
MURPHY-HOFFMAN COMPANY: Murray Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murphy-Hoffman
Company, LLC. case is styled as 10th Gear LLC, G4 Innovations LLC,
Little Diesel Transportation, Zeke and Lizzie LLC, Vision AG LLC, L
Z S Ceremonial Trails, Inc., Mattson's Lawn and Garden Inc., CRC
Transport LLC, TRPVS Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Petitioners v. Murphy-Hoffman Company, LLC,
Respondent, Case No. 2:24-mc-09001-SRB (W.D. Mo., July 23, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Zero for Civil Miscellaneous Case
Murphy-Hoffman Company, LLC (MHC) -- https://mhc.com/ -- is a full
service commercial truck dealership with over 125 locations
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David L. Marcus, Esq.
DLM LAW LLC
4700 Belleview Ave., Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 285-3888
Email: dmarcus@dlmlaw.com
NCAA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REESE BRANTMEIER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
extending the time to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and Brief in Support of Motion for Class
Certification.
The Plaintiff consents to this Motion.
On March 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
challenging certain rules promulgated by NCAA member institutions.
On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification and a brief in support of that Motion.
On July 12, 2024, the NCAA requested an extension of time to
respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
On July 16, 2024, the Court issued a text order granting in part
the NCAA's request for an extension of time to respond to the
Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, extending the
deadline to July 30, 2024.
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff consented to extending the deadline for
the NCAA to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification and brief in support of that motion to 60 days from
the date this Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.
The Parties agree that, to the extent class discovery is agreed to
by the parties or permitted by the Court, it shall occur during
this 60-day period.
The requested extension will serve the Parties' shared interest in
moving this matter forward efficiently and in a timely manner while
also reducing the burdens placed upon the Court.
The time within which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification has not expired and no prior extensions of time have
been requested to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100
schools in the United States, and one in Canada.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=42KU1d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rakesh Kilaru, Esq.
Tamarra Matthews Johnson, Esq.
Cali Arat, Esq.
Matthew Skanchy, Esq.
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 847-4000
Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
E-mail: rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
tmatthewsjohnson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
carat@wilkinsonstekloff.com
mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com
- and -
Alan M. Ruley, Esq.
BELL, DAVIS & PITT P.A.
Winston-Salem, NC 27120
Telephone: (336) 722-3700
Facsimile: (336) 714-4101
E-mail: aruley@belldavispitt.com
- and -
Matille Gibbons Bowden, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
1717 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 857-6000
Facsimile: (202) 857-6395
E-mail: mattie.bowden@afslaw.com
NEW HORIZONS MEDICAL: Murray Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Horizons Medical,
Inc. case is styled as Andrea Murray, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. New Horizons Medical, Inc., Case
No. 2481CV01915 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., July 23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
New Horizons Medical, Inc. -- https://newhorizonsmedical.org/ --
offer mental health and substance abuse treatment services
including medication management, psychotherapy, and integrated lab
testing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
Reardon Scanlon LLP
45 South Main St., 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 955-9455
NIKE RETAIL: Seeks to Strike Certain Evidence in Cruz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANA CRUZ, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00874-L-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on Aug. 26, 2024 to
strike the following evidence in support of the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:
1. Declaration of Madely Nava, including Exhibits A and B; and
2. Plaintiff's Deposition Errata Pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(d)(1),
there will be no oral argument unless ordered by the Court.
Nike Retail was founded in 1985. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of men's, women's and children's
footwear.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LF4VaY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew A. Tobias, Esq.
Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq.
Elyssa M. Sternberg, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: mtobias@sheppardmullin.com
blewis@sheppardmullin.com
esternberg@sheppardmullin.com
NOMADIK COMPANY: Miller Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nomadik Company.
The case is styled as Jessica Miller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Nomadik Company, Case No.
4:24-cv-01251 (N.D. Ohio, July 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Nomadik Company -- https://thenomadik.com/ -- is a premier
adventure subscription website as well as a manufacturer of
best-in-class travel gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
NORFLEET LAND SERVICES: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Johnson, individually and for others similarly situated v.
NORFLEET LAND SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00168 (W.D. Tex.,
July 19, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek. But NLS does not pay The Plaintiff and
its other Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the Plaintiff and its
other Day Rate Workers pays them a flat amount for each day worked,
regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a workday or
workweek (a "day rate"). NLS pays the Plaintiff and its other Day
Rate Workers under its uniform day rate pay scheme regardless of
any individualized factors. NLS's uniform day rate pay scheme
violates the FLSA by depriving The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate
Workers of overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 a
workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by NLS as one of its Day Rate Workers.
NLS is a "Texas-based company that provides land and right-of-way
services in support of energy development to both private and
public organizations across the Southern United States."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PAYCOR INC: Must Complete Third-Party Discovery within 60 Days
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johns v. Paycor, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., Filed March 11, 2020), the Hon.
Judge David W. Dugan entered an order directing the Defendant to
complete a third-party discovery within 60 days of this date.
Also, within that same 60 days, Defendant is further directed to
file a Response to Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification.
If Defendant completes the third-party discovery before the 60-day
deadline, then it is further directed to so notify Plaintiffs.
In addition, the Plaintiffs are directed to file a Response to
Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) by August 16, 2024.
Finally, prior to the Status Conference scheduled for September 25,
2024, the parties are directed to meet and confer on proposed
deadlines for scheduling and merits discovery that contemplate the
Bench Trial date of April 14, 2025.
The parties shall also be prepared to discuss these matters with
the Court at that Status Conference.
On June 18, 2024, the Court ordered, among other things, that
Defendant shall assess the need for a class certification expert in
order to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.
At the Status Conference held on July 18, 2024, Defendant informed
the Court that such third-party discovery is necessary to file that
Response.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Paycor Inc. operates as a software company. [CC]
PFIZER INC: Agrees to Settle Premarin/Premplus Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Finance reports Merchant Law Group LLP and Pfizer Inc.,
Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Canada Inc.'s successor Pfizer Canada
ULC, Wyeth, Wyeth Canada, Wyeth Canada Inc., Wyeth Holdings Canada
Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s
successor Wyeth Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Wyeth-Ayerst International
Inc. (the "Defendants") have reached a settlement in the
Premarin/Premplus class actions. The Settlement Agreement fully and
finally resolves the authorized class action in Quebec (Roslyn
Sifneos v Pfizer Inc. et al., Superior Court of Quebec No.
500-06-000576-112), and related putative class proceeding
litigation in Ontario (Judy Vermue v Pfizer Inc. et al., Superior
Court No. CV-13-478523-00CP) and Saskatchewan (Donna Sevigny v
Pfizer Inc. et al., Court of Queen's Bench (Regina) No. 1869 of
2016) (the "Class Actions"). Justice Martin Castonguay of the
Superior Court of Quebec approved the settlement on September 7,
2023.
These Class Actions alleged that the Defendants' drugs, Premarin
and PremPlus, cause injury, including breast cancer, and that the
Defendants failed to provide an appropriate warning of risks. The
Defendants denied these claims and defended these lawsuits. No
determination has been made on the merits of the claims in these
lawsuits.
Pursuant to the Sifneos Settlement Agreement, a $2.4 million fund
has been established to pay compensation to class members, public
health insurers, legal fees, disbursements, and administration
costs, but the exact dollar amount that each Claimant receives will
depend on their use and exposure to the drugs, the nature and
severity of their injuries, and the number of claimants who seek
compensation from the fund.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the class has given the
Defendants a comprehensive full and final release.
Class members include "All persons in Canada, including their
estates, heirs and relatives, if any, who purchased, ingested or
consumed Premarin or Premplus products manufactured, marketed and
distributed by the Defendants and who developed breast cancer, but
excluding any person who was a Stanway Proceeding Class Member."
(The Stanway class action was an earlier class action which settled
for residents of British Columbia and other women who "opted in" to
be a part of the Stanway proceeding. Those who have already
participated in the Stanway settlement or were deemed residents of
British Columbia under the Stanway proceeding, are not eligible for
further compensation.)
For more information on benefits that may be available to class
members, the approval process, how to "opt-out" of the Settlement,
how to make comments on or object to the Settlement, or to obtain a
copy of the Settlement Agreement, please visit
https://www.merchantlaw.com/premarin [GN]
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Hellman Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HELLMAN, et al.,
v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-07187-FLA-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order
granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification.
The court certifies the following Rule 23(b)(3) class:
"All California residents, who, between May 25, 2018, and
Present,
purchased one or more models of Polaris RZR, Ranger, or General
UTVs, in California, which were advertised with a sticker on
the
ROPS system as complying with OSHA requirements as set forth
under
29 C.F.R. section 1928.53, and which were tested using Gross
Vehicle Weight, not Tractor Weight."
The court also certifies the following Rule 23(b)(3) subclass:
"All California residents, who, between May 25, 2018, and
Present,
purchased one or more models of Polaris RZR UTVs, in
California,
which were advertised with a sticker on the ROPS system as
complying with OSHA requirements as set forth under 29 C.F.R.
section 1928.53, and which were tested using Gross Vehicle
Weight,
not Tractor Weight."
The court also appoints CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN, The LAW OFFICES OF
TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C., and DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD COMPORA, LLP
to serve as class counsel for the certified classes.
Polaris sells Utility Terrain Vehicles ("UTVs"), which are
motorized vehicles designed for off-road use.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jex4vP at no extra
charge.[CC]
PRA EVENTS: Hyneman Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jan Hyneman, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. PRA
Events, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00497-RCC
(D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
conditional collective action certification and authorizing notice
to the prospective collective action members.
In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff proposed that her
collective action consist of the following class of individuals:
"All persons currently or formerly employed as a regional sales
manager or other similarly situated employee performing or
handling event planning on behalf of Defendant PRA who worked
in
excess of 40 hours during one or more workweeks without
receiving
overtime compensation from Nov. 3, 2020, through the present
date."
To prevent further unnecessary use of legal and judicial resources,
and to enable similarly situated employees to assert their rights
under the law in accordance with the remedial intent of the FLSA
and its collective action mechanism, the Court should conditionally
certify the collective action and authorize the transmission of the
Notice of Collective Action to potential collective action
members.
The Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant, filed this
action alleging that the Defendant failed to compensate her and
similarly situated employees in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
PRA is a business event management firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJM9L2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto C. Garcia, Esq.
Joseph Rousos-Hammond, Esq.
FARHANG & MEDCOFF
100 South Church Avenue, Suite 100
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 214-2000
Facsimile: (520) 214-2001
E-mail: rgarcia@farhangmedcoff.com
jrousos-hammond@farhangmedcoff.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyson E. Hafen, Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
DUANE MORRIS, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1560
Las Vegas, NV 89106
E-mail: TEHafen@duanemorris.com
JARiley@duanemorris.com
GMaatman@duanemorris.com
PREMIUM BRANDS: O'Dea Sues Over False Price Discounts
-----------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH O'DEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO LLC, an Ohio Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-01134-JR (D. Ore., July 11, 2024) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Oregon
consumers who have purchased one or more of Defendant's outlet
items from Ann Taylor Factory Store and LOFT Outlet that advertised
a purported discount from a fictitious higher reference price in
violation of the Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
The Defendant is a specialty retailer of women's apparel,
accessories, shoes, and jewelry items. For years, the Defendant has
continually engaged in a fake discounting scheme that harms
consumers by advertising its Ann Taylor Factory Store and Loft
Outlet merchandise at discounted "sale" prices. In short, the
Defendant markets the "sale" prices as discounts from the original
or "Ticketed Prices" listed on the products' price tags, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination and perpetuation of
this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct
the false and harmful perception it has created in the minds of
consumers, and to obtain redress for those who paid for merchandise
tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. The Plaintiff also seeks
to enjoin permanently Defendant from engaging in this unlawful
conduct.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Joan M. Pradhan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 667-0249
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jpradhan@tousley.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
James B. Drimmer, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1234 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (858) 313-1850
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
jim@lcllp.com
PRIDE INDUSTRIES: Minix Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pride Industries. The
case is styled as Bianca Minix, an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pride Industries, Case No. 24CV084129
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
PRIDE Industries -- https://www.prideindustries.com/ -- provides
competitive business services to fuel our mission of creating
employment for people with disabilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin McLain, Esq.
ELKIN GAMBOA LLP
4119 W Burbank Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91505-2122
Phone: 323-372-1202
Fax: 323-372-1216
Email: ben@elkingamboa.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Moss Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MOSS & STEPHANIE DEMARO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.
d/b/a/ THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-07715 (D.N.J., July 11, 2024) is a class action arising
out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where
unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the
highly sensitive data of Plaintiffs and over 2.5 million Class
Members, as a result of Defendant's failure to reasonably and
adequately secure this highly sensitive consumer data and failure
to adequately train its employees on reasonable cybersecurity
protocols.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members are current and former customers
and the beneficiaries of those customers, who provide their
sensitive private information to Defendant directly or indirectly
in connection with those products and services. Despite Defendant's
duties under the law to Plaintiffs and Class Members to protect and
safeguard their private information, and the foreseeability of a
data breach, the Defendant failed to implement reasonable and
adequate data security measures, which directly resulted in a data
breach, say the Plaintiffs.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members face a substantial
risk of imminent harm relating to the exposure and misuse of their
private information. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have and will
continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including
but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety
over the misuse of their private information, the suit asserts.
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services and investment
manager with approximately $1.551 trillion of assets under
management as of March 31, 2024, and operations in the United
States, Asia, Europe, and Latin America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Catherine B. Derenze, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad St., Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
cderenze@litedepalma.com
- and -
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th St., Ste 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA M. PARMENTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, TUFTS UNIVERSITY, and DOES
1-50, Case No. 1:22-cv-10079-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting his motion to file documents and
memorandum under seal in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
(1) memorandum in support of motion for class certification;
and
(2) documents and testimony to be filed by Plaintiff in support
of
the motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff intends to file a redacted memorandum on the public
PACER docket.
Sealing is appropriate, and so is filing redacted copies only,
because the memorandum, documents and testimony contain information
that the defendant designated confidential pursuant to the Standing
Order Re: Default Protective Order in Complex Cases Filed Before
Stearns, D.J., date June 1, 2017 (the "Default Protective Order').
The parties have been negotiating the terms of a protective order
and have been cooperating and acting under the Default Protective
Order. To date, the parties have not filed a joint motion for a
protective order but expect to do so soon, but not likely until
after July 22, 2024.
The deadline for moving for class certification is up to and
including July 22, 2024.
Prudential Financial is an American Fortune Global 500 and Fortune
500 company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, retirement
planning, investment management, and other products and services to
both retail and institutional customers throughout the United
States and in over 40 other countries.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=48ZzAL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: Jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
- and -
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: Sean@Neinsurancelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda S. Amert, Esq.
Alexander Owings, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
300 North LaSalle Dr.
Chicago, IL 60654-3406
Telephone: (312) 728-9173
Facsimile: (312) 728-9199
E-mail: aamert@willkie.com
aowings@wilkie.com
RESERVOIR RESTAURANT: Dugan Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Annaliese Dugan and Eline
Bandy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Reservoir Restaurant Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01219-O (N.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
proposed collective of similarly situated employees and authorize
the Plaintiffs' counsel to send the notices attached as Exhibits 8
through 10 via the avenues requested below, to the collective
defined as:
"All individuals who worked as servers for Defendant at any
time
during the three (3) year period preceding the filing of this
lawsuit and were paid a direct cash wage of less than minimum
wage."
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Directing Reservoir to produce, within 14 days of granting this
Motion, a list in a useable electronic (.xls) format of names,
last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and
dates of employment for all members of the collective;
-- Sending the proposed Notice and Consent form via email and text
message to putative collective members; and
-- Allowing them leave for their counsel to be permitted to
maintain
a website limited to posting the approved Notice and Consent
Form;
The action challenges Reservoir's common policy that utilizes
servers to perform both tipped work and non-tipped job duties at a
rate of $2.13 per hour at its bar and restaurant location in
Texas.
Reservoir's practice of paying all its servers $2.13 per hour for
the time spent performing non-tipped work (before, during, and the
end of each shift) violates the FLSA's minimum wage provisions.
Reservoir also requires all its servers to pay for mandatory
uniforms and other non-203(m) items.
The Plaintiffs work or worked for Reservoir as servers at its
restaurant and bar location in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Defendant operates a restaurant business.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rofeef at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
RESONETICS LLC: Court Vacates Class Cert Deadlines in Reyes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER REYES, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. RESONETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-01552-RBM-DTF (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge D. Thomas Ferraro
entered an order vacating class certification deadlines:
Pursuant to Local Rule, 7.2 having reviewed the Joint Motion of the
Parties who have notified the Court that they have reached a
settlement and for good cause appearing.
(1) Pre-class certification discovery cut-off is vacated; and
(2) The deadline to file a motion for class certification is
vacated.
Resonetics provides laser technology services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nI9RSO at no extra
charge.[CC]
RICHARD LLOYD: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Richard Lloyd Marcus, DDS, P.C., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-4810 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Richard Lloyd Marcus for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.longislanddentalspecialty.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.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use the website. He
tried to learn more information about the goods and services
offered by the company on May 29, 2024, but he was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. These access barriers have caused website to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and
visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers
experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to learn more information
about company locations and hours of operation, compare prices and
benefits and learn more information about the goods and services in
its physical location, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Richard Lloyd Marcus' policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Richard Lloyd Marcus, DDS, P.C. provides dental services, including
endodontics, periodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, dental
implants, and other related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
ROCHESTER, MN: Bid for Summary Judgment vs THRE Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tap House Real Estate,
LLC, individually and on behalf of the putative class, v. City of
Rochester, Case No. 0:22-cv-00492-ECT-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon.
Judge Eric Tostrud entered an order that:
1. Defendant City of Rochester's Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted in part and denied in part as described in Part II.
2. Plaintiff Tap House's Motion for Class Certification is
denied.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action to recover fees
paid to Defendant City of Rochester's Transportation Improvement
District Program.
Under the program, the City conditioned building permits in
Transportation Improvement Districts on payment of fees to fund
transportation improvements.
Tap House contends the City lacked statutory authority to collect
the fees and seeks either an equitable refund or compensation under
the Takings Clause. The City moves for summary judgment, and Tap
House moves for class certification.
The City's motion for summary judgment will be granted in part. Tap
House is barred from recovering the voluntary payment of an illegal
tax. And because the payment was voluntary, relegating Tap House to
a pre-deprivation remedy does not violate the Due Process Clause.
However, Tap House's as-applied challenge under the Takings Clause
survives summary judgment; a reasonable factfinder could decide
that the City has not met its burden to prove Tap House's TID fee
was roughly proportional to the traffic impact of Tap House’s new
restaurant.
Tap House's class-certification motion will be denied because
resolving class members’ as-applied takings claims would turn on
individualized proof.
On July 7, 2004, the Rochester City Council passed a resolution
establishing a “Traffic Improvement District Program.” ECF No.
24-1 at 3–14. The resolution authorized the City to establish a
Traffic Improvement District (“TID”) “for any geographic area
of the City experiencing or anticipating new growth and substandard
streets.”
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bul0iX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew L. Davick, Esq.
Anthony J. Nemo, Sr., Esq.
KONSTANDINOS NICKLOW, MESHBESHER & SPENCE
Rochester, MN
and
John Thomas Giesen, Esq.
DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A.
Rochester, MN
The Defendant is represented by:
John M. Baker, Esq.
Gina Tonn, Esq.
Katherine M. Swenson, Esq.
GREENE ESPEL PLLP
Minneapolis, MN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Dismissed in De Tagle Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN DE TAGLE, v. SANTA
CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF, Case No. 5:24-cv-03481-PC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order dismissing complaint in
part, granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis, reclassing
nature of suit, and relating cases.
The Complaint does not state any claim against the Santa Clara
County Sheriff’s Department. This Defendant is dismissed with
leave to amend. The Complaint does not state an ADA claim. This
claim is dismissed.
Liberally construed, the Complaint states an excessive force claim
against Officer Hernandez and a medical needs claim against Officer
Do.
The cases numbered 24-cv-3481-NC and 24-cv-4115-NC are deemed
related to this matter and will be consolidated with this matter
under the case number 24-cv-00556-PCP.
The Clerk shall correct the Nature of Suit of the instant matter to
"446 -- American with Disabilities" to match the Nature of Suit
assigned to Mr. de Tagle's other actions.
For the sake of efficiency, the Court orders Mr. de Tagle to file a
single consolidated amended complaint that includes all of the
claims set forth in the related lawsuits except those that have
been dismissed by this Order. The Court will refrain from ordering
service of Mr. de Tagle’s complaint until after he has filed a
consolidated amended complaint and the Court has had an opportunity
to screen his remaining claims.
Austin de Tagle, formerly an inmate at Santa Clara County Jail,
filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
and the Americans with Disabilities Act concerning events that
occurred during his incarceration. For the reasons stated below,
the Complaint is dismissed in part. As explained below, the Court
concludes two of Mr. de Tagle’s other matters are related to this
lawsuit. Mr. de Tagle shall file a single consolidated amended
complaint in this lawsuit setting forth the claims from all three
suits.
On November 13, 2023, Mr. de Tagle was arrested and placed in Santa
Clara County Jail.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qW5Z29 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCARLETT'S CABARET: Settles Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
Scarlett's Cabaret in Washington Park and its exotic dancers
settled a class action complaint alleging violation of state wage
laws and national labor law.
Athena Herman of Peoria, counsel to dancers Ursula Moffitt and
Kristen White, notified U.S. Magistrate Judge Reona Daly of the
settlement on July 12.
Moffitt and White sued Scarlett's in March 2023, claiming its wage
violations arose from classifying dancers as contractors rather
than employees.
Herman claimed Moffitt, a Missouri resident, performed at
Scarlett's from 2015 to 2022.
According to the lawsuit, White, an Illinois resident, performed
there from 2017 to 2022.
Scarlett's was alleged to have failed to pay minimum wage and
subjected dancers to unlawful kickbacks and deductions.
The club allegedly took and assigned tips in violation of federal
law, state minimum wage law, and state wage payment law.
The lawsuit claimed that a ten year recovery period applied to
claims under wage payment law and a three year period applied to
other claims.
It claimed that the only earned money dancers received was in the
form of tips or gratuities that customers paid directly.
It further claimed Scarlett's required dancers to pay management a
kickback of about $45 to $100 for each shift.
Scarlett's allegedy required dancers to assign to management a
portion of tips including $20 for each booth dance, $75 for each
conversation room dance, and $400 for each "bit room" dance.
It allegedly required them to assign to management up to 40% of
tips they received from customers who paid through a credit card.
And it allegedly required them to assign $30 to $60 per shift to
managers and $10 to $20 to the DJ, the house mom, and security.
Illinois corporation records identify Eric Langan of Houston as
president of RCI Dining Services, the company that owns
Scarlett's.
Benjamin Allen of Houston and Michael Haeberle of Chicago
represented Scarlett's.
Gregg Greenberg of Maryland represented Moffitt and White along
with Herman. [GN]
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action, Senate Inquiry
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Ehrlick, writing for Daily Montanan, reports a
Bozeman-based technology company is at the center of a class-action
lawsuit, a Congressional investigation and a massive data breach
that could affect more than a half billion customers.
Snowflake, Inc., is a cloud-based data hosting company used by some
of the biggest and most recognized companies in America and abroad.
Those companies, including Ticketmaster, AT&T and Advanced Auto
Parts, have housed customers' personally identifying information
with Snowflake, but according to the class-action lawsuit filed in
federal court in Butte, the company didn't take measures to secure
the data, which may have been compromised as early as 2020 through
June 2024.
According to court documents, Snowflake has about 20% of the web
hosting market share globally. Its headquarters are in Bozeman, but
it has divisions scattered throughout the world.
Even as late as June 2024, hackers and cybercriminals were offering
to sell thousands of "print-at-home" tickets to upcoming Taylor
Swift concerts unless Ticketmaster paid an extortion ransom.
A Snowflake spokesperson said the company does not comment on
active litigation.
In the 50-page class action complaint, Billings-based attorney John
Heenan told federal court Judge Brian Morris that millions of
people's personal data, including credit card information, home
addresses and tax information could be used to fraudulently create
new identities, which could lead to loans and purchases that won't
be discovered until long after the money disappears. Moreover, once
the private data has been extracted, it can be sold and resold over
on the dark web, leading to an almost never-ending cycle of
cybercrime and victimization for those targeted by identity fraud.
The lawsuit also claims that Snowflake didn't even take some of the
most basic steps to ensure the data was kept safe. For example, the
suit claims the company didn't require multi-factor authentication
for users and didn't monitor large data downloads on its networks.
Furthermore, the suit claims that even after some of the data
breaches were discovered, the company didn't require users to
change their passwords. All of those measures, the lawsuits claim,
are standard practices for companies specializing in data storage.
The lawsuit also said that Snowflake has nearly 10,000 customers,
including Anheuser-Busch, Mitsubishi, Neiman Marcus, Progressive,
State Farm, and PepsiCo.
"Snowflake could also have better monitored its systems to detect
unusual activity or activity associated with unauthorized access,
including by implementing IP filters and limiting access to its
network environment to only necessary users," the lawsuit claims.
The suit claims that Snowflake had a number of sensitive and
personally identifying records, for example, Social Security
numbers, names, email addresses, driver's licenses, date of birth
and payroll data.
"Soon after they exfiltrated the personally-identifying information
from Snowflake's platform, the threat actors attempted to extort
payments from Snowflake's clients and began publishing samples of
the stolen consumer (information) on dark web marketplaces for sale
to identity thieves and fraudsters," the lawsuit said.
Sometimes, the dark web marketplace data included large batches
like 1 million Ticketmaster customer records released on June 21.
"(Snowflake) disregarded the rights of the plaintiffs and class
members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard
personally-identifiable information from unauthorized access and by
failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of that information," the lawsuit said. "(Snowflake's) woefully
inadequate data security measures made the data breach a
foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its actions and
omissions."
Even more, though, the lawsuit claims that after the data breach
was made public, Snowflake offered false hope that the information
had been recovered and destroyed.
"Even where companies pay for the return of data, attackers often
leak or sell the data regardless because there is no way to verify
copies of the data are destroyed," the class-action lawsuit said.
For example, hackers offered to sell 3 terabytes of data stolen
from Advance Auto Parts for $1.5 million. That information included
380 million customer profiles, 140 million customer orders, and
information on all employment candidates as well as personal
information on 358,000 employees.
Experts warn that while not all the data that was stolen could be
used to hurt customers, it could be paired with data hacked,
stolen, or publicly available to create fuller profiles of
individuals, which then can be packaged for sale to other
criminals. That information, often call a "Fullz package" can be
sold at a higher price, and sold repeatedly.
The lawsuit alleges four civil counts against Snowflake, including
negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment.
Senate investigation
On Tuesday, July 16, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut,
the chairman of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Privacy,
Technology and the Law, along with ranking member Sen. Josh Hawley,
R-Missouri, demanded information on the series of data breaches.
One of the particular areas of concern for the Senate focuses on
the Ticketmaster and Taylor Swift concerts, but also a data breach
of communications giant AT&T.
"Most recently, on July 12, AT&T announced that six months of
customer data hosted on its Snowflake services were illicitly
accessed, including phone call and text message records --
information that can easily provide cybercriminals, spies and
stalkers a logbook of communications and activities of AT&T
customers," the letter from the Senators said.
The letter also chastises Snowflake because it said that the public
is likely unaware of the full extent of the reach.
"The recent AT&T disclosure -- three months after the breach and
following other announced breaches -- raises concerns that we still
do not know the full scope or impact of the campaign targeting
Snowflake customers. Based on its assessment of stolen Snowflake
passwords, Mandiant (a cybersecurity firm) reported that 160 other
organizations could have been targeted in the hacking campaign,"
the letter stated.
The Senate subcommittee is demanding a detailed accounting report
and timeline for all Snowflake data breaches, and the company's
response and investigation into the matter. The Senate also wants
more information about what communication and steps Snowflake has
taken to provide support to those whose data was breached.
"Given that multiple accounts containing a significant amount of
data were illicitly accessed, why did Snowflake not detect the
breaches in time to prevent the theft of customer data?" the letter
asks. [GN]
SNOWFLAKE INC: Layman Files Suit in D. Montana
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc. The
case is styled as Nicholas Layman, Elaine Cheatwood, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00062-TJC (D. Mont., July 22, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Lewis Files Suit in D. Montana
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Erin Lewis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., AT&T, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00064-JTJ (D. Mont., July 23, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brianne C. McClafferty
HOLLAND & HART-BILLINGS
401 North 31st Street, Suite 1500
Billings, MT 59101-1277
Phone: (406) 252-2166
Fax: (406) 545-2266
Email: bcmcclafferty@hollandhart.com
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Altman-Chapman Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southcoast Medical
Group LLC. The case is styled as Kellie Altman-Chapman, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Southcoast Medical
Group LLC, Privia Medical Group of Georgia, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00153-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., July 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
SouthCoast Medical Group -- https://www.southcoasthealth.com/ -- is
a medical group practice located in Savannah, Georgia that
specializes in Family Medicine and Pediatrics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison Elizabeth McCarthy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALLIE MCCARTHY
1055 Prince Avenue, Ste. 2
Athens, GA 30606
Phone: (678) 637-3201
Email: attorneymccarthy@gmail.com
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Graham Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthCoast Medical
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Peggy Graham, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SouthCoast Medical
Group, LLC, Case No. SPCV24-00886-WA (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty.,
July 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other Tort.
Southcoast Medical Group, LLC -- https://www.southcoasthealth.com/
-- provides healthcare services. The Company offers allergy and
immunology, cardiology, eye care, family medicine, surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP LLC
31 Atlanta St SE
Marietta, GA, 30060-1977
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Lewis Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Infosystems
Incorporated. The case is styled as Sydney Lewis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sterling Infosystems
Incorporated, Case No. 4:24-cv-00362-JAS (D. Ariz., July 22,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Sterling Infosystems Inc, doing business as Sterling --
https://www.sterlingcheck.com/ -- provides human resource
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7576
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
STREAM INNOVATIONS: Vogelsang Alleges Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS VOGELSANG, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STREAM INNOVATIONS, INC. D/B/A
STREAM FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No. 24-003093-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th
Judicial, Pinellas Cty., July 11, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The Electronic Communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of
Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to
communicate with him between the said hours. As such, by and
through the Electronic Communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt.
Stream Innovations, Inc. is an American financial technology
company which provides point of sale financing for home improvement
and solar installations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
SYUFY ENTERPRISES: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syufy Enterprises.
The case is styled as Ethan Brown, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. Syufy Enterprises, Case No.
24CV084227 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 22, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Syufy Enterprises -- http://www.villasport.com/-- is a
fast-growing, financially strong Marin-based entertainment and
leisure company that owns a variety of businesses, including
high-end athletic clubs and spas, restaurants, golf venues,
shopping centers, public markets and drive-in theaters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
TRUIST BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to March 4, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN TRUONG, v. TRUIST
BANK, Case No. 3:23-CV-079-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David
Keesler entered an order granting the "Joint Motion To Amend
Scheduling Order as follows:
-- Mediation report: Oct. 28, 2024
-- Plaintiff's expert reports: Dec. 9, 2024
-- The Defendant's expert reports: Jan. 9, 2025
-- Discovery completion: Feb. 18, 2025
-- Class certification motion: March 4, 2025
-- Dispositive motions: May 21, 2025
-- Trial date: Aug. 18, 2025
Truist operates as a bank.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xSP3Bl at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED DEBT: Miller Wins Renewed Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL MILLER, et al., v.
UNITED DEBT SETTLEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02210-SDM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah Morrison entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.
As the Court has stated, the claims of each potential class member
are virtually identical. Each Named Plaintiff and each putative
class member were subject to the same wrongful conduct by the
Defendants. Consolidation of the claims in this case into a class
action would serve efficiency and fairness.
The Court appoints Jeremiah E. Heck of Luftman, Heck & Associates
and Brian Garvine of Garvine Law as class counsel.
Angel Miller and Steven VanNess filed this putative class action
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
against United Debt Settlement, LLC; Everything is in Stock, LLC
d/b/a Elite Restaurant Equipment; Marcel Bluvstein; and Gabriel
Gorelik.
After they were served with process, United Debt Settlement,
Everything is in Stock, and Mr. Gorelik failed to answer or
otherwise plead in response to the Complaint; the Clerk entered
default against the three Defendants.
The Plaintiffs failed to effect service on Mr. Bluvstein, so he was
dismissed from the case without prejudice.
Here, to align the class with the allegations in the Complaint and
to ensure that all class members were harmed in the same particular
way as the Named Plaintiffs, the Court redefines Plaintiffs'
proposed class as follows:
"Ohio citizens on the prescreened lists Defendants obtained,
either directly or through an agent, from May 1, 2017 to the
present to market debt settlement and debt repair services."
United Debt provides financial advice and education which helps
reduce debt.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9NPWRk at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITEDLEX CORP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Krant Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY KRANT, TODD DEATON,
THOMAS NASH, SHANA VACHHANI and KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDLEX CORP.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02443-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel
Crabtree entered an order certifying a Settlement Class under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), for settlement purposes only,
defined as:
"the 7,588 individuals identified on the Settlement Class
List,
which includes all U.S. residents whose PII was compromised as
a
result of the Data Breach."
Excluded from the Settlement Class is ULX, its representatives
and
any judicial officer presiding over this matter, members of
their
immediate family, and members of their judicial staff.
The court appoints Norman E. Siegel and J. Austin Moore of Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, Bryce Bell of Bell Law, LLC, Tyler W. Hudson of
Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP, Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A., and
Rachel Dapeer of Dapeer Law, P.A. as Interim Class Counsel pursuant
to Rule 23(g)(3).
The court finds that it likely can approve the proposed Settlement
because all the relevant factors weigh in favor of approving the
proposed Settlement between plaintiffs and ULX. Accordingly, the
court preliminarily approves the Settlement between plaintiffs and
ULX as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further
consideration at the Final Approval Hearing, as described below.
UnitedLex provides consulting services. The Company offers services
such as litigation support, project management, law firm solutions,
intellectual property, data hosting, and legal staffing.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Y25aU at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Record Status Conference Set for August 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAD M. SCHUTTS, et al.,
v. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS, Case No. 2:24-cv-02420-CFK (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad Kenney entered an order that an on the
record status conference is scheduled for Monday, August 12, 2024,
at 11:30 a.m.
The Court further entered an order that the parties shall be
prepared to address all relevant topics, including but not limited
to:
1) whether all employees have been paid for hours actually
worked,
2) exchange of the list of putative class members,
3) exchange of the wage and benefits information of putative
class
members,
4) the status of Defendant's available financing in this
litigation,
5) any potential objections to class certification,
6) any potential defenses Defendant anticipates raising on the
merits,
7) the preparation of class certification documents,
8) the development of pathways to resolution.
University of the Arts was a private arts university in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its campus made up part of the Avenue
of the Arts cultural district in Center City, Philadelphia.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NHIsK8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
US TSUBAKI: Pepperling Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN PEPPERLING, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. US TSUBAKI HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01172-JZ (N.D. Ohio, July 11, 2024) is a collective
action brought by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's
practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, for all
hours worked and failing to include bonuses, commissions, and/or
other remuneration earned in the regular rate of pay for purposes
of calculating their overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between January 2024
and June 2024 as a machine operator/large press operator at its
Sandusky, Ohio facility.
US Tsubaki Holdings Inc. manufactures and distributes power
transmission components.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
VICOR CORP: Pouladian Sues Over False Info Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN POULADIAN, AARON GOLDMAN, DAVID MEAD, DR. VIJAYKUMAR
AGRAWAL, TIMOTHY MCKILLICAN, ZI XU, DANIEL POGREBINSKY, and KENT
MAGUIRE, Plaintiffs v. VICOR CORPORATION and PATRIZIO VINCIARELLI,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04196 (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2024) seeks
damages for Defendants' breaches of Section 10b of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiffs were short sellers of Defendant Vicor Corporation's
stock during June and July 2023. On July 25, 2023, Defendant
Patrizio Vinciarelli -- the CEO of Vicor Corporation at the time
and continuing to this day -- announced on a call that Vicor
Corporation had entered into a substantial contract with one of its
"significant" existing customers which would ramp up at the end of
the year in the fourth quarter. Given that it was already known
that Vicor Corporation's two major customers were Nvidia and
Google, the stock shot up almost immediately. Relying on the news
and the price increase, each Plaintiff was forced to cover their
short positions -- which included certain derivative securities for
some, suffering substantial losses.
On its Q3 investor call held on October 24, 2023, Vicor Corporation
announced struggles, and for the first time revealed the truth that
there was no "significant customer" contract, and that any growth
was expected to occur in the "medium to long term" -- meaning, 2025
or 2026. Overnight, the stock came careening back down and settled
well below where it had been three months earlier -- at or near the
price that Plaintiffs believed they would have covered their shorts
for a significant profit, the suit alleges.
Because this action involves Defendants' failure to disclose
materially adverse information regarding the Vicor's business,
operations, and prospects -- information that Defendants were
obligated to disclose during the Class Period but did not --
positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery. All
that is necessary is that the facts withheld be material in the
sense that a reasonable investor might have considered them
important in the making of investment decisions, the Plaintiffs
assert.
Vicor Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
modular power components and complete power systems for delivering
electrical power for deployment in high performance computing,
industrial equipment and automation, robotics, unmanned and manned
vehicles, and satellites, among other areas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900W
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 432-2899
Facsimile: (214) 853-4367
E-mail: mas@sbaitilaw.com
WAKEFERN FOOD: Barnes Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BARNES, ETTA
LOBEL, AND STEPHANIE NOVAK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORP., Case No.
7:22-cv-06089-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered
an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice to renewal in accordance with Rule 2(C) of this
Court's Individual Practices.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion sequences
pending at Doc. 48.
Wakefern is an American company that was founded in 1946 and is
based in Keasbey, New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q9Pbnb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WALT DISNEY: Thompson Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT THOMPSON,
individually and as parent and guardian of his Minor Child A.T.,
and DANIELLE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Case No.
2:23-cv-09441-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs , on Aug. 22,
2024, will move the Court for an extension of time for deadlines
and modified scheduling orders.
Motion or Stipulation to Amend 30 days after Order on
as to Any Claims, Defenses, Motion to Dismiss
and/or Parties
Fact Discovery Completed 6 months after Order on
Motion
to Dismiss
Deadline to complete their settlement conference before a private
mediator. 6 months after Order on Motion to Dismiss Initial Expert
Witness Disclosures Deadline.
On Feb. 1, 2024, this Court entered the Scheduling Orders, which
provided deadlines for the litigation of the putative class action
as well as the named Plaintiffs' individual claims.
The Walt Disney Company is an American multinational mass media and
entertainment conglomerate that is headquartered at the Walt Disney
Studios.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xKiiyD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
6057 Metropolitan Plz.
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (314) 662-2836
E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Gutierrez Set for August 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gutierrez v. Webcollex,
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 25, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order setting the hearing for
class certification motions on Aug. 14, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
Webcollex is a third-party debt collector.[CC]
WYNDHAM VACATION: Plaintiffs Allowed to Refer Confidential Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER,
ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and ROBERT GRANT WESTON, Individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION
RESORTS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-RGA-LDH (D. Del.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Andrews entered an order allowing the Plaintiffs the
leave to refer to confidential information that is contained in
document numbers WVR 359013, WVR 359029, WVR 541806, WVR 541807,
and WVR 359022 at the July 22, 2024 class certification hearing.
Wyndham is an American hospitality company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=akMzId at no extra
charge.[CC]
XAVIER BECERRA: Standing Order Entered in Ardelyx Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARDELYX, INC., et al., v.
XAVIER BECERRA, et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-02095-BAH (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Beryl Howell entered a standing order for civil case as
follows:
-- A defendant removing an action to this Court must refile any
answer filed before removal and promptly ensure that all
parties
receive a copy of this Standing Order.
-- Any motion pending in the court from which the case is removed
at
the time of removal must be refiled in this Court by the party
seeking relief.
-- Any motion pending and unresolved in the court from which the
case
is transferred at the time of transfer must be refiled in this
Court by the party seeking relief within seven days after the
transfer order is filed in this Court's docket.
-- A defendant who did not answer the complaint before transfer
must
answer or make any motion otherwise authorized under Federal
Rule
of Civil Procedure 12, within 21 days after the transfer order
is
filed in this Court's docket.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jrhcdl at no extra
charge.[CC]
[*] Federal Courts Grapple With Privacy Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy of Pierce Atwood LLP, writing for National Law
Review, reports that in 2023, we discussed the uptick in data
privacy and cybersecurity class action lawsuits; as expected, this
trend has persisted throughout 2024 as plaintiffs continue to test
new theories of liability and the boundaries of constitutional
standing. In privacy class actions before the federal courts of the
First Circuit, plaintiffs have brought state tort and contract law
claims, as well as privacy-specific statutes, in their attack on
businesses' electronic data collection practices. These claims can
be separated into two distinct categories: the first is based on
electronic data breaches, in which an unauthorized party accesses
private information; and the second rests on a theory of digital
surveillance, when a user's online activity is collected and shared
with a third party, allegedly without the user's consent. In the
first half of 2024, four motions to dismiss four such class action
cases were adjudicated -- three in Massachusetts federal district
court and one on appeal to the First Circuit. In each of the three
cases before the District of Massachusetts, the court denied the
motions to dismiss class action privacy claims.
Data Breach Claims Survive Dismissal Despite "Tenuous" Injuries
The District Court of Massachusetts recently considered a motion to
dismiss the claims asserted in Weekes v. Cohen Cleary, P.C., which
concerns a law firm's data security practices. Following an
electronic data breach that exposed personal client information to
hackers, a representative plaintiff brought negligence and
contract-based claims for monetary and injunctive relief. The court
permitted the negligence claim for damages against the firm to
continue, while it dismissed the plaintiffs' contract-based claims
and request for an injunction. In discussing the plaintiffs'
standing to seek monetary relief, the court expressed skepticism
about "tenuous" allegations that any actual misuse of personally
identifiable information (PII) had occurred but decided the
complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to survive the motion to
dismiss. The analysis relied heavily on last year's First Circuit
decision in Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy, LLC., in which the
court held that alleged actual misuse of data acquired in the
breach established a cognizable injury, but also concluded that the
exposure to material risk of future misuse of highly sensitive
information, and the expenditure of productive time to address that
risk, can establish Article III standing. In a prior post, we
highlighted the potential for Webb to invite plaintiffs to assert
claims based on purported exposure to future misuse and alleged
mitigation costs based on loose inferences, and the Weekes decision
validates that prediction.
VPPA and Wiretap Claims in the Context of Digital Privacy
The remaining three cases concern the alleged non-consensual
disclosure of consumers' PII to third parties, with plaintiffs
relying on novel claims under federal video privacy and state
wiretap laws. These statutes were enacted before the digital age
but have been recently redeployed by plaintiffs in new contexts to
assert new theories of class action privacy liability not
originally contemplated by these laws. For a more comprehensive
discussion of privacy claims commonly asserted by plaintiffs, see
our prior alert on this topic.
The District Court of Massachusetts recently considered a motion to
dismiss one such case in Saunders v. Hearst Television, Inc., where
consumers sued pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)
the owner of several mobile news applications (apps) for
purportedly non-consensually disclosing to a third party its users'
PII along with a record of every video they viewed via the app.
While some defendants have successfully dismissed VPPA claims for
failing to meet the statutory definition of "video tape service
provider," the Saunders court determined that Hearst's claim it was
not a video tape service provider was "too narrow a reading of the
VPPA," because, although the VPPA was "originally passed in the era
of rental video stores, Congress amended the VPPA in 2012" to
include "‘on-demand' cable services and Internet streaming." On
this and other bases, the court denied Hearst's motion to dismiss
in its entirety.
Massachusetts federal courts also grappled with applying state
wiretap laws to new digital contexts at the same time the
Commonwealth's highest court is considering the same question. In
Doe v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, plaintiffs sued a healthcare
company for purportedly tracking users' PII and/or protected
healthcare information without consent and allegedly transmitting
that data to third-parties. The plaintiffs' claims run the gamut
from state negligence and contract law to state statutory consumer
protection and privacy law. The District of Massachusetts denied
the defendant's motion to dismiss most of the claims asserted. Of
note is the court's comment on the question of whether analytics
software that captures users' website activity is eavesdropping
under the Massachusetts wiretap statute. The District of
Massachusetts observed that this very same issue is currently
pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in
Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, No. SJC-13542, and deferred
ruling on the issue until after the SJC's forthcoming decision. And
while the First Circuit had the opportunity to address the
potential applicability of Massachusetts' wiretap laws to website
technology in Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, it dismissed the
case on procedural grounds, leaving the SJC poised to decide the
question first.
What to Watch for in Pending Privacy Class Action Cases
The resolution of Vita will govern the trajectory of wiretap claims
based on website activity and determine how the Commonwealth's
wiretap statute, which was enacted before the advent of the
Internet, applies in the digital landscape. Possible future summary
judgment and class certification decisions rulings in the three
privacy class actions permitted to proceed past the pleading stage
before the District of Massachusetts -- Cohen Cleary, Hearst
Television, Inc., and Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- will also
have the potential to shape privacy litigation in the First Circuit
for years to come. [GN]
*********
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 ***