/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240802.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 2, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 155
Headlines
1 LIFE FIRE: Faces Rouse Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
3M CO: Discovery in Maine PFAS-Related Suit Ongoing
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS-Related Suit Extended Until October
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in PFAS Contamination-Related Suit
3M CO: Faces PFAS Contamination Class Suit in Connecticut
3M CO: Faces PFAS-Related Class Suit in Missouri
7-ELEVEN INC: Warfield-Palmer Sues Over Unpaid Wages
A-LINE STAFFING: Viviani Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
ABILENE TEACHERS: Placker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALLAN CARLIN: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in William
AMPEX DATA SYSTEMS: DINH Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ANN & ROBERT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Nolan Suit Says
APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS: Martin Sues Over Sales Tax on Delivery Fees
APPLIED DIGITAL: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint w/o Prejudice
ARBOR VINEYARDS: Villa Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Plaintiffs File Voluntary Dismissal Notice
ASPIRE BRANDS: Dimarco Files Suit in E.D. New York
ASR GROUP: Veneziano Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Prices
AT&T MOBILITY: Young Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
AUTOLIV INC: Named in Airbag Safety Litigation in Georgia Court
BASSETT FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Harrell Says
BIOGEN INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Must Produce 135 Recordings by August 19
BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date Set for Securities Class Suit
BROWNSTONE PROPERTY: Jimenez Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
CAL CLOSET RETAIL: Hinojosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CEDAR FAIR: Plaintiffs Has Until August 20 to File Reply Brief
CITIBANK NA: Hernandez-Manzano Balks at Illegal Collection of Fees
CITY CENTRE: Facilities Inaccessible to the Disabled, Feltzin Says
CLOUD HEALTH SYSTEMS: Flowers Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
COASTAL TRUCKING: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CONNECTICUT: Lindsay Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Acquittees
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Guy
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
CP ENERGY SERVICES: Hunt Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CRICKET WIRELESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morgan Suit Says
CVS HEALTH: Nixon Sues Over Share Price Drop
DEALERTRACK SYSTEMS: Rodriguez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
DISTRICT WORKS: Jumahan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIVERSIFIED GLOBAL: Tucker Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
DSCC LLC: Betanco Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
EGGLAND'S BEST: Faces Janecyk Suit Over "Cage Free Eggs" Claims
EGGLANDS BEST: Cavallaro-Kearins Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Bialic Class Suit in Calif.
ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Class Suit in Calif.
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Devlin Balks at Misleading Account Statements
EXAMONE WORLD: Must File Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony by Aug. 29
FIVE POINT: Faces Class Suit Over Misrepresentation
FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Service Interruptions Class Suit
GAP INC: Faces Cho Suit Over Products' False Price Discounts
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trial for Hachem Suit Set for November 2024
GENERAL MOTORS: Cashon Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 28, 2025
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
GREATER HOMECARE: Warren Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES: Wendelken Files Suit Over Data Breach
HEALTH CAREER: Seeks to Continue Class Status Bid Hearing
HONDA MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 8
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Allegedly Sells Personal Info, Kennemur Says
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Owens Says
INSURALIFE INSURANCE: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in California
JAN'S BOUTIQUE: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JEFF SANDY: Settlement Deal in Rose Suit Gets Initial Nod
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pederson Suit in Texas Court
LAMB WESTON: Continues to Defend Cleveland Bakers Securities Suit
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Parker Suit Removed to C.D. California
LIFEPOINT BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LUCA FALONI: Pollitt Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MANIPAL EDUCATION: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
MAUI, HI: Stover Files Suit in D. Hawaii
MAXLINEAR INC: Continues to Defend HBK Master Class Suit
MAXLINEAR INC: Continues to Defend Water Island Class Suit
MDL 1720: Mirage Suit Consolidated in Payment Card Antitrust Row
MDL 2151: Daugherty Added to Toyota Unintended Acceleration Row
MDL 2433: Cooper Consolidated in EI Du Pont Water Contamination Row
MDL 2741: Gomez Consolidated in Roundup Products Liability Row
MICHAEL KORS: Parties Must File Joint Case Management Plan
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Jones Balks at Unprotected Customers' Personal Info
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Summary Judgment Bid in Class Suit Pending
MORPHIC HOLDING: Zappia Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Cabezas Class Suit
NAUTICA RETAIL: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Strickland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NEW BERN TRANSPORT: Cuellar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NEXT BRIDGE HYDROCARBONS: Faces Targgart Securities Class Suit
O'GRADY-PEYTON: Camacho Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OCEAN GROUP: Faces Mori Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PATINA RESTAURANT: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PHX MINERALS: Faces Schilling Securities Suit in Delaware
PROFESSIONAL LABOR: Mansfield Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
PTC SOLUTIONS: Isom Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Final Hearing on Settlement OK Set for Nov. 13
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Summary Judgment on ERISA Suit Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Class Suit vs Subsidiary Stayed
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery in AMCA Data Security Suit Ongoing
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement Deal in Bickman Suit Pending Court OK
R-N-R VINEYARD: Zavala Sues Over Unpaid Wages
ROCKLAND, NY: Court Junks Deide First Amended Complaint
S&S WORLDWIDE: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SENTRY COMMUNICATIONS: Trimble Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
SHEIN US: Parties in Noel Suit Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
SHOUT! FACTORY: Welbel Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
SILVER RAIN: Ezenwa Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mirvis Says
SNOWFLAKE INC: Miller Files Suit in D. Montana
SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Lockette Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Whatley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Reset to August 12
STOP & SHOP: Must Respond to Plaintiff's Letter by August 29
SUNSHINE JEWELRY: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
T D HARRIS: Robertson Seeks Dump Truck Operators' Unpaid OT
T-MOBILE USA: Oddo Sues Over Wireless Phone Services' False Ads
T.L. CANNON: Dees Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint
T.L. CANNON: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint
TACO BRASSERIE: Faces Portillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TAYLOR MORRISON: Legal Fees Claims Hearings Set for Third Quarter
TESLA INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in California
TESLA INC: Continues to Defend FSD Capability-Related Class Suit
TESLA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over False Advertising
TJX Companies: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says
TMLK INC: Owen-Brooks Files TCPA Suit in E.D. North Carolina
TRUE VALUE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Suit Says
TWITTER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 23
US METRO GROUP: Rios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
USF HOLLAND: Rashad Cannot Pursue ADA Claims Against Managers
VANILLA CHIP: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
VICOR CORPORATION: Valiquette Sues Over Securities Laws Violation
VISA INC: Mirage Wine Class Suit Remanded to S.D. Ill.
VISA INC: Settlement Deal in Mackmin Suit for Initial Approval
WENDYS OF THE PACIFIC: Foster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
XAVIER BECERRA: HonorHealth Files Suit in D. Arizona
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Rejects Penn National's Bid To Avoid Coverage
*********
1 LIFE FIRE: Faces Rouse Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
KENTUAN LANIER XAVIER SHAKKUR ROUSE, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1 LIFE FIRE
SAFETY, CORP., ABC FIRE LIFE SAFETY INC., CLIFTON DUGGAN, and AGYEI
DUGGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04850 (E.D.N.Y., July 12,
2024) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor practices.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper
overtime, failure to provide written notice of the rate or rates of
pay and the basis thereof, failure to pay commissions, and
engagement in retaliatory conduct and wrongful termination for his
complaint of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime.
Plaintiff Rouse resides in the State of New York and began his
employment with Defendants from November 2021 until his termination
on March 23, 2023.
1 Life Fire Safety, Corp. provides fire protection services in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Grace, Esq.
Yuting Li, Esq.
DANNY GRACE PLLC
225 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 202-2485
3M CO: Discovery in Maine PFAS-Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2024, that the Maine PFAS-related class suit
discovery is ongoing.
In Maine, a group of landowners filed a second amended complaint in
October 2022 in federal district court, adding 3M and several other
alleged chemical suppliers as defendants in a case previously filed
against several paper mills, alleging PFAS contamination from waste
generated by the paper mills.
The lawsuit seeks to recover for alleged property damage.
In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint limiting
the scope of their claims to allegations pertaining to one paper
mill and three defendants that allegedly supplied PFAS-containing
products to that mill, including 3M.
In October 2023, the court denied 3M's motion to dismiss the case.
The case is now proceeding in discovery.
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
3M CO: Discovery in PFAS-Related Suit Extended Until October
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2024, that the federal court of Georgia
extended the discovery of PFAS contamination-related class suit to
October 2024.
In Georgia, 3M, together with co-defendants, is also defending
another putative class action in federal court in Georgia, in which
plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a class of individual
ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege their water supply
was contaminated by PFAS discharged from a textile mill.
In May 2021, the City of Summerville filed a motion to intervene in
the lawsuit, which was granted in March 2022.
This case is now proceeding through discovery, which has been
extended by the court through October 2024.
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in PFAS Contamination-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2024, that the discovery is ongoing for the
Delaware PFAS contamination-related class suit.
In Delaware, 3M is defending one putative class action brought by
individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their water supply
resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities.
Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating
facilities.
DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been named as
defendants.
This case was removed to federal court, and in September 2022, the
court dismissed all but plaintiffs' negligence claim.
In November 2022, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
seeking to replead certain previously dismissed claims and, in
August 2023, the court once again dismissed all but plaintiffs'
negligence claim.
The case is now proceeding in discovery.
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
3M CO: Faces PFAS Contamination Class Suit in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2024, that the Company has not yet responded
to the PFAS contamination class suit in Connecticut.
In Connecticut, in June 2024, 3M and numerous other defendants were
sued in a putative class action brought by individual firefighters
and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from
certain turnout gear worn by the class members.
3M has not yet responded to this complaint.
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
3M CO: Faces PFAS-Related Class Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------
3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2024, that the Company has not yet responded
to the PFAS contamination class suit in Missouri.
In Missouri, in April 2024, 3M and certain DuPont-related entities
were added as defendants to a pending putative class action brought
by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their properties and
drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern
Missouri.
3M filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in June 2024.
3M has not yet responded to the complaint.
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
Based in Minnesota, 3M Company is a multinational conglomerate that
operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and
consumer goods. [BN]
7-ELEVEN INC: Warfield-Palmer Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Paige Warfield-Palmer, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00902 (M.D.
Tenn., July 24, 2024), is brought against the Defendant who failed
to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
Specifically, the Defendant failed to pay wages to Plaintiff for
performing work both before and after her assigned work shifts and
in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of
Defendant's policies and practice of failing to pay sufficient
wages and proper overtime compensation under the FLSA. Upon
information and belief, within the three years prior to the filing
of the Complaint, Defendant has willfully and intentionally
committed violations of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.
The Defendant is a limited liability company registered to do
business in Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
Heather Moore Collins, Esq.
HMC CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PLLC
7000 Executive Center Dr., Suite 320
Brentwood, TN 37027
Phone: 615-724-1996
Fax: 615-691-7019
Email: heather@hmccivilrights.com
A-LINE STAFFING: Viviani Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Viviani, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A-LINE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, Case No.
2:24-cv-11917-SKD-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 26, 2024), is brought
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network,
including, without limitation, full names, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers, driver's license, and employment related
information (these types of information, inter alia, being
thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable
information" or "PII").
With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by
Defendant on June 3, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected ("Data
Breach").
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
June 3, 2024, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach
until July 19, 2024. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from
Defendant informing them of it. The Defendant acquired, collected,
and stored the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Therefore, at
all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that the
Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store
and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
state and federal statutes and regulations, and common law
principles.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant.
The Defendant is a staffing company that provides workers in the
healthcare, professional, and information technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 357-1732
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
ABILENE TEACHERS: Placker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abilene Teachers
Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Tara Placker, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Abilene Teachers
Federal Credit Union, Case No. 13365-D (Tex. Dist. Ct., Taylor
Cty., July 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "All Other Civil Cases."
Abilene Teachers Federal Credit Union --
https://www.abileneteachersfcu.org/ -- is a member-owned financial
coop.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
Phone: 214-755-7777
ALLAN CARLIN: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in William
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM GOTTLIEB
MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, v. ALLAN CARLIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-08907-VM-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management.
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the
relevant discovery deadline set by the Court.
-- The Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiff on July 19, 2024, does
not stay discovery. All deadlines set by the Court remain in
effect.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i6c65q at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPEX DATA SYSTEMS: DINH Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMPEX DATA SYSTEMS
CORPORATION. The case is styled as Ben Dinh, H, an individual, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMPEX DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 24CV084864 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., July 25, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Ampex Data Systems Corporation -- https://www.ampex.com/ -- is an
American electronics company.[BN]
ANN & ROBERT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Nolan Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK NOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANN & ROBERT H. LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF
CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05901 (N.D. Ill., July 12,
2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly protect the
highly sensitive personally identifiable information and personal
health information it collects, including that of the Plaintiff and
its minor patients, allowing hackers to exfiltrate the highly
sensitive information entrusted to Defendant.
According to the complaint, between January 26 and 31, 2024, at
least one unauthorized third party accessed the data of at least
791,784 patients during a cyber-attack that required Defendant to
take certain electronic systems offline "to protect [its] systems
and [its] ability to continue operations." The compromised data
included minor patients' and other individuals' names, addresses,
dates of birth, dates of service, driver's license numbers, email
addresses, health claims information, health plans, health plan
beneficiary numbers, medical conditions or diagnoses, medical
record numbers, medical treatments, prescription information,
Social Security numbers, and telephone numbers, says the suit.
As a direct result of Defendant's alleged negligent, reckless,
intentional, and/or unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy
its obligations, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and PHI was
accessed and acquired by unauthorized third parties for the purpose
of misusing the data and causing further irreparable harm to the
personal, financial, medical, and future well-being of patients and
individuals who provided Defendant with their PII and PHI.
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago is a
nationally ranked pediatric acute care children's hospital located
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
megan@feganscott.com
APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS: Martin Sues Over Sales Tax on Delivery Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No.
CACE-24-010357 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 23, 2024) is a
class action for damages, and for injunctive and declaratory relief
to stop the Defendant from charging and collecting sales tax on
delivery fees from customers who order food from the Defendant in
Florida when the fee could have been avoided by the decision or
action of the customer.
In Florida, sales tax may only be imposed on the total sales price
of taxable tangible property. The sales price is the total amount
paid for tangible goods, including services that are part of the
sale. However, when a customer has the option to either pick up the
goods or have the goods delivered by the seller, a seller may not
legally charge sales tax on a separate charge for deliver, that
suit says.
The Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:
"All persons in Florida who, during the four years prior to the
filing of this lawsuit, was charged by Defendant and paid sales
tax on a delivery fee that was separately stated on an invoice
or receipt when the person had the option to pick up the order
at one of Defendant's locations in Florida."
The Defendant operates an online marketplace that sells a variety
of food items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW PA
515 E Las Olas Blvd.,Ste 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
Telephone: (954) 732-2792
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
APPLIED DIGITAL: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Digital Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K for the
current report dated July 19, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 19, 2024, that on June 5, 2024, the
court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss a
February 27, 2024 amended complaint without prejudice. The order
dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the
company.
In August 2023, the company and several of its executives were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit that was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned
"McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation et al.," Case No.
3:23-cv-1805. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been named in
the case and have until July 22, 2024 to file an amended
complaint.
In November 2023, a putative securities complaint (No.
A-23-881629-C), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada against certain members of the Board and two of
its executive officers, asserting breaches of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment from April 2022 through the present. The
complaint also alleged that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint
alleged that the company overstated the profitability of the
Datacenter Hosting Business and its ability to successfully
transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the
Board was not "independent" within the meaning of Nasdaq listing
rules.
Applied Digital Corporation is a developer and operator of digital
infrastructures based in Texas.
ARBOR VINEYARDS: Villa Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Villa, Jesus Zavala, and Jose Arellano, on behalf of
themselves, the State of California, all similarly situated
aggrieved employees, and all others similarly situated v. ARBOR
VINEYARDS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-at-00940 (E.D. Cal., July 24, 2024), is
brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and a
collective action pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Workers Protection Act ("AWPA") and the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), including the California Labor Code
and Wage Orders, and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") as
a result of the Defendant's failure to pay all wages it owed.
This action arises out of Defendant's failure to pay non-exempt
employees all wages it owed them by failing to pay for rest and
recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any
piece rate compensation and failing to provide non-exempt employees
with legally compliant meal periods. As a result, Defendant failed
to pay non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and the class,
all wages owed to them upon discharge (including seasonal layoffs)
or resignations in conformance with California law.
The core violations Plaintiffs allege against Defendant, for
themselves and the class, are: failure to provide meal periods or
appropriately compensate employees in lieu thereof; failure to pay
minimum and premium overtime; failure to pay/compensate non-exempt
employees for rest and recovery periods and/or other nonproductive
time separate from any piece-rate compensation; failure to pay all
wages owed upon separation from employment; failure to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements; failure to pay Plaintiffs for
all hours worked; failure to reimburse necessary business
expenditures; and failure to pay taxes, social security,
disability, unemployment, worker's compensation, Medicare, and
other required obligations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed directly or jointly by Defendant.
Arbor Vineyards, Inc. is a California Corporation which conducts
business in and around the district, including in San Joaquin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R Martinez, Esq.
Cody A. Bolce, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Phone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Plaintiffs File Voluntary Dismissal Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential REIT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Javelin class
suit plaintiffs filed voluntary dismissal notice.
Nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the tender offer and merger for JAVELIN alleging, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duties and seeking equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
transactions, or rescind or unwind the transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.
On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.
On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling.
The Court deferred ruling on the Motion to Dismiss several times.
On February 14, 2024, the Court issued an order granting
defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed all of plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice, and without leave to amend.
On March 11, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's order of dismissal.
On July 3, 2024, plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal
of the previously filed appeal.
Armour Residential REIT, Inc. is an investment advisor based in
Maryland.
ASPIRE BRANDS: Dimarco Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspire Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Sara Dimarco, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. Aspire Brands, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-05021-NCM-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Aspire Brands -- https://www.aspirebrands.com/ -- is a strategic
distribution agency. We partner with passionate brand owners to
grow the value of their brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 201
Bronx, NY 10469
Phone: (718) 708-5322
Fax: (708) 708-5966
Email: michael@gabriellilaw.com
ASR GROUP: Veneziano Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Prices
-------------------------------------------------------
James Veneziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING,
INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; UNITED SUGAR
PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION;
COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Case No.
0:24-cv-02933 (D. Minn., July 24, 2024), is brought on behalf of
consumer purchasers of Granulated Sugar in the United States under
the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act as
well as the antitrust and trade regulation laws, and common law for
redress of the injury and damages caused by Defendants' conspiracy
to fix prices of granulated sugar in the United States from at
least as early as January 1, 2019, through the date by which the
anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased,
but in any case no earlier than the present (the "Class Period").
Beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, Defendants
conspired to fix and artificially inflate the prices of Granulated
Sugar sold in the United States. To implement their price-fixing
conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive,
non-public information about Granulated Sugar prices, capacity,
sales volume, supply, and demand.
Among the victims of the conspiracy are U.S. consumers of
Granulated Sugar, such as Plaintiff. But for their conspiracy and
unlawful acts in furtherance, Plaintiff and members of the Class
would have paid less for Granulated Sugar than they did during the
Class Period. Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the
injury and damages he and members of the Class have suffered and
continue to suffer by reason of Defendants' continuing violations
of law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Granulated Sugar, including Domino brand
Granulated Sugar.
ASR Group is a privately held Florida corporation and global
producer and seller of Granulated Sugar based in West Palm Beach,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq., Esq.
Peter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Sitso Bediako, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
pstphillip@lowey.com
sbediako@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
nveno@lowey.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Young Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, and AT&T INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03185-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 19, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence/negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of
privacy, unauthorized disclosure of customer proprietary
information, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals following a data
breach on Snowflake's systems discovered in April 2024. The
Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
AT&T Mobility, LLC is a wireless voice and data communications
services provider headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
AT&T Inc. is a multinational telecommunications holding company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent M. Kaufman, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
One Glenlake Parkway NE, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (843) 222-2222
Email: teamkaufman@poulinwilley.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
AUTOLIV INC: Named in Airbag Safety Litigation in Georgia Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 19, 2024, that Autoliv and some of its
subsidiaries have been named as one of several defendants in a
consolidated class action lawsuit in a multi-district litigation
caption "In Re: ARC Airbag Inflators Products Liability
Litigation," MDL, No. 3051 in the Northern District of Georgia.
The plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation brought claims for
fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection
and trade practices stemming from the "ARC" inflators included in
airbag modules that Autoliv or its subsidiaries allegedly supplied
after Autoliv acquired certain Delphi assets in December 2009.
Autoliv, Inc.is an automotive safety supplier based in Sweden.
BASSETT FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Harrell Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-07808 (D.N.J., July 16, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to make its website,
https://www.bassettfurniture.com/, accessible to Plaintiff and
other legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, the Plaintiff quickly became
aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in
a way to make it fully accessible for herself and for other blind
or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
the ability to frequent the physical locations and other services
offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under ADA,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. is a furniture manufacturer and
retailer, headquartered in Bassett, Virginia.[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
BIOGEN INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS,
and ALISHA ALAIMO, Case No. 1:22-cv-10200-WGY (D. Mass.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to
file the sur-reply memorandum and the accompanying declaration in
further opposition to the Firefighters' pending motion for class
certification.
On May 10, 2024, pursuant to the Court's case management order in
this action, the Firefighters moved to certify this action as a
class action.
On June 21, 2024, the Defendants opposed that motion.
On July 19, 2024, the Firefighters filed a twenty-page reply in
further support of their motion. That reply largely addresses
matters first raised in the Defendants' opposition, and makes
numerous arguments not raised in the Firefighters' opening
memorandum.
The Defendants' proposed sur-reply memorandum will address the
matters newly raised in the Firefighters' reply and accordingly
will assist the Court in its consideration of the Firefighters'
motion for class certification. That sur-reply will not delay the
adjudication of the Firefighters' motion because the sur-reply is
short and already complete.
Biogen develops, manufactures, and commercializes therapies,
focusing on neurology, oncology, and immunology.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ME59Wd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
James R. Carroll, Esq.
Michael S. Hines, Esq.
Yaw A. Anim, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
500 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 573-4800
E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
michael.hines@skadden.com
yaw.anim@skadden.com
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Must Produce 135 Recordings by August 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ALLEN PHILLIPS, et
al., v. BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, et al., Case
No. 2:19-cv-02402-TC-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Brooks Severson
entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to
compel:
The Court finds that the requested recordings, on their face, are
relevant and important to the case, but that requiring production
of calls related to all 111 class members is disproportionate to
the needs of the case because of the time and expense required for
such production.
The Court finds that production of a sampling, as previously agreed
upon, is not disproportionate to the needs of the case and orders
production of the same.
The Defendants produce the remaining 135 recordings from the
previously agreed upon sample to Plaintiffs by August 19, 2024.
This dispute concerns the administration of employee benefits in
defined pension and retirement health plans. The Plaintiffs bring
this class action on behalf of themselves and all others situated,
and asserts claims against Boilermaker-Blacksmith Pension Trust,
Board of Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust, and six individual trustees.
The Plaintiffs participated in a multi-employer defined benefit
pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. section 1001, et seq. ("ERISA") and worked
as a boilermaker for at least one employer that was party to an
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers collective bargaining
agreement which required pension contributions.
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit as a putative class action
concerning the administration of their pension and retirement
health plans. They allege that Defendants violated various ERISA
requirements and improperly denied Plaintiffs their early
retirement benefits. Highly summarized, Plaintiffs allege that they
retired from their boilermaker jobs before normal retirement age
and then applied for—and received—early retirement pension
benefits. Plaintiffs later resumed work in another type of job
(i.e., electrician, safety coordinator, steam fitter,
scheduler/planner), but did not engage in any postretirement
boilermaker work.
The Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is a defined
benefit retirement plan established in 1960.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6IehBl at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date Set for Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024 that the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey has not yet set trial
date for Celgene securities class suit.
Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action").
The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla*, and (3) the NDA for Zeposia.
The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.
In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint in full.
In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part
and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims
arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301).
Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.
In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with
respect to the remaining claims.
In March 2023, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a
motion for summary judgment, the briefing for which was completed
in June 2023.
On September 8, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims regarding
statements made by the remaining officer defendants.
As to the claims regarding Celgene's corporate statements, the
Court denied the defendants' motion without prejudice and granted
the defendants leave to re-raise the issue.
On October 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to Celgene's corporate statements.
On July 23, 2024, the Court granted the defendants' motion as to
individual liability for those corporate statements but reserved
decision as to the company's liability, noting that another opinion
would be forthcoming.
No trial dates have been scheduled for the Celgene Securities
Litigation.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery,
development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York.
BROWNSTONE PROPERTY: Jimenez Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
CIRILO JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. BROWNSTONE PROPERTY GROUP LLC,
and BROWNSTONE MANAGEMENT LLC, and BROWNSTONE WORKS WELL, LLC, and
ALEJANDRO ROMERO, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-05108 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 23, 2024) is a civil action for damages and other redress
based upon the Defendants' willful violations of the Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff contends that on several weeks during his employment,
the Defendants willfully failed to pay him the overtime wages
lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically,
during those weeks, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and
Plaintiff did work, beyond 40 hours, yet the Defendants paid him a
flat daily rate that did not change based on how many hours he
worked in a day or in a week, and thus Defendants did not pay him
overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff’s
regular rate of pay for any hours that he worked in excess of 40 in
a week.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants -- three New York limited
liability companies based in Kings County, one a holdings company
and the other two its subsidiaries, which together operate as a
single integrated enterprise to run a property management and
property renovation/construction company, and the enterprise' Chief
of Construction who is its day-to-day overseer of construction and
maintenance operations -- as a construction and maintenance worker
at various buildings that the Defendants managed throughout New
York City, from in or around June 2019 through March 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Nettle, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
CAL CLOSET RETAIL: Hinojosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cal Closet Retail,
Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Hinojosa, Alex Rojas, Eric
Rojas, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated v. Cal Closet Retail, Inc., Case No.
24CV084069 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 19, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Cal Closet Retail, Inc. -- https://www.californiaclosets.com/ --
provide a range of unique and beautiful custom closets, closet
systems, and home storage solutions for any room..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly Desario, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
475 14th St., Ste. 700
Oakland, CA 94612-1945
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: molly.desario@wilshirelawfirm.com
CEDAR FAIR: Plaintiffs Has Until August 20 to File Reply Brief
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONEVA WALKER, JONATHAN
BROWN, HOLLY POTEAT, KELLY SHEPPERSON, MANDI STEWART, NOELANI MORI,
and SHANE FOSHIA, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., and CEDAR FAIR MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James
Carr entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply in support of motion for class
certification.
-- The Plaintiffs shall be permitted up to and including August
20,
2024 to file their Reply Brief.
The Defendant operates amusement parks.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x3XjOA at no extra
charge.[CC]
CITIBANK NA: Hernandez-Manzano Balks at Illegal Collection of Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILBER HERNANDEZ-MANZANO and LISANDRA HAIRSTON on behalf of
themselves and all others v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-05567
(S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2024) arises from Citibank's routine practices
of assessing multiple fees on an item.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's improper scheme to
extract funds from account holders has victimized Plaintiffs and
hundreds of other similarly situated consumers. Unless enjoined,
the Defendant will continue to engage in these schemes and will
continue to cause substantial injury to its consumers.
The Defendant allegedly misrepresents its fee practices including
in its take-it-or-leave-it form adhesion contract. The case is a
civil action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves a Class of similarly
situated consumers, seeks to end the Defendant's abusive and
predatory practice and force it to refund the improper charges. The
Plaintiffs asserts a claim for breach of contract, including breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief.
The Defendant is a bank headquartered in New York, New York with
branches throughout the united states. The Defendant provides
retail banking services to its members, including Plaintiffs and
members of the putative class.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: arosenberg@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CITY CENTRE: Facilities Inaccessible to the Disabled, Feltzin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals, Plaintiff v. CITY CENTRE
ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80855-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
July 15, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. He is paralyzed and is substantially limited
in major life activities due to his impairment, including, but not
limited to, not being able to walk or stand. He requires the use of
a wheelchair to ambulate and uses a manual wheelchair.
According to the complaint, the subject commercial property owned
by the Defendant is open to the public. The individual Plaintiff
visits the commercial property and businesses on April 23, 2024,
and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly
affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the property, and
businesses named herein, says the suit.
The Defendant has allegedly discriminated against the individual
Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment
of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the property.
City Centre Associates LLC, owned and operated the commercial
buildings located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
CLOUD HEALTH SYSTEMS: Flowers Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloud Health Systems
LLC. The case is styled as Jai Flowers, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. Cloud Health Systems LLC d/b/a Sunrise
Health, Case No. 3:24-cv-04371 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Cloud Health Systems operates as a healthcare startup, that offers
consumers medical consultations and other health-related
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
COASTAL TRUCKING: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR MARTIN, YANAPHIS MORENO, MAXIM SHKOLNIK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COASTAL
TRUCKING INSURANCE LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80858 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2024) is an
action for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as to recover
from Defendant unpaid wages, including statutory minimum wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and specifically under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The Defendant formerly employed Plaintiffs as agents at their
business branches. In this role, Plaintiff Martin worked as a W-2
employee for Coastal for approximately 18 months in 2022-23, from
January 2022 through June 2023; Plaintiff Moreno worked for Coastal
as an independent contractor for approximately three months in
2023, from June 19 to September 21; and Plaintiff Shkolnik worked
as an independent contractor in 2023 for approximately four months,
from April 12 to September 28.
Coastal Trucking Insurance, LLC is an independent insurance agency,
specializing in commercial truck insurance, doing business in
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and other states across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Allison B. Duffie, Esq.
DUFFIE LAW, PLLC
2234 North Federal Highway Suite 1196
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 440-1196
E-mail: allison@duffie.law
CONNECTICUT: Lindsay Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Acquittees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAH LINDSAY, LING XIN
WU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
NANCY NAVARRETTA, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of
the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, JOSE CREGO,
in his official capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Whiting
Forensic Hospital; MICHAEL PEPPER, in his official capacity as
chair of the Psychiatric Security Review Board; JOHN BONETTI, MARK
KIRSCHNER, CHERYL ABRAMS, WAKANA HIROTA, and RENESHA NICHOLS, in
their official capacities as members of the Psychiatric Security
Review Board, Case No. 3:22-cv-01518-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of:
"all acquittees who: (1) are, or will be in the future,
committed
to the jurisdiction of the PSRB, (2) are assigned Full Level 4
privileges and (3) have been determined by a WFH treatment
professional to be ready for Temporary Leave."
The size of the class, estimated at about 20 individuals at any one
time, but which will be in the hundreds over time in the future, is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the class. The
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class, and all members of the proposed class will
benefit by the efforts of the Named Plaintiffs.
The class is ascertainable and thus meets this additional
requirement for class certification in the Second Circuit.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KqbKZh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kirk W. Lowry, Esq.
Kathleen M. Flaherty, Esq.
CONNECTICUT LEGAL RIGHTS PROJECT
CVH-Beers Hall 2nd Floor
Middletown, CT 06457
Telephone: (860) 262-5017
E-mail: klowry@clrp.org
kflaherty@clrp.org
- and -
Sheldon V. Toubman, Esq.
Deborah A. Dorfman, Esq.
Virgina M. Teixeira
DISABILITY RIGHTS CONNECTICUT
75 Charter Oak Avenue, Ste. 1-101
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (475)345-3169
E-mail: sheldon.toubman@disrightsct.org
deborah.dorfman@disrightsct.org
Gina.Teixeira@disrsightsct.org
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Guy
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO GUY, RYAN TANNER,
MAGALY GRANADOS, KERRY LAMONS, TAMMY RANO, VICK WILL, JENNIFER
WHITE, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-01558-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman
entered an order:
-- granting the final approval motion and the fees, costs, and
service awards motion.
-- certifying settlement class defined as:
"All persons residing in the United States to whom Defendant
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. sent notification that their
personal
information may have been compromised by an unauthorized
individual as a result of the data security incident discovered
by
Convergent on or about June 17, 2022."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Court and all
members
of the Court's staff, and persons who timely and validly
request
exclusion from the Settlement Class.
-- appointing Leo Guy, Ryan Tanner, Magaly Granados, Kerry Lamons,
Tammy Rano, Vicki Will, and Jennifer White as Class
Representatives of the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 23.
-- appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys Jean S. Martin of Morgan &
Morgan; Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman, PLLC; Gary E. Mason of Mason LLP; and Cecily C.
Jordan
of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel.
Convergent is a third-party debt collection company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LSWwP1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101-3147
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
cjordan@tousley.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fkester@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2024, that on December 8, 2023,
the defendants in a June 2023 purported stockholder class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware moved to dismiss the operative complaint, and, in the
alternative, to stay the litigation.
In June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging that the company's disclosures issued in
connection with the company's acquisition by Clayton, Dubilier and
Rice, LLC (CD&R) were materially misleading in violation of Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint was captioned "Water Island Merger Arbitrage
Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building
Brands et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.). The complaint
alleges that the company's directors and officers issued misleading
disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve the Merger at an
unfair price. The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs.
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. is a holding company based in
North Carolina.
CP ENERGY SERVICES: Hunt Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Hunt, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CP ENERGY SERVICES, INC., D/B/A CP WELL TESTING, LLC,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00033 (W.D. Tex., July 19, 2024), is brought to
recover for unpaid overtime wages and misclassification as an
independent contractor and to recover 26 weeks of back wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA because it knew or showed
a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices were unlawful.
CP violated the FLSA by employing Hunt and other similarly situated
nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours but
refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty
hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which they are or were employed." Additionally, CP violated
the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for
Hunt and other similarly situated nonexempt employees, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from September 2023 to
March 2024 as a well test hand.
CP is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and provides
oilfield rental equipment, flowback, and well-testing services in
multiple states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bridget Davidson, Esq.
SPACE CITY LAW FIRM
440 Louisiana Street Suite 1110
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713-568-5305
Fax: 713-583-1107
Email: bdavidson@spacecitylaw.com
CRICKET WIRELESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morgan Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03253-ELR (N.D.
Ga., July 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and/or
customer proprietary network information that was accessed and
exfiltrated in a data breach.
The Defendant is a wireless telecommunications service provider
that collects and/or creates personal information related to its
subscribers, including information that relates to the quantity,
technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of
use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by its customers.
Earlier this year, cybercriminals figured out that many major
companies, including Defendant, have uploaded massive amounts of
valuable and sensitive customer data to Snowflake servers.
Snowflake is a third-party cloud platform. Cybercriminals targeted
Snowflake accounts that did not require users to authenticate
themselves prior to accessing sensitive data.
On, or about, July 22, 2024, the Defendant announced that customer
data was illegally downloaded from its workspace on a third-party
cloud platform (the "Data Breach"). The compromised data included
records of calls and texts of nearly all of Cricket Wireless's
cellular customers from May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022 and January
2, 2023. The compromised data also includes cell site
identification numbers of the most frequently used cell tower(s),
and phone numbers that Defendant's wireless customers interacted
with during this time.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach affected approximately
10 million Cricket Wireless customers and Snowflake Ts the
third-party cloud platform involved. The Defendant completely and
utterly failed to protect its customers' personal data and/or
ensure that its third-party vendors protected customer data
consistent with Defendant's. Although Defendant learned of the Data
Breach in April 2024, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff of the
Data Breach until July 2024. Omitted from the data breach notice
letter were the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the
vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to
ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted
details have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff, who
retains a vested interest in ensuring the PII remains protected,
says the suit.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable safeguards to protect PII from a foreseeable
and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant
implemented reasonable administrative, technical, and/or physical
controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it
could have prevented the Data Breach, the suit added.
The Defendant provides wireless telecommunications services to over
ten million subscribers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Sizemore, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
thomas.sizemore@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
CVS HEALTH: Nixon Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------
IVY NIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, KAREN S. LYNCH,
SHAWN M. GUERTIN, and THOMAS F. COWHEY, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05303 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired CVS securities between May 3, 2023 and April 30,
2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies, says the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the forecasts CVS
used to determine plan premiums were ineffective at accounting for
medical cost trends and health care utilization patterns; (ii) as a
result, CVS was likely to incur significant expenses to cover cost
increases that were not accounted for in the Company's forecasts
and thus not covered by plan premiums; (iii) accordingly, CVS had
overstated the profitability of its Health Care Benefits segment;
(iv) contrary to Defendants' assurances, the revenues generated
from the Company's other primary segments were insufficient to
offset the negative financial impact of the increasing expenditures
within the Health Care Benefits segment; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times, says the suit.
On this news, CVS's stock price fell $11.40 per share, or 16.84%,
to close at $56.31 per share on May 1, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
CVS is a healthcare company that operates through three primary
segments: Health Care Benefits, Health Services, and Pharmacy &
Consumer Wellness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tbrzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
DEALERTRACK SYSTEMS: Rodriguez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dealertrack Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Angel Luis Rodriguez, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dealertrack
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-05084-AYS (E.D.N.Y., July 22,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Dealertrack -- https://us.dealertrack.com/ -- offers automotive
dealership management solutions specializing in Sales, F&I, Digital
Retailing, CRM, DMS systems and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1001 G Street NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (215) 875-4602
Email: zvaughan@bm.net
DISTRICT WORKS: Jumahan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against District Works, LLC.
The case is styled as Bunin Jumahan, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. District Works, LLC, Case No.
24CV084040 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 19, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
District Works (DW) -- https://districtworks.city/ -- is leading
transformative change in the urban place management industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung L. Yang, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com
DIVERSIFIED GLOBAL: Tucker Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Global
Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Tyson Tucker, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diversified Global
Ventures, Inc. doing business as: Beacon Travel, Derekgough, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01256-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Diversified Global Ventures, Inc. provides commercial services. The
Company offers web, graphic, and album designing, slideshows,
marketing, accounting, and database management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
DSCC LLC: Betanco Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Diego Armando Rodriguez Betanco and Rafael Quintero, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DSCC LLC, d/b/a
David Stern Construction and CHARLIE ATTAR Individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-00118-AW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., July 19, 2024), is brought to
recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors,
despite the fact that they worked full time for DSCC, and virtually
every aspect of their job was controlled by DSCC and Defendant
Attar. DSCC and Attar misclassified Plaintiffs and other
construction workers as independent contractors to avoid paying
employment taxes, benefits, workers' compensation insurance
premiums, and overtime. During their time with DSCC, Plaintiffs
routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs received
"straight time" (i.e. a flat hourly rate) regardless of the number
of hours they worked in a given week, and never received
time-and-a-half for hours they work above forty in a week, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for DSCC as construction workers.
DSCC is a construction company primarily performing renovations
projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
EGGLAND'S BEST: Faces Janecyk Suit Over "Cage Free Eggs" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIM JANECYK and ERIC WILIM, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals v. EGGLAND'S BEST, INC. and
EGGLAND'S BEST, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill., July 23,
2024) arises out of false and misleading statements that the
Defendants make about the Eggland's Best Cage Free eggs that they
sell.
According to the complaint, the statement is false. The truth is
that many hens producing Cage Free eggs live in typical factory
farming conditions. They are confined indoors 24 hours per day, 365
days per year. They live in windowless structures made of concrete,
metal, and dirt. The structures contain hundreds of thousands of
hens packed so closely together that each bird has around one
square foot of floor space (or less) to itself, and many hens
living in these structures never see the sun or breathe fresh air,
the suit contends.
These hens are not "free to roam" anywhere, and their living
conditions are neither "natural" nor "pleasant." Quite the
opposite. Living in cramped, artificial conditions is highly
stressful for hens, and it increases their risk of disease, injury,
and death. Many modern consumers are aware of, and concerned about,
the poor living conditions of animals raised in "factory farms." As
a result, they seek food products that come from animals housed
outside of artificial, industrial facilities. And they are willing
to pay premiums for those products. As a result, the Defendants are
able to sell Cage Free eggs at an unearned premium. The law does
not permit this. Accordingly, Defendants must reimburse consumers,
like Plaintiffs and members of the below-defined classes, who
purchased Cage Free eggs at a
premium due to Defendants' false statements about hens' living
conditions, the Plaintiffs added.
The Defendants produce, market, license, distribute, and sell the
Cage Free eggs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
John J. Frawley, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
jfrawley@flsalaw.com
- and -
Pete Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 866-1551
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
EGGLANDS BEST: Cavallaro-Kearins Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Horizons Medical,
Inc. case is styled as Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins, Mary Cea, Joshua
Davidson, Amanda Fields, Tina Fulford, Antonett Garrett, Valerie
Resor, Philip Smith, Michelle Spurgeon, Denise Wilson, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. EGGLANDS
BEST, INC., EGGLANDS BEST, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03303 (E.D. Pa.,
July 24, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous.
Eggland's Best -- https://www.egglandsbest.com/ -- is the world's
leading healthy egg brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Rd., Ste. 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Fax: (215) 884-2492
Email: mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Bialic Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 23, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Bialic class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On May 29, 2024, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Bialic v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-03216-BLF (the "Bialic Action"), purportedly on behalf of a
class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common
stock between February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023.
The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.
ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. manufactures solar energy equipment. The
Company offers home and commercial solar and storage solutions.
[BN]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Class Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 23, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Hayes class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On July 15, 2024 a second putative class action complaint was filed
naming the same Defendants in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, captioned Hayes v. Enphase
Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04249 (together with the Bialic
Action, the "Securities Class Action"), purportedly on behalf of a
class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023.
The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.
The Company expects the cases to be consolidated and a lead
plaintiff to be appointed by the Court.
ENPHASE ENERGY, INC. manufactures solar energy equipment. The
Company offers home and commercial solar and storage solutions.
[BN]
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Devlin Balks at Misleading Account Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA DEVLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05962 (N.D. Ill., July 15, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's unlawful conduct in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has consented to the
entry of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission order in which
the SEC found that Defendant issued misleading account statements
to more than 1,000,000 variable annuity investors. This conduct led
investors to increase their contributions to the EQUI-VEST variable
annuities or caused them to move additional dollars from existing
403(b) plans and individual retirement accounts products as an
exchange, plan transfer, or rollover-in.
Over the course of several years, the Defendant misled investors in
its EQUI-VEST variable annuities about the fees and costs
associated with that product. The Defendant's conduct has enabled
it to thrive in the 403(b) market for public school teachers. By
hiding its fees, the Defendant has lured unsuspecting teachers into
its poorly performing products and away from better products sold
by competing vendors, says the suit.
Plaintiff Devlin, a public school teacher, allegdly incurred
thousands of dollars in fees within Defendant's poorly performing
variable annuities.
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company is a nationwide
insurance and annuity company and one of the largest 403(b)
vendors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Eaghan Davis, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
edavis@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
Hani Farah, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 923-3939
E-mail: sjodlowski@dicellolevitt.com
hfarah@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Manfred Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-4005
E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
EXAMONE WORLD: Must File Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony by Aug. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARS F. BRAUER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE
INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-07760-MEMF-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame
Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order setting briefing schedule on
Parties' motions to exclude expert testimony in connection with
class certification:
1. Defendants shall file their motion to exclude by Aug. 29,
2024,
setting it for hearing on Oct. 24, 2024;
2. The parties shall file oppositions to the motions to exclude
by
Sept. 19, 2024; and
3. The parties shall file replies (if any) in support of the
motions to exclude by Oct. 3, 2024.
The Court further understands that the Motion to Exclude Report and
Testimony of Defendants' Expert as well as Defendants' forthcoming
Motion to Exclude are related to the Motion for Class
Certification, and should be heard in conjunction.
Accordingly, the Court continues the Motion for Class Certification
to Oct. 24, 2024. If the parties object to the continuance, they
may file a stipulation by July 24, 2024, regarding the preferred
order and timeline of the three motions.
If the parties have no objection to the continuance, the parties
may file a stipulation to amend the Civil Trial Order based upon
the new class certification hearing date by July 24, 2024.
Examone provides Diagnostics services. The Company offers services
include paramedical examinations, laboratory testing, attending
physician statements, prescription database searches, motor vehicle
reports, and inspections.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3JBT6q at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIVE POINT: Faces Class Suit Over Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 19, 2024 that the company was named in
a May 2018 complaint filed by residents of the Bayview Hunters
Point neighborhood in San Francisco over misrepresentation of toxic
waste results.
The putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court named
Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an independent contractor
hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic
radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard, Lennar and the
company as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and
the company and have requested an injunction to prevent the company
and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San
Francisco Shipyard.
Five Point Holdings, LLC, is an owner and developer of mixed-use
planned communities in California.
FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Florida Power & Light Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the shareholder securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
NEE, FPL, and certain current and former executives, are the named
defendants in a purported shareholder securities class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida in June 2023 and amended in December 2023 that seeks
from the defendants unspecified damages allegedly resulting from
alleged false or misleading statements regarding NEE's alleged
campaign finance and other political activities.
The alleged class of plaintiffs are all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired NEE securities between December 2,
2021 and January 30, 2023.
The Company is vigorously defending against the claims in this
proceeding.
Florida Power & Light Company is the largest power utility in
Florida. It is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company
serving roughly 5 million customers and 11 million people in
Florida.
FLORIDA POWER: Continues to Defend Service Interruptions Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Power & Light Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the service interruptions-related class suit in
the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.
FPL is the defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
February 2018 that seeks from FPL unspecified damages for alleged
breach of contract and gross negligence based on service
interruptions that occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma in 2017.
There is currently no trial date set. The Miami-Dade County Circuit
Court certified the case as a class action and FPL's appeal of that
decision was denied by Florida's Third District Court of Appeal
(3rd DCA) in March 2023.
The certified class encompasses all persons and business owners who
reside in and are otherwise citizens of the state of Florida that
contracted with FPL for electrical services, were charged storm
charges, experienced a power outage after Hurricane Irma and
suffered consequential damages because of FPL’s alleged breach of
contract or gross negligence.
FPL filed a motion on March 31, 2023, for rehearing with the 3rd
DCA claiming that the opinion upholding the class certification
contains several errors that should be reheard by the full 3rd DCA.
The motion is pending.
Additionally, in July 2023, FPL filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on the basis that, among other things, it believes the FPSC
has exclusive jurisdiction over any issues arising from a utility's
preparation for and response to emergencies or disasters.
On May 22, 2024, the 3rd DCA remanded the proceeding to the trial
court to be stayed pending the plaintiffs obtaining a decision from
the FPSC related to the sufficiency of FPL's disaster preparedness.
On June 7, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing with
the 3rd DCA that is currently pending.
FPL is vigorously defending against the claims in this proceeding.
Florida Power & Light Company is the largest power utility in
Florida. It is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company
serving roughly 5 million customers and 11 million people in
Florida.
GAP INC: Faces Cho Suit Over Products' False Price Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA CHO on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC., a Delaware corporation, GAP (APPAREL)
LLC, a California limited liability company, GAP INTERNATIONAL
SALES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-24-616357 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., July 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' false and
misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme in violation
of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have continually
advertised false price discounts for merchandise sold throughout
their Gap Factory outlet stores. In bringing this putative class
action complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy this deception and its
attendant harm to consumers. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive
relief from Defendants arising from their false discounting scheme
on apparel, accessories, shoes, and other items sold in their Gap
Factory outlet stores and their e-commerce website, gapfactory.com,
says the suit.
The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American
worldwide clothing and accessories retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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) 762-1900
Facsimile: (858) 313-1850
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
jim@lcllp.com
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Dynamics Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from Sherman Act-related class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its
subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they
conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval
architects and marine engineers from each other.
The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals
consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by
the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their
subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at
any time since January 1, 2000.
The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation
paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable
relief. We are defending the matter.
On April 19, 2024, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint.
Plaintiffs initiated an appeal of the dismissal of their complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 20,
2024.
Given the current status of this matter, we are unable to express a
view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse,
to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss.
Depending on the outcome of this matter, there could be a material
impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.
General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The
Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in
business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions,
shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, and
technologies. [BN]
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trial for Hachem Suit Set for November 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 23, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York set the trial
date for the Hachem shareholder class suit in November 2024.
Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions
under the federal securities laws were filed against GE and certain
affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single action
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the Hachem case, also referred to as the
Sjunde AP-Fonden case).
The complaint against defendants GE and current and former GE
executive officers alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to
insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements
and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock
between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018.
GE filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019.
In January 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to the
majority of the claims.
Specifically, the court dismissed all claims related to insurance
reserves, as well as all claims related to accounting for long-term
service agreements, with the exception of certain claims about
historic disclosures related to factoring in the Power business
that survive as to GE and its former CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein.
All other individual defendants have been dismissed from the case.
In April 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for shareholders who acquired stock between February
26, 2016 and January 23, 2018.
In September 2022, GE filed a motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims, which the court denied in September
2023, except as to claims arising from disclosures made between
November 2017 and January 2018.
In April 2024, the court scheduled a trial date for November 2024.
Fairfield, Conn.-based General Electric Capital Corp., an
indirect subsidiary of General Electric Company, operates in four
segments: GE Commercial Finance, GE Money, GE Industrial, and GE
Infrastructure.
GENERAL MOTORS: Cashon Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case 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 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on July 24, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03277-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 28, 2025
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TAYLOR, et al., v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia Demarchi entered a case management order as follows:
Protective Order and ESI Protocols due July 30, 2024
Deadline to file motion to amend pleadings Aug. 20, 2024
Deadline to complete mediation Oct. 1, 2024
Fact discovery cutoff Oct. 29, 2024
Deadline for Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures Nov. 12, 2024
Class certification motion/Daubert motions due Jan. 28, 2025
Expert discovery cutoff Feb. 10, 2025
Class certification opposition/Daubert Feb. 27, 2025
oppositions due
Class certification reply/Daubert replies due March 20, 2025
Hearing on class certification/Daubert motions May 6, 2025
Deadline to file summary judgment motions June 18, 2025
Hearing on summary judgment motions Sept. 9, 2025
Final Pretrial Conference Oct. 15, 2025
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EGRXT9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graftech International Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from stockholder suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
On January 25, 2024, a stockholder of the Company filed a class
action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of
purchasers of GrafTech common stock between February 8, 2019 and
August 3, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. The complaint names the Company, certain past and
present executive officers, and two entities associated with
Brookfield as defendants.
The complaint alleges that certain public filings and statements
made by the Company contained material misrepresentations or
omissions relating to the circumstances before and after the prior
temporary suspension of the Company's graphite electrode facility
located in Monterrey, Mexico, in September 2022.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.
On May 15, 2024, the Court appointed the University of Puerto Rico
Retirement System as the lead plaintiff.
At this stage of the proceedings, it is too early to determine if
the matter would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition.
Graffech is a global manufacturer of graphite electrode products
headquartered in Brookl5m Heights, Ohio.
GREATER HOMECARE: Warren Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Warren and Eric Warren, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees v. GREATER HOMECARE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03315 (E.D. Pa., July 24, 2024), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs, like other hourly employees, often worked over 40
hours per week. The FLSA and PMWA require that employees receive
overtime premium compensation "not less than one and one-half
times" their regular pay rate for hours worked over 40 per week.
Notwithstanding, Defendant often fails to pay such overtime wages.
During the two-week pay period ending April 16, 2023, Shirley
Warren was credited with working 224 total hours and was paid at
her regular hourly pay rate of $14.00 for all such hours; no
overtime premium payments were made. Likewise, during the two-week
pay period ending June 9, 2024, Eric Warren was credited with
working 140 total hours and was paid at his regular hourly pay rate
of $14.00 for all such hours; no overtime premium payments were
made, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as hourly employees.
The Defendant owns and operates a business that provides home
health and companionship various services to clients located in and
around Southeastern Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES: Wendelken Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE WENDELKEN, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAFETZ AND
ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07755 (D.N.J., July 15,
2024) is brought pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act due
to a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of Plaintiff's
sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control
of the Defendant.
According to the complaint, the data breach resulted in the
unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of consumers'
highly personal information, including names, Social Security
numbers, and insurance benefit information. The cybercriminals were
able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to
adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to
adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers
in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class' PII -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals.
In failing to adequately protect its consumers' information,
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of
its current and former consumers, the Plaintiff says.
Hafetz and Associates LLC is an independent insurance agency with
its principal place of business in Linwood, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
HEALTH CAREER: Seeks to Continue Class Status Bid Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA
FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HEALTH
CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI ACQUISITION LLC),
FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and STEVEN W. HART, Case No.
9:22-cv-81883-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting the motion to continue class certification
hearing set for July 29, 2024.
On July 18, 2024, this Court set the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for hearing on July 29, 2024.
Given the importance of the hearing and the complexity of the
issues involved, both attorneys for Defendants, Michael Carney and
Barbara Fox, will need to be involved in the preparation for same.
Ms. Fox has been heavily involved in the development of the defense
with regard to certification issues, the Defendants contend.
Ms. Fox is traveling out of the country on July 19, 2024, on a
pre-planned and pre-paid vacation and is not returning until the
evening of July 26, 2024.
In light of Ms. Fox's travel and in order to allow counsel for the
defense to fully prepare for this hearing, Defendants request that
this Court postpone the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification for a short period of time and also extend the
deadlines for filing the report referenced in this Court's
paperless order, the Defendants add.
Health Career provides health career training programs.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JbnBZN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Carney, Esq.
Barbara Fox, Esq.
KUBICKI DRAPER
110 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 713-2323
E-mail: MJC-KD@kubickidraper.com
BF-KD@kubickidraper.com
HONDA MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor
Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June
2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting
the Parties' stipulation.
The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification is extended to Aug. 8, 2025.
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Honda Motor is a Japanese public multinational conglomerate
manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and battery-powered
equipment, headquartered in Minato, Tokyo, Japan.[CC]
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Allegedly Sells Personal Info, Kennemur Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA A. KENNEMUR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INFOSYS MCCAMISH SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03252-JPB (N.D. Ga., July 23, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant did not inform affected individuals that their Personally
Identifying Information was being sold by unauthorized third
parties to the highest bidder.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Notice Letter stated
that it identified individuals whose data was exposed to
unauthorized third parties on May 28, 2024. The Defendant did not
state why more than six months elapsed between discovery of the
Data Breach and identification of affected individuals. The
Defendant did not state why it waited one month to inform
individuals that their PII was compromised after their
identification. The Defendant allegedly failed to prevent the data
breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security
standards and failed to detect that its databases were subject to a
security breach, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former customers of
Defendant. They provided certain Personally Identifying
Information ("PII") to the Defendant.
Infosys is an insurance business process solutions provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL, LLC
3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 593-0020
Facsimile: (888) 501-9536
E-mail: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514-1851
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Owens Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA OWENS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-06434 (W.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) is an action against
Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law arising from Defendant's various
willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns and
practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully,
maliciously, and intentionally committed widespread violations of
the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of: failing
to compensate its delivery employees, including Plaintiff, for
mileage; retaining and not remitting to its tipped employees,
including Plaintiff, a portion of customer tips; failing to
compensate its employees, including Plaintiff, an additional hour's
pay at the applicable minimum wage for each day their spreads of
hours exceeded 10 hours; failing to furnish adequate wage notices
on employees including Plaintiff; and failing to furnish adequate
wage statements on employees including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Owens was employed by the Defendant to work as a delivery
driver out of its establishment located in Rochester, New York from
July 30, 2018 to July 2, 2023.
Insomnia Cookies LLC is a fast food establishment situated in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
INSURALIFE INSURANCE: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insuralife Insurance
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Chapman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insuralife Insurance
Agency, LLC doing business as: Insuralife, Case No. 1:24-cv-00699
(W.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Insuralife Insurance Agency is an insurance agency in the Glenvar
Heights, Florid.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
48 Wall Street, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ross@kazlg.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 19, 2024, that it is facing a
consolidated class action captioned "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot
Antitrust Litigation."
Three class action complaints were filed against the company in the
Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust
allegations relating to the service and repair of certain
instruments manufactured by the company.
A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021,
a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public
Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint
by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021.
The court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King
County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with
the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint been filed on behalf of each
plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022,
Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this
case. On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the
plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced.
With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the
court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary
judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31,
2024, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues,
and denied Intuitive's motion on the antitrust claims. In denying
Intuitive's motion, the court declined to decide whether
third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for
their services with respect to its "EndoWrists," and in the absence
of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's
motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on
that ground.
There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well.
In the summary judgment order, the court ruled with plaintiffs that
the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate
product markets for antitrust purposes. The court also ruled that
there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of
EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in
that aftermarket. The court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs
on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a
relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that
includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets da
Vinci (R) surgical systems and the Ion (R) endoluminal system based
in California.
JAN'S BOUTIQUE: Gaspa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and allothers similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jan's Boutique, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-07806 (D.N.J., July 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, www.jansboutiqueonline.com, the
Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain
and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for
herself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and the ability to frequent the
physical locations and other services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under ADA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Jan's Boutique, Inc. operates the Jansboutiqueonline.com online
retail store and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of
New Jersey and throughout the United States.[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
JEFF SANDY: Settlement Deal in Rose Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v.
JEFF S. SANDY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order granting joint motion for
preliminary approval:
(a) Preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as fair, reasonable,
and
adequate, subject to the rights of Class Members to object;
(b) Provisionally certifies under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
23(a) and (b)(l)(B), a Class defined to include
"all persons who have been incarcerated at the Southern
Regional Jail for a period greater than two (2) days from
September 22, 2020 through the date of the Preliminary
Approval
Order" for Settlement purposes only;
(c) Provisionally appoints Michael D. Rose, Robert C. Church,
Sr.,
Nicole Henry, Edward L. Harmon, Thomas Fleenor, Jr., William
Bohn, and Tonya Persinger as Class Representatives for
Settlement purposes only;
(d) Provisionally appoints Stephen P. New and Emilee B.
Wooldridge
and the law firms of Stephen New & Associates, Amanda J.
Taylor
and the law firm of Taylor, Hinkle & Taylor, Timothy P.
Lupardus and the Lupardus Law Office, Robert Dunlap and
Robert
P. Dunlap and Associates PLLC, and Zachary Kyle Whitten and
Whitten Law Office as Class Counsel for settlement purposes
only;
(e) Approves the form, manner, and content of the Class Notice,
including Email Notice, U.S. Mail Notice, and Long Form
Notice,
and Claim Form, substantially in the forms attached as
Exhibits
2 through 5 to the Wheatman Declaration, and finds that the
method of providing Class Notice in the Notice Plan is the
best
practicable under the circumstances and that the Class
Notice
and Notice Plan constitute sufficient notice to the Class,
and
that the Class Notice and Notice Plan satisfy the
requirements
of due process and of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
and
(f) Appoints Tiffany Janowicz and Rust Consulting, Inc. as the
Claim Administrator and directs Settling Defendants to
provide
a Class Member list to the Claims Administrator in
electronic
format within five (5) business days of the entry of this
Preliminary Approval Order and further directs the Claims
Administrator to set up the Settlement Website within
twenty-
four (24) days after entry of this Preliminary Approval
Order,
to send Email Notices and U.S. Mail Notices within
twenty-five
(25) days after entry of this Preliminary Approval Order,
and
to perform all other actions specified in the Notice Plan in
a
timely manner.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XMmMed at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen Paul New, Esq.
Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
Russell A. Williams, Esq.
NEW, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES
430 Harper Park Drive
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 250-6017
Facsimile: (304) 250-6012
E-mail: steve@newtaylorlaw.com
russell@newtaylor.com
- and -
Timothy Lupardus, Esq.
THE LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE
275 Bearhole Road
Pineville, WV 24874
Telephone: 304-732-0250
E-mail: office@luparduslaw.com
- and -
Zachary Whitten, Esq.
THE WHITTEN LAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 753
Pineville, WV 24874
E-mail: zwhittenlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Robert Dunlap, Esq.
ROBERT DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES
208 Main Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 255-4762
E-mail: robertdunlapesq@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy M. Smith, Esq.
Michael D. Mullins, Esq.
Larry J. Rector, Esq.
Amy M. Smith, Esq.
Peter J. Raupp, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
Chase Tower, 17th Floor
P.O. Box 1588
Charleston, WV 25326-1588
Telephone: (304) 353-8000
Facsimile: (304) 933-8704
E-mail: michael.mullins@steptoe-johnson.com
- and -
Chip E. Williams, Esq.
Jared C. Underwood, Esq.
PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE
252 George Street
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 254-9300
E-mail: cwilliams@pffwv.com
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pederson Suit in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 19, 2024, that on February 22, 2021, Kinder
Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly
Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline
Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate
acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans
sponsored by the Coastal Corporation, El Paso Corporation and the
company by virtue of its acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its
assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The
complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and later
amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges
that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to
plaintiffs' retirement benefits which are now contested on a
class-wide basis in the lawsuit.
The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary
theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all challenge plan
provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible
"backloading" or "cutback" of benefits, and seek the same plan
modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former
participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that
former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for
unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently
provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to
calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former
ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable.
On February 8, 2024, the court certified a class defined as any and
all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A
or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and
participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired
Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three
subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one
or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint. Plaintiffs
seek to recover early retirement benefits as well as declaratory
and injunctive relief, but have not pleaded, disclosed or otherwise
specified a calculation of alleged damages.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company based in
Texas.
LAMB WESTON: Continues to Defend Cleveland Bakers Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lamb Weston Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending May 26, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Cleveland Bakers securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
On June 13, 2024, the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund
filed a securities class action lawsuit against the Company and
certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho on behalf of a putative class of stockholders
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the design and implementation of its ERP
system.
The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP & Shawn R. Obi -- sobi@winston.com -- Winston Strawn
LLP.
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Parker Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Heather Parker, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated employees, and/or Aggrieved Employees
v. LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV15980 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 29, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01592.
The Complaint sets forth the following seven causes of action:
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Meal
Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement
Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide Personnel
Records; and (8) Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Claudia E. Murga, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 573-4900
Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
Email: Claudia.Murga@jacksonlewis.com
LIFEPOINT BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE MARCHESE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LIFEPOINT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, SPRINGSTONE PHYSICIANS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, DENVER SPRINGS, LLC d/b/a Denver Springs
d/b/a Denver Springs Changes, a Delaware limited liability company,
DENVER SPRINGS PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:24-cv-02025 (D. Colo., July 23, 2024) alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
by failing to pay Hourly Employees all required overtime
compensation and asserts claims as a class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 pursuant to the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Order and the Colorado Wage Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the COMPS Order by
failing to pay Hourly Employees all overtime compensation at
applicable rates as required by law and prohibiting Hourly
Employees from taking bona fide, uninterrupted meal breaks as
required by law and failing to provide compensation, including
overtime compensation, for said work.
The Defendants' hospitals provide medical, psychological and
therapeutic services to patients, including outpatient and
inpatient care. Defendants also provide long-term, in-patient
rehabilitation services wherein patients live on premises for
extended periods of time. The Defendants' hospitals operate 24
hours a day year-round.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
LEVENTHAL | LEWIS
KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (720) 699-3000
Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
E-mail: sengelson@ll.law
mkuhn@ll.law
LUCA FALONI: Pollitt Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Luca Faloni, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04924 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Luca Faloni for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.lucafaloni.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 Lucafaloni.com.
He tried to learn more information about the goods and services
offered by the company on June 13, 2024, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. These access barriers have caused Lucafaloni.com 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 store 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
Luca Faloni's 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.
Luca Faloni, Inc. is an e-commerce based online store for selling
fashionable apparel & clothes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
MANIPAL EDUCATION: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Santosh Cherian, v.
Manipal Education Americas, LLC & American University of Antigua
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00404-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer Rochon entered an order granting the joint motion to
extend deadlines.
-- The parties shall move for class certification and preliminary
approval of the class settlement by Aug. 21, 2024.
Manipal operates as a management consulting company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eupPzq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
MAUI, HI: Stover Files Suit in D. Hawaii
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Maui, et
al. The case is styled as Sean Stover, Cassandra Fairall, Mark
Prevot, Eva Marie Adam, Randy Brock, individually and on behalf of
the Class of all other persons similarly situated v. County of
Maui; Maui Emergency Management Agency (MEMA); Richard T. Bissen,
Jr., in his capacity as "emergency worker" of MEMA; Herman Andaya,
in his capacity as "emergency worker" of MEMA; Maui Department of
Fire and Public Safety; Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.;
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.; Hawaii Electric Light Company,
Inc.; Maui Electric Company, Limited; Elliot Kawaihoolana Mills, in
their capacities as Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi
Bishop; Crystal Kauilani Rose, in their capacities as Trustees of
the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop; Jennifer Noelani
Goodyear-Kaopua, in their capacities as Trustees of the Estate of
Bernice Pauahi Bishop; Michelle Kauhane, in their capacities as
Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop; Robert K.W.H.
Nobriga, in their capacities as Trustees of the Estate of Bernice
Pauahi Bishop; JV Enterprises, LLC; Doe Defendants 1-100, Case No.
1:24-cv-00307-JAO-BMK (D. Haw., July 24, 2024),
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Maui County -- https://www.mauicounty.gov/ -- officially the County
of Maui, is a county in the U.S. state of Hawaii.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy Y. Yempuku, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROY Y. YEMPUKU
735 Bishop Street, Suite 304
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 524-0200
Fax: 524-0209
Email: ryy@yempukulaw.com
- and -
Russel Myrick, Esq.
7979 Ivanhoe Ave., #200
La Jolla, CA 92037-4505
Phone: (888) 482-8266
Fax: (858) 244-7930
Email: sam@kingandking.com
- and -
Samuel P. King, Jr., Esq.
KING & KING, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
1163 Kaeleku Street
Honolulu, HI 96825
Phone: (808) 521-6937
Fax: (808) 533-4745
Email: sam@kingandking.com
MAXLINEAR INC: Continues to Defend HBK Master Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from HBK Master class suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.
On June 13, 2024, HBK Master Fund L.P. and HBK Merger Strategies
Master Fund L.P., stockholders of Silicon Motion, filed an
additional complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California captioned HBK Master Fund L.P. v.
MaxLinear, Inc., No. 24-cv-01033 (S.D. Cal.), against MaxLinear and
certain of its current officers.
The complaint includes seven claims: (1) an alleged violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)
promulgated thereunder; (2) an alleged violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder; (3)
an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; (4) an
alleged violation of Section 18 of the Exchange Act; (5) common law
fraud; (6) common law negligent misrepresentation; and (7) alleged
violations of California Civil Code Section 1709.
The complaint alleges that the defendants concealed their intention
to terminate the merger with Silicon Motion from Silicon Motion's
shareholders.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs
and expenses, punitive damages, and such other equitable or
injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate.
Defendants intend to vigorously defend these claims.
MaxLinear is a provider of fabless radio frequency ("RF"), analog,
and mixed-signal integrated circuits ("ICs") often referred to as
chips, microchips, or semiconductors.[BN]
MAXLINEAR INC: Continues to Defend Water Island Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from Water Island Event-Driven Fund class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
On August 31, 2023, a Silicon Motion stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California captioned Water Island Event-Driven
Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc., No. 23-cv-01607 (S.D. Cal.), against
MaxLinear and certain of its current officers.
The complaint includes two claims: (1) an alleged violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and (2) an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
On December 20, 2023, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs, who
filed the Consolidated Complaint on February 15, 2024.
The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts that
MaxLinear had a duty to disclose, concerning the Company's
intention to close the merger with Silicon Motion, including that:
(i) MaxLinear had allegedly decided it would not consummate the
merger because the economic circumstances surrounding the merger
had materially changed, including a material downturn in the
semiconductor industry and rising interest rates; (ii) MaxLinear
had allegedly determined to unilaterally terminate the merger in
the event the merger was approved by Chinese antitrust regulators;
(iii) MaxLinear had allegedly intended to argue that certain
conditions in Article 6 of the Merger Agreement had not been
satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 as a basis to terminate the
merger; and (iv) as a result, MaxLinear had allegedly materially
misrepresented the viability of the merger, the purported benefits
of the merger, and the likelihood that the merger would be
consummated.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory damages, including
interest, costs and expenses and such other equitable or injunctive
relief that the court deems appropriate.
MaxLinear will vigorously defend its position.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on
March 29, 2024 and Plaintiffs' filed an opposition on May 13, 2024.
Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on
June 14, 2024.
MaxLinear is a provider of fabless radio frequency ("RF"), analog,
and mixed-signal integrated circuits ("ICs") often referred to as
chips, microchips, or semiconductors.[BN]
MDL 1720: Mirage Suit Consolidated in Payment Card Antitrust Row
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned "In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 1720, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case styled as "Mirage Wine
+ Spirits, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−03942, from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and,
with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge Margo K.
Brodie for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff moved to vacate the said order while defendants Apple
Inc., Visa Inc., and Mastercard Incorporated opposed the motion and
support transfer.
After considering the argument of counsel, the panel found that the
Mirage action shares questions of fact with the actions transferred
to MDL No. 1720, and that transfer will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. The MDL arose from allegations "that the
imposition of a no-surcharge rule and/or the establishment of the
interchange fee causes the merchant discount fee to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the federal antitrust
laws." The Mirage action alleges that Visa and MasterCard have
engaged in anticompetitive conduct concerning the setting and
maintenance of artificially inflated interchange and merchant fees
at supracompetitive levels in connection with the acceptance of
Visa and Mastercard payment cards. The action, thus, falls squarely
within the subject matter of the MDL. Transfer will facilitate the
efficient conduct of overlapping pretrial proceedings and avoid the
risk of inconsistent rulings, adds the panel.
In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argued that (1)
the factual overlap between Mirage and the MDL is insubstantial,
emphasizing their focus on Apple Pay and Apple’s absence as a
defendant in the MDL; (2) the putative class in Mirage is different
from the certified classes in the MDL; and (3) pretrial proceedings
in the MDL are largely complete, whereas Mirage is in its infancy.
These arguments are unpersuasive, rules the panel. The panel held
that the focus of Mirage is a subset of the conduct at issue in the
MDL: an alleged agreement between Visa, Mastercard, and Apple to
restrain Apple from developing or facilitating a competing payment
card network on the iPhone, in exchange for Visa and Mastercard
paying Apple a portion of the merchant fees that they charge for
transactions completed through the Apple Pay mobile wallet. This
same conduct is at issue in the MDL. Thus, Mirage is subsumed by
the actions in the MDL. Additionally, it is undisputed that the MDL
discovery covered the Apple Pay agreement at issue in Mirage.
Apple's absence as a defendant in the MDL is not significant given
the common factual core. Moreover, the Panel often has held that
transfer does not require a complete identity of parties.
Secondly, the putative class in Mirage overlaps substantially with
at least the equitable relief class in the MDL, adds the panel. The
mandatory equitable relief class certified in the MDL is defined as
all merchants "that accept Visa and/or Mastercard credit and/or
debit cards in the United States at any time during the period
between December 18, 2020 and the date of entry of Final Judgment
in this case." The putative class in Mirage includes merchants who
accepted Apple Pay, including digitally-stored Visa and Mastercard
cards, at the point-of-sale from late 2019 to the present. Thus,
the Mirage putative class overlaps substantially with members of
the equitable relief class in the MDL. Additionally, the equitable
relief class remains in active litigation in the MDL, most notably,
with respect to a pending motion for preliminary approval of a
nationwide class settlement. Transfer will prevent inconsistent
rulings with respect to the proposed settlement and its impact on
Mirage.
Third, the advanced status of the MDL does not weigh against
transfer, adds the panel. The Plaintiffs are correct that the
proceedings are at an advanced stage, with common discovery
complete and many important motions resolved. On balance, though,
we find that transfer of Mirage still is warranted, concludes the
panel.
A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-1720-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf
MDL 2151: Daugherty Added to Toyota Unintended Acceleration Row
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the products liability litigation "In re: Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2151, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring the case captioned "Daugherty, et al. v.
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (C.A. No. 2:24−00067, E.D. Wash.) to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and
assigned to Judge James V. Selna for inclusion in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Daugherty moved to vacate the
order while defendant Toyota Motor North America opposed the motion
to vacate.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that, like many of the
already-centralized actions, the complaint in Daugherty involves
factual questions arising from an alleged defect in certain Toyota
vehicles that causes sudden, unintended acceleration. The action,
hence, involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2151, rules the panel.
Plaintiffs argued that federal court jurisdiction is lacking,
transfer would burden and inconvenience them, and plaintiffs can
benefit from the discovery already produced in the MDL without the
need for transfer. However, the panel has held repeatedly that
transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if
it might inconvenience some parties to that action. Transfer may
benefit plaintiffs by providing them access to the common discovery
already produced in the litigation and will ensure consistent
rulings on pretrial matters.
A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2151-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf
MDL 2433: Cooper Consolidated in EI Du Pont Water Contamination Row
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the water contamination litigation captioned "In re: E. I. Du
Pont De Nemours and Company C-8 Personal Injury," MDL No. 2433,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case styled as "Cooper, et
al. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, et al.," (C.A. No.
2:23−00678, S.D. W.V.) to the U.s. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants E.
I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours Company moved to
vacate the order while plaintiffs opposed the motion.
Defendants argued that transfer is not appropriate because
plaintiffs failed to timely serve their complaint on defendants.
Defendants have moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m) and argued that transfer should not occur until the
transferor court decides this motion. However, the panel insisted
that the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not limit
the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action
is pending and that transfer will result in significant delay or
inefficiencies, as the dismissal motion appears to be a
straightforward motion that can be resolved by the transferee
court.
The actions in MDL No. 2433 share factual questions arising from
allegations that plaintiffs were injured by ingesting drinking
water contaminated with C-8 (also known as perfluorooctoanoic acid
(PFOA) or ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO)) that was discharged
from DuPont's Washington Works Plant, notes the panel.
"Likewise, we are not convinced that transfer will result in
significant delay or inefficiencies, as the dismissal motion
appears to be a straightforward motion that can be resolved by the
transferee court," the panel rules.
A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 Order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2433-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf
MDL 2741: Gomez Consolidated in Roundup Products Liability Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned "In Re: Roundup Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the case styled as "Gomez, et al. v. Monsanto
Company, et al., (C.A. No. 0:24−60355, S.D. Fla.) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned
to Judge Vince Chhabria for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the Gomez action
moved to vacate the order while defendant Monsanto Company opposed
the motion.
According to the panel, Gomez involves common questions of fact
with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions
involve common questions of fact arising out of allegations that
Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient,
glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Like the cases already in the MDL, plaintiffs in Gomez allege that
Mr. Gomez suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma caused by exposure to
Roundup herbicide.
Moreover, like the plaintiffs in the MDL, the plaintiff in Gomez
asserts product liability claims against Monsanto and alleges that
exposure to Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and share
multiple factual issues with the cases already in the MDL.
Plaintiffs contended that transfer will not enhance the convenience
of the parties and witnesses or the efficient conduct of the
litigation because the MDL has reached an advanced stage. But while
the general causation and bellwether phases of the Roundup MDL are
complete, the transferee court has implemented a wave-based remand
and mediation program, through which case-specific discovery
continues to be conducted and case-specific summary judgment
relating to causation continue to be adjudicated.
A full-text copy of the court's June 7, 2024 Transfer Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2741-Transfer_Order-5-24.pdf
MICHAEL KORS: Parties Must File Joint Case Management Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Binder et al v. Michael
Kors (USA), Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03941 (S.D.N.Y., Filed
May 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale E. Ho entered an order directing
the parties to meet and confer and provide another joint civil case
management plan and scheduling order within 30 days of the Court's
decision on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of
partial
judgment under Rule 54(b).
-- The Defendant shall file a response by Aug. 5, 2024, and
Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by Aug.,12, 2024.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Michael Kors designs and sells apparel, accessories, and
footwear.[CC]
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Jones Balks at Unprotected Customers' Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT JONES and DEANA KALOGERSON, and individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Case
No. 27-CV-24-11033 (Hennepin Dist. Court, Minn., July 23, 2024) is
a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information including names, Social Security numbers, driver's
license or state identification numbers, passport numbers, dates of
birth, medical information and health insurance information,
payment card information, and account numbers.
On Aug. 25, 2023, MNGI detected suspicious activity within its IT
network. Following an investigation, MNGI determined that an
unauthorized third party gained access to its network on Aug. 20,
2023, including files containing sensitive Private Information of
more than 765,000 patients (the "Data Breach").
On July 15, 2024, MNGI filed its first public notice of the Data
Breach and began issuing notice letters to individuals whose
Private Information was compromised.
The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations, including those based on their
affirmative representations to Plaintiffs and the Class, to keep
their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected
from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant failed to
take precautions designed to keep patients' Private Information
secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiffs and Class Members a duty to
take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private
Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The
Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from
the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to
implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit.
MNGI is a medical practice group that specializes in the diagnosis
and treatment of adult and pediatric digestive system disorders
healthcare. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 641-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
- and -
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Summary Judgment Bid in Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024, that the summary judgment
motion for the Perfluorinated compounds water contamination class
suit is pending in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia.
In December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals
containing certain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in the Superior
Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to represent all water
subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and Sewer Division and/or
the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department seeking to recover,
among other things, damages in the form of alleged increased rates
and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for the costs associated with
eliminating certain PFCs from their drinking water, as well as
injunctive relief.
The defendants removed the class action to federal court.
The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment and that motion
is pending before the court.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. manufactures, sources and markets a broad
line of ceramic tile, porcelain tile, natural stone tile and other
products including natural stone, porcelain slabs and quartz
countertops, which it distributes primarily in North America,
Europe, Brazil and Russia through various selling channels, which
include company-owned stores, independent distributors,
residential
and commercial contractors and home centers.
MORPHIC HOLDING: Zappia Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Zappia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MORPHIC HOLDING, INC., GUSTAV CHRISTENSEN, TIMOTHY
SPRINGER, NORBERT BISCHOFBERGER, MARTIN EDWARDS, SUSANNAH GRAY,
NISHA NANDA, AMIR NASHAT, JOSEPH P. SLATTERY, PRAVEEN TIPIRNENI,
RAINIER ACQUISITION CORPORATION, and ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Case
No. 3:24-cv-04486 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2024), is brought against
the Defendant for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and breaching their fiduciary duties under
Delaware law.
The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the Board's
recommendation that the stockholders of the Company ("Morphic
Stockholders") tender their shares to Rainier Acquisition
Corporation, an affiliate of Eli Lilly and Company, pursuant to
Rainier's tender offer ("Tender Offer") to acquire all of the
issued and outstanding shares of Morphic for $57.00 per share in
cash.
On July 8, 2024, Morphic and Lilly announced that they had entered
into an agreement ("Merger Agreement") providing for Lilly to
purchase all of the outstanding shares of Morphic for $57.00 per
share in cash ("Merger Consideration") via the Tender Offer. On
July 19, 2024, Lilly caused Rainier to commence the Tender Offer by
filing a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO ("TO Statement")
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The TO
Statement provides that the Tender Offer expires one minute after
11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on August 15, 2024 ("Expiration Time"),
unless extended or earlier terminated in accordance with the Merger
Agreement. Upon satisfaction of various conditions described in the
TO Statement, the Tender Offer will be consummated with Rainier
merging into and with Morphic, and Morphic surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Lilly pursuant to Section 251(h) of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("Merger").
On July 19, 2024, Defendants filed a materially false and
misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
("Recommendation Statement") with the SEC recommending that Morphic
Stockholders tender their shares pursuant to the Tender Offer. The
material misrepresentations and omissions in the Recommendation
Statement render it false and misleading in violation of the
above-referenced Exchange Act provisions and Delaware law.
It is imperative that such violations are promptly cured to enable
Morphic Stockholders to make an informed decision concerning
whether to tender their shares to Lilly before the Expiration Time.
Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin expiration of the Tender Offer
and consummation of the Merger until such violations are cured.
Alternatively, if the Merger is consummated, Plaintiff reserves the
right to recover damages suffered by himself and similarly-situated
investors as a result of such violations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Morphic stock.
Morphic is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops
oral small-molecule therapeutics for the treatment of autoimmune,
cardiovascular, and metabolic diseases, as well as fibrosis and
cancer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bower (SBN 119546)
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Phone: (213) 446-6652
Fax: (212) 202-7880
Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Cabezas Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Cabezas class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On November 3, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, captioned Cabezas v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc.,
No. 23-cv-02453, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, by plaintiff Jennifer Cabezas
purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those persons
impacted by the cybersecurity incident that occurred on October 31,
2023.
The class action complaint alleged claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of
confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty based upon allegations
that the Company did not employ reasonable and adequate security
measures to protect customer personal information accessed in the
cybersecurity incident.
The Cabezas complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and an award of costs, attorney fees and expenses, among
other relief.
Between November 2023 and February 7, 2024, 26 additional putative
class actions were filed against the Company asserting
substantially similar claims and allegations as those asserted in
the Cabezas action.
The Cabezas court consolidated all 26 pending cases with the
Cabezas action, and the 26 separate matters were administratively
closed.
By Order dated June 25, 2024, the Cabezas court set July 15, 2024
as the last day for Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.
On July 15, 2024, plaintiffs Jose Ignacio Garrigo, Izabela
Debowcsyk, Joshua Watson, Brett Padalecki, Chris Leptiak, Denver
Dale, Emily Burke, Mary Crawford, Kay Pollard, Jonathan Josi, Jeff
Price, Mychael Marrone, Katy Ross, Lynette Williams, Karen Lynn
Williams, Gary Allen, Larry Siegal, Rohit Burani, Elizabeth Curry,
Justin Snider, Linda Hansen, and Deira Robertson (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf
of themselves and an alleged putative nationwide class of "All
individuals residing in the United States whose PII was accessed
and/or acquired as a result of the Data Breach announced by Mr.
Cooper in or around November 2023," as well as 15 state subclasses.
Plaintiffs assert seven of the same claims as in the original
Cabezas complaint, (1) Breach of Express Contract; (2) Breach of
Implied Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Unjust
Enrichment; (6) Invasion of Privacy; (7) Breach of Confidence; as
well as a claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and 19 state
law claims.
The Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks damages, injunctive
relief, disgorgement and restitution, and an award of costs,
attorney fees and expenses, among other relief.
The Cabezas court set September 13, 2024 as the last day for
Defendants to move to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.
The Company will continue to monitor legal matters for further
developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability
that has been previously established.
Legal-related expenses for the Company include legal settlements
and the fees paid to external legal service providers and are
included in general and administrative expenses on the condensed
consolidated statements of operations.
The Company recorded legal-related expenses, net of recoveries,
which includes legal settlements and fees paid to external legal
service providers, of $7 and $19 during the three and six months
ended June 30, 2024, respectively, $12 and $21 during the three and
six months ended June 30, 2023, respectively, which are included in
"expenses - general and administrative" on the condensed
consolidated statements of operations. Management currently
believes the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss is $1 to
$15 in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those
matters as of June 30, 2024. For some of these matters, the Company
is able to estimate reasonably possible losses above existing
reserves and for other matters, such an estimate is not possible at
this time.
This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently
available information and is subject to significant judgment,
numerous assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties.
The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to
time, and actual results may vary substantially from the current
estimate.
Mr. Cooper -- https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage
services.[BN]
NAUTICA RETAIL: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Nautica Retail USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05351 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Luca Faloni for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.nautica.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 complete a purchase on
Nautica.com. He tried to purchase a polo shirt on May 13, 2024, but
was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the
many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers
have caused Nautica.com to be inaccessible to, and not
independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.
Because of Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and
enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Nautica.com,
Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is
concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of
Defendant's conduct, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Nautica Retail USA's 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.
Nautica Retail USA, LLC offers a selection of apparel for men,
women and kids as well as a home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Strickland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navient Solutions,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christina L. Strickland,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Navient Solutions, LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. 0:24-cv-61338-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., July 25, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Navient Solutions, LLC -- https://navient.com/ -- provides
technology-enabled education finance and business processing
solutions that simplify complex programs and help millions of
people achieve success.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (331) 307-7646
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
NEW BERN TRANSPORT: Cuellar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Bern Transport
Corporation. The case is styled as Angel Cuellar, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Zuckerman Family
Farms, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008803 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., July 25, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
New Bern Transport Corporation was founded in 1997. The Company's
line of business includes providing trucking transportation
services.[BN]
NEXT BRIDGE HYDROCARBONS: Faces Targgart Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2024, that the
Company faces the Targgart securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On March 15, 2024, a securities class action captioned Targgart v.
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-1927, was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or
entities that acquired the Company's shares in connection with the
Company's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc., in December 2022.
The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleging that the Form S-1 that the Company filed
with the SEC on July 14, 2022, which became effective on November
18, 2022, contained untrue statements or omissions.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified statutory and
compensatory damages.
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc. is an energy company based in Fort
Worth, Texas. [BN]
O'GRADY-PEYTON: Camacho Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Grady - Peyton
International (USA), Inc. The case is styled as Jamie Camacho, on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. O'Grady - Peyton
International (USA), Inc., a corporation, Case No. BCV-24-102463
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
O'Grady Peyton International -- https://www.ogradypeyton.com/ -- is
an international nurse recruitment agency, that offers healthcare
professionals recruitment and staffing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Kyle Roald Norde, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0352
Email: victoria@bamlawca.com
OCEAN GROUP: Faces Mori Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
NOBUKO MORI, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General
Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. OCEAN GROUP INC., a California
corporation doing business as OCEAN FRESH FISH AND SEAFOOD
MARKETING CO.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 24STCV77362 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 12, 2024) is a
representative action, pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, codified at Labor Code section 2698, arising
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and
practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have policies or
practices of failing to pay minimum and overtime wages; failing to
provide a 30-minute uninterrupted, timely, and complete meal and
rest periods; failing to pay premium payments; issuing payment of
wages due, or to become due, or as an advance on wages to be
earned; failing to furnish itemized wage statements; failing to
furnish with documents signed to obtain or hold employment; failing
to timely pay all wages owed; failing to pay Plaintiff's paid time
off and vacation time owed; failing and refusing, and continue to
fail and refuse, to reimburse employees; failing to comply with
wage notice requirements; failing to provide the amount of paid
sick leave; and failing to provide all temporary workers with owed
wages weekly by not later than the regular payday of the following
week.
Plaintiff Mori worked for the Defendants from October 2022 through
March 2023 as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but
were not limited to, purchasing products and performing inventory
management.
Ocean Group Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Michael Braud, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
michael@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Bardia Aaron Akhavan, Esq.
AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
15760 Ventura Boulevard #950
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (855) 463-4733
E-mail: bardia@baalaw.com
PATINA RESTAURANT: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATINA RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-04868 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.lincolnristorante.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on June 5, 2024 to access
Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that
denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and
services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a
manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the
Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the
website, and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the menu and
making a reservation at the restaurant, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Patina Restaurant Group, LLC operates segments of the restaurant
and food service industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
PHX MINERALS: Faces Schilling Securities Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
PHX Minerals Inc. disclosed in its Form 8K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2024, that the
Company faces the verified stockholder class suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On April 24, 2024, plaintiff William Schilling ("Plaintiff") filed
a Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company
and the members of its board of directors (the "Board"), captioned
Schilling v Stephens, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0433-NAC (the
"Action"). In the Action, Plaintiff alleged that certain provisions
in the Amended and Restated Bylaws of PHX Minerals Inc. (the
"Bylaws") violated the terms of 8 Del. C.§ 228.
While the Company and the Board deny completely all of the
allegations of wrongdoing in the Complaint, on June 17, 2024, the
Board amended the Bylaws.
As a result of this amendment of the Bylaws, Plaintiff agreed that
his claims were moot, and the Company agreed to pay $150,000 in
fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel.
On July 15, 2024, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order
providing that Plaintiff's Action would be dismissed with prejudice
only as to Plaintiff and the case will be closed.
The Court has not passed on the amount of fees and expenses.
Plaintiff's Counsel are Christopher J. Kupka, Esq., of Fields Kupka
& Shukurov LLP, (212) 231-1500, Adrienne Bell of Kaskela Law LLC,
(484) 258-1585, and F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. of Ashby & Geddes,
P.A. (302) 654-1888.
The Company's counsel are Evan Lechtman, Esq. and Adam V.
Orlacchio, Esq. of Blank Rome LLP, (302) 425-6429.
PHX Minerals Inc. is a natural gas and oil mineral company, with
its principal executive office in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]
PROFESSIONAL LABOR: Mansfield Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
FRED MANSFIELD, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL LABOR GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01192-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 16, 2024) seeks
Plaintiff's unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other
available relief from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt employee within the past three years. He asserts that
Defendant did not pay him and the Collective Class Members for, or
count as hours worked, the time they spent traveling during their
normal work hours to these remote jobsites where an overnight stay
was required, even when such travel resulted in a work week in
excess of 40 hours.
Professional Labor Group, LLC provides conveyor equipment, and
racking installation services to industrial customers throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry St.
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Wilson and Allen Moure, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, VIRGIN PULSE,
INC., WELLTOK, INC. and YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION
a/k/a YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:24-cv-11924 (D.
Mass., July 24, 2024), is brought against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other
similarly situated patients' Personally Identifiable Information
("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively,
"Private Information" or "PI").
The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and millions
of other similarly situated clients', patients', and/or employees'
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health
Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information" or "PI")
from cybercriminals who obtained such Private Information through
the MOVEit Transfer tool server in May 2023 (the "Data Breach").
As used throughout this Complaint "Private Information" is further
defined as all information exposed by the Data Breach, including
all or any part or combination of name, address, birth date, SSN,
PHI, driver's license information (including license number, state,
home address, dates of issuance or expiration), telephone number,
email address, tax identification number, credit card number, or
dispute documents with PII (such as images of government-issued
identifications).
By obtaining, collecting, storing, and sharing Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' Private Information, Defendants assumed legal and
equitable duties and knew or should have known that they were
responsible for protecting the Private Information from
disclosure.
The Defendants had duties to adopt reasonable measures to protect
the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members from
involuntary disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and Welltok
had a duty to audit, monitor, and verify the integrity of its IT
vendors and affiliates. Defendants have a legal duty to keep
consumer's Private Information safe and confidential.
The Defendants could have prevented this Data Breach by properly
securing and encrypting the files and file servers containing the
Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members or by Welltok
exercising due diligence in selecting its IT vendors and properly
auditing those vendor's security practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs was employed by the Defendants.
Progress Software Corporation is a software company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 482-3700
Fax: (617) 482-3003
Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 594-5933
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 612-339-0981
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Fax: (513) 345-8294
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parmenter v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-10079 (D. Mass., Filed Jan. 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge
Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting motion to seal.
-- Parmenter may preliminarily file her class certification
memorandum and any exhibits that have been designated
confidential
under seal (although she will file a redacted copy of the
memorandum and exhibits publicly).
-- Within 14 days of the court's ruling on the merits of the
motion, however, the parties must file a motion articulating
"compelling reasons" for impoundment.
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA)
Prudential provides life and group insurance, investment, and
retirement services.[CC]
PTC SOLUTIONS: Isom Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY ISOM on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PTC SOLUTIONS LLC and MAGNETIC SOUTH OF ANDERSON LLC dba
MAGNETIC SOUTH BREWERY, Case No. 8:24-cv-04098-DCC (D.S.C., July
23, 2024) is a collective action for actual damages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act.
The Plaintiffs brings this action, as an opt-in Collective Action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of a class of
individuals defined as follows:
"Nonexempt employees of the Defendants at any time within the
three (3) years prior to joining this lawsuit, who were paid a
direct, or hourly, rate less than the minimum wage of Seven and
25/100 dollars ($7.25) per hour, and received tips."
Isom was employed by the Defendants from November 2023 to April
2024.
The Defendants own and / or operate PTC. PTC operates a brewery /
restaurant in Anderson County, South Carolina, doing business as
Magnetic South Brewery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843) 579-7373
Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Final Hearing on Settlement OK Set for Nov. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quantumscape Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California set the
final approval hearing of the settlement in a securities class suit
on November 13, 2024.
Beginning in January 2021, class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by purported purchasers of Company securities (together,
the "Securities Class Action Litigation").
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on June 21, 2021,
which alleges a purported class that includes all persons who
purchased or acquired its securities between November 27, 2020 and
April 14, 2021.
The consolidated complaint names the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its Chief Technology
Officer as defendants.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants purportedly
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including information regarding the Company's
battery technology.
On January 14, 2022, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was substantially denied.
On December 19, 2022, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class.
In April 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle these consolidated actions.
The company recorded for the six months ended June 30, 2024 a net
charge of $24.5 million for the potential settlement of these
actions. This net charge represents the gross settlement amount of
$47.5 million and $0.4 million of related legal fees, offset by a
receivable of $23.4 million for amounts recoverable under its
applicable insurance policies.
On its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2024,
the gross settlement amount and the related legal fees are included
within accrued liabilities, and the insurance receivable is
included within prepaid expenses and other current assets.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
18, 2024, and a final approval hearing will be held on November 13,
2024.
QuantumScape develops battery technology for electric vehicles and
other applications.[BN]
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Summary Judgment on ERISA Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the
company's motion for summary judgment on ERISA class suit is
pending.
In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for New Jersey against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the Company's 401(k) plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of
the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the
expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing
unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan
participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor
performing investments.
In October 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the
caption In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation and plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.
In May 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Discovery has been completed.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Company's motion
for summary judgment are pending.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a diagnostic information
services business, providing diagnostic information services
through its nationwide network of laboratories, patient service
centers and phlebotomists in physician offices and its connectivity
resources, including call centers and mobile paramedics, nurses and
other health and wellness professionals.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Class Suit vs Subsidiary Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the
ReproSource Fertility's motion to stay the Trouville case was
granted.
ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, is subject to a putative class action lawsuit related to a
data security incident that occurred in August 2021 in which
plaintiffs allege that an unauthorized party accessed or acquired
protected health information and personally identifiable
information of ReproSource patients.
Trouville v. ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., which was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, has now been transferred to the
Massachusetts District Court.
The Trouville complaint seeks to represent a class of all
individuals potentially impacted by the August 2021 data security
incident, and generally allege that ReproSource, among other
claims, failed to adequately safeguard patients' private
information.
The Company's motion to stay the Trouville case was granted.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a diagnostic information
services business, providing diagnostic information services
through its nationwide network of laboratories, patient service
centers and phlebotomists in physician offices and its connectivity
resources, including call centers and mobile paramedics, nurses and
other health and wellness professionals.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery in AMCA Data Security Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the
discovery for the AMCA Data Security multidistrict litigation is
pending in the United States District Court for New Jersey.
Numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Data Security Incident.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
cases that were then still pending to, and consolidated them for
pre-trial proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.
In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding
filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the
Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as
plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory
claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident.
In January 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint; the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in
part.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company also moved
to dismiss.
The motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Discovery is proceeding.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a diagnostic information
services business, providing diagnostic information services
through its nationwide network of laboratories, patient service
centers and phlebotomists in physician offices and its connectivity
resources, including call centers and mobile paramedics, nurses and
other health and wellness professionals.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement Deal in Bickman Suit Pending Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2024, that the
settlement in the consolidated Bickman and Gordon class suit filed
against the company's subsidiary ReproSource Fertility is pending
for approval for the District Court.
ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. ("ReproSource"), a
subsidiary of the Company, is subject to two putative class action
lawsuits related to a data security incident that occurred in
August 2021 in which plaintiffs allege that an unauthorized party
accessed or acquired protected health information and personally
identifiable information of ReproSource patients.
Bickham v. ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"Massachusetts District Court"),.
A case filed in the Massachusetts District Court, Gordon v.
ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., was consolidated into the
Bickham case.
The Bickham complaints seek to represent a class of all
individuals potentially impacted by the August 2021 data security
incident, and generally allege that ReproSource, among other
claims, failed to adequately safeguard patients' private
information.
On January 10, 2024, ReproSource agreed to settle the Bickham case
on a class-wide basis.
The settlement is pending approval by the District Court.
If approved, ReproSource will receive a full release for all claims
that the settlement class might possess arising out of the August
2021 data security incident.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a diagnostic information
services business, providing diagnostic information services
through its nationwide network of laboratories, patient service
centers and phlebotomists in physician offices and its connectivity
resources, including call centers and mobile paramedics, nurses and
other health and wellness professionals.
R-N-R VINEYARD: Zavala Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Antonio Zavala, Cecilia Zavala, Fidel Arellano, and Yuridiana
Garcia, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, all
similarly situated aggrieved employees, and all others similarly
situated v. R-N-R VINEYARD, INC., a California Corporation, R-N-R
VINEYARDS AND WINERY, LLC, a California Corporation and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-at-00939 (E.D. Cal., July 24,
2024), is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
23 and a
collective action pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Workers Protection Act ("AWPA") and the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), seeking to vindicate the rights
afforded to workers under AWPA, California law, including the
California Labor Code and Wage Orders, and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") due to unpaid wages.
This action arises out of Defendants' failure to pay non-exempt
employees all wages it owed them by failing to pay for rest and
recovery periods and other nonproductive time separate from any
piece rate compensation and failing to provide non-exempt employees
with legally compliant meal periods. As a result, Defendants failed
to pay non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and the class,
all wages owed to them upon discharge (including seasonal layoffs)
or resignations in conformance with California law.
The core violations Plaintiffs allege against Defendants, for
themselves and the class, are: failure to provide meal periods or
appropriately compensate employees in lieu thereof; failure to pay
minimum and premium overtime; failure to pay/compensate non exempt
employees for rest and recovery periods and/or other nonproductive
time separate from any piece-rate compensation; failure to pay all
wages owed upon separation from employment; failure to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements; failure to pay Plaintiffs for
all hours worked; failure to reimburse necessary business
expenditures; and failure to pay taxes, social security,
disability, unemployment, worker's compensation, Medicare, and
other required obligations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employed directly or jointly by the
Defendants.
R-N-R Vineyard, Inc. is a California Corporation which conducts
business in and around the district, including in San Joaquin
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R Martinez, Esq.
Cody A. Bolce, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Phone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com
ROCKLAND, NY: Court Junks Deide First Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIDI MOUHAMED DEIDE, ADAMA
SY, ABDALLAHI SALEM, MOUHAMED SAID MALOUM DIN, and JHONNY NEIRA, on
behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, v.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE EDWIN J. DAY as Rockland County Executive and
COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEVEN M. NEUHAUS as Orange County Executive, Case
No. 7:23-cv-03954-NSR-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson Roman
entered an order:
-- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint;
-- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
and
-- dismissing Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint by Aug. 19,
2024. The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond to
the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Sept. 9, 2024. The
Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 88
and 96
The Court finds that Defendants have altered their conduct in a
manner sufficient to present a fundamentally different controversy,
and, as a result, Plaintiffs' claims are moot.
Here, litigation over the legality of Defendants' original EOs,
which have long since expired and been replaced by the current EOs,
is similarly moot. As a result, this case must be dismissed
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, filed
the instant action against the Defendants challenging the
Defendants' efforts to exclude them from traveling to and residing
within their counties, including through the issuance of emergency
declarations and executive orders ("EOs").
On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to enjoin the Defendants’
then-operative EOs, and this Court granted a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the counties from enforcing their orders, without
"interfering with the temporary restraining orders that are in
effect and that were issued in state court proceedings concerning
the interpretation and applicability of state and local laws."
On Sept. 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class
Certification, as well as a memorandum of law and reply brief (ECF
No. 92) in support thereof. Defendants filed an opposition.
On Oct. 20, 2023, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, as well
as a memorandum of law and reply brief in support thereof. The
Plaintiffs filed an opposition.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbkS0E at no extra
charge.[CC]
S&S WORLDWIDE: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Valencia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. S&S WORLDWIDE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05624 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.ssww.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SENTRY COMMUNICATIONS: Trimble Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Trimble, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SENTRY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Collective and Class Action
STEVEN SPINNER and BRIAN SPINNER, Case No. 2:24-cv-05206 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 25, 2024), is brought against Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), the New York Labor Law and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations
(collectively, "NYLL"), and allege that they and all others who
elect to opt into this action pursuant to the collective action are
entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages for work
performed for which they received no compensation at all; unpaid
wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for 10 hours
that he spent each workweek traveling back to the Defendants' shop
in Hicksville at the end of each workday. As a result, the
Defendants regularly failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked
after 40 hours per workweek at a rate not less than one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay. During his employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked,
and failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week. As Defendants did not accurately calculate
Plaintiff's wages and total hours worked, Defendants failed to
provide Plaintiffs with accurate statements each pay period
indicating the number of overtime hours worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an alarm and security
system technician from 2012 through August 2023.
The Defendants install, maintain and repair alarm and security
systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 257-5588
Email: promero@romerolawny.com
SHEIN US: Parties in Noel Suit Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noel v. Shein US Services,
LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01330 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 19, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to
confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class
certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their
case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Shein is a global fashion and lifestyle online retailer.[CC]
SHOUT! FACTORY: Welbel Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Welbel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHOUT! FACTORY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06426 (N.D. Ill.,
July 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), and arising from the
Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing its consumers'
personally identifiable information ("PII") and purchased video
media to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook")
and Argonautic Labs LLC ("Zigpoll").
This is a consumer privacy class action against Shout! Factory,
LLC, for violating the VPPA by knowingly disclosing consumers'
video purchases and identities to third parties without consent.
Shout collects and shares the personal information of consumers on
its website through the use of code that includes cookies and the
"Facebook Pixel." Specifically, these website features work
together to collect a consumer's personal data, including the FID,
name, and/or email address, to track and record a consumer's
interaction with Shout's website, and to disclose to Facebook
and/or Zigpoll the video(s) purchased and the consumer's identity
as a single data point. Put simply, Shout's disclosures allow third
parties to know what video media any one of its consumers purchased
from Shout's website.
This disclosure occurs absent any distinct and separate notice to
the consumer, any informed and written consent, or any opportunity
for the consumer to withdraw from these disclosures. Thus, without
telling its consumers, Shout profits from its unauthorized
disclosure of its consumers' PII to Facebook and Zigpoll. It does
so at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their
statutory rights under the VPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff used Shout's commercial and interactive website to
purchase video materials from Shout while logged into his Facebook
account.
Shout's core business includes the sale and delivery of movies, TV
shows, and other video media to its consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
800 Market Street, Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 241-2929
Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
Email: asimon@simonlawpc.com
jnixon@simonlawpc.com
SILVER RAIN: Ezenwa Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY EZENWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVER RAIN, LLC, d/b/a AREA 29 HOUSTON,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-02650 (S.D. Tex., July 16, 2024) is a
collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations
of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dancer from
November 2022 until June 2024. The Plaintiff asserts that she and
similarly situated employees were subject to Defendant's common
policy of classifying them as exempt from the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the FLSA.
Silver Rain, LLC, does business as Area 29 Houston, is an exclusive
adult entertainment club located near downtown Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mirvis Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ALEX MIRVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC. and AT&T INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00065-JTJ (D. Mont., July 23, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' failure to secure the personal identifiable information
of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class and Subclass.
According to Mandiant, starting in or about mid-April 2024, an
unauthorized party began to use Snowflake customer credentials,
acquired using infostealer malware, to access the Snowflake
platform and to target and acquire the unencrypted PII stored
thereon (the "Data Breach"). The threat actor continued to access
the Snowflake platform until approximately May 22, 2024, when
Snowflake was alerted to additional compromised customer accounts
by Mandiant.
On July 12, 2024, AT&T admitted that information about more than
100 million of its customer's cellular telephone calls and texts
were exposed in a massive data breach in or about April of 2024.
The Defendants collectively enabled an unauthorized third party to
gain access to and obtain former and current AT&T customers'
Private Information from AT&T's systems housed by Snowflake.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Through the Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to
remedy the harms resulting from the Data Breach on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was
accessed, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they
should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. The
Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees,
customers, and others who provided their PII to Snowflake's
clients, including AT&T, who in turn used Snowflake's cloud-based
data hosting platform to share and maintain PII.
Snowflake is a cloud storage service with a nearly 20% share of the
data hosting market and is used by 9,437 customers, including
globally ranked, industry leading companies such as Defendant AT&T,
Adobe, Kraft Heinz, Mastercard, HP, Nielsen, Novartis, PepsiCo,
Siemens, Advance Auto Parts, Ticketmaster, Santander Bank,
Anheuser-Busch, Allstate Insurance, Mitsubishi, Neiman Marcus,
Progressive, State Farm and NBC Universal among many others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
E-mail: John@lawmontana.com
- and -
Philip M. Hines, Esq.
HELD & HINES LLP
2004 Ralph Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 531-9700
Facsimile: (718) 444-5768
E-mail: phines@heldhines.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-735-8600
Facsimile: 215-940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, no. 10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Miller Files Suit in D. Montana
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jessica Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., AT&T,
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00067-JTJ (D. Mont., July 24, 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
SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Lockette Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthCoast Health
Administration Management, LLC, et al. Markus Lockette,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SouthCoast Health Administration Management, LLC and Privia Medical
Group of Georgia, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03303 (Ga. Super. Ct.,
Chatham Cty., July 24, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Tort.
Southcoast Health -- https://www.southcoasthealth.com/ -- provides
an ACO to Medicare patients through the Southcoast Accountable Care
Organization in New Bedford, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Rd., Ste. 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Fax: (215) 884-2492
Email: mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Whatley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Whatley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, and PRIVIA MEDICAL GROUP
OF GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00159-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., July 25,
2024), is brought against Defendants for their failure to secure
and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive
Private Information from unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and
theft by third parties, and for their failure to timely and
accurately notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach.
On June 18, 2023, Defendants learned that unauthorized persons had
accessed their network. In the ensuing days, Defendants discovered
that the most sensitive personal health information belonging to
tens of thousands of Defendants' patients, including Plaintiff and
the Class Members, had been exposed and obtained in a data breach.
The information exposed and obtained by the attackers included
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Social Security numbers dates of
birth, names, copies of birth certificates, copies of marriage
certificates, financial account information, payment card
information, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, vehicle
license plate numbers, state identification numbers, military
identification numbers, taxpayer identification numbers
("Personally Identifiably Information" or "PII") and health
insurance information and medical information (collectively,
"Protected Health Information" or "PHI").
Approximately one year later, on July 3, 2024, Defendants sent a
notice to Plaintiff and the Class Members, notifying them, for the
first time, of the breach. Defendants did not explain why they
waited over a year to notify Plaintiff and the Class Members that
Defendants' network had been breached and that Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information had been accessed over twelve
months earlier and was in the possession of unknown third parties.
Due to Defendants' inadequate data security, which breached duties
imposed by law, unauthorized third parties gained access to
Defendants' computer network and to highly valuable and highly
sensitive Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and the Class
Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's PII and PHI were compromised in the Data Breach.
SouthCoast Health is a healthcare provider that provides "Total
Wellness" and coordinates care across an integrated network of 120
physicians and medical professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
WITHERS LAW FIRM PC
8 East Liberty Street
Savannah, GA 31401
Phone: (912) 447-8400
Email: Twithers@witherslawfirmpc.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Phone: (678) 642-2503
Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Reset to August 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM SIMON and CYNDIE
SIMON, V. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01159-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Tolliver
Giles entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for entry
of briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
The applicable deadlines are reset as follows:
-- Specialized Loan Servicing LLC's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion
for Class Certification is due Aug. 12, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief is due Sept. 3,2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=byq6wI at no extra
charge.[CC]
STOP & SHOP: Must Respond to Plaintiff's Letter by August 29
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fuller v. The Stop & Shop
Supermarket Company LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09824 (S.D.N.Y., Filed
Nov. 17, 2022), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order as
follows:
-- The proposed motion will be discussed at the already scheduled
Sept. 5, 2024, conference. Defendant shall respond to
Plaintiff's
letter no later than Aug. 29. 2024.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Stop & Shop is a regional chain of supermarkets located in the
northeastern United States.[CC]
SUNSHINE JEWELRY: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sunshine Jewelry, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-03081 (E.D. Pa., July 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
failure to make its website, https://sunshinejewelryinc.com/,
accessible to Plaintiff and other legally blind individuals, which
violates the effective communication and equal access requirements
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted to access Defendant's website from this District but
encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The lack of an
accessible website deters blind people from visiting Defendant's
physical location and enjoying the unique services that it provides
to the public, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Sunshine Jewelry, Inc. operates the online retail store and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of Pennsylvania and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
T D HARRIS: Robertson Seeks Dump Truck Operators' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T D HARRIS HAULING INC., HARRIS
HAULING, INC., IRVIN W. HARRIS JR. AND TONY HARRIS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00511-DJN (E.D. Va., July 12, 2024) is a civil
action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees time and one half the
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven-day workweek because Defendants misclassified them as
independent contractors.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a dump truck driver
performing purely intrastate truck driving job duties in connection
with Defendants' logistics business operations. His primary job
duties involved moving dirt and rocks between quarry sites in the
state of Virginia. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on
August 10, 2023 and currently works for Defendants.
T D Harris Hauling Inc. is a Virginia-based trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
T-MOBILE USA: Oddo Sues Over Wireless Phone Services' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ODDO, HARRY HYADUCK, SR., LARRY KAHHAN and GERALD
DWYER, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-07719 (D.N.J., July 12, 2024) is an action on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all other persons who were injured by T-Mobile's
failure to abide by the expressly stated and advertised promise
that customers who signed up and paid for wireless phone services
including the T-Mobile ONE Plan, Simple-Choice Plan,
Magenta(R)Plan, Magenta(R)Max Plan, Magenta(R) 55 + Plan,
Magenta(R) Amplified Plan or, Magenta(R) Military Plan would pay
the promised rates for life.
According to the complaint, T-Mobile has engaged in deceptive,
unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent and/or misleading commercial
practices in the advertising, promoting, marketing, distributing
and selling of its wireless phone services which included a
promised life-time price guarantee that the Company reneged on and
failed to honor shortly after the expiration of the three year
period following the T-Mobile/Sprint merger which was a condition
of the approval of the merger by regulators. T-Mobile intentionally
misrepresented that its wireless phone services would not go up in
price for life or until the customer decided to cancel or change
plans.
In failing to disclose the falsity of the lifetime promise to
maintain rates, T-Mobile intentionally concealed its plan to raise
rates, and has concealed, failed to disclose and/or omitted
material facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the Nationwide
Class and Subclass, says the suit.
T-Mobile USA Inc. is an American wireless network operator
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
- and -
Joseph Santoli, Esq.
340 Devon Court
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Telephone: (201) 926-9200
E-mail: josephsantoli002@gmail.com
T.L. CANNON: Dees Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEES and DAKOTA
BOLAND, v. T.L. CANNON CORP., T.L. CANNON MANAGEMENT CORP., TLC
WEST, LLC, TLC CENTRAL, LLC, TLC UTICA, LLC, TLC EAST, LLC and TLC
NORTH, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01537-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Brenda Sannes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the complaint.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted
in
part, in that the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim alleged
in
Count III of the amended complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.
-- declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs'
state law claims, and thus the remaining causes of action in
the
amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice to refiling
in
state court
-- the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as
moot,
without prejudice to refiling in state court; and
-- the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this
case.
The Plaintiffs Tammy Dees and Dakota Boland commenced this putative
class action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the New York Labor Law and related state regulations
arising out of their employment at locations owned and operated by
the Defendants.
On Feb. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and for leave to file an amended complaint. The
Defendants opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) seeking to dismiss the
complaint.
T.L. Cannon is a private owner/operator of 55 Applebee's
Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurants in Upstate New York,
Connecticut and Sayre, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tm5EXQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
- and -
James E. Murphy, Esq.
Jack L. Newhous, Esq.
Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
The Defendants are represented by:
Jessica F. Pizzutelli, Esq.
Craig R. Benson, Esq.
Erin M. Train, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
375 Woodclilff Drive, 2nd Floor
Fairport, NY 14450
T.L. CANNON: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEES and DAKOTA
BOLAND, v. T.L. CANNON CORP., T.L. CANNON MANAGEMENT CORP., TLC
WEST, LLC, TLC CENTRAL, LLC, TLC UTICA, LLC, TLC EAST, LLC and TLC
NORTH, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01537-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Court entered an order adopting the Report-Recommendation.
-- Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint is
granted.
-- Plaintiffs' amended complaint is accepted for filing as the
operative pleading in this action.
-- The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted
in
part, in that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim alleged
in
Count III of the amended complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.
-- The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' state law claims, and thus the remaining causes of
action in the amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice
to
refiling in state court.
-- The Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is denied as
moot,
without prejudice to refiling in state court.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HDrpXe at no extra
charge.[CC]
TACO BRASSERIE: Faces Portillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZURELY GOMEZ PORTILLO and LETICIA CASTILLO VELASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TACO
BRASSERIE CORP. d/b/a TACO VELOZ ASTORIA and AGUSTIN FLORES ALONSO,
as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04851 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum
and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation,
failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay wages
owed on a weekly basis, failure to provide with a written notice,
and failure to furnish with wage statements.
Plaintiffs Portillo and Velasquez were employed by the Defendants
as restaurant staff from around January 2, 2024 until May 20, 2024,
and from November 2023 until May 2024, respectively.
Taco Brasserie Corp. is a taco restaurant authorized to do business
under the laws of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
TAYLOR MORRISON: Legal Fees Claims Hearings Set for Third Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Morrison Home Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2024, that the Circuit Court
for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida
scheduled the plaintiff's legal fees claims additional hearings in
the third quarter of 2024.
On April 26, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County,
Florida by Norman Gundel, William Mann, and Brenda Taylor against
Avatar Properties, Inc. (an acquired AV Homes entity) ("Avatar"),
generally alleging that the Company's collection of club membership
fees in connection with the use of one of its amenities in its East
homebuilding segment violates various laws relating to homeowner
associations and other Florida-specific laws (the "Solivita
litigation").
The class action complaint sought an injunction to prohibit future
collection of club membership fees.
On November 2, 2021, the court determined that the club membership
fees were improper and that plaintiffs were entitled to $35.0
million in fee reimbursements.
The Company appealed the court's ruling to the Sixth District Court
of Appeal on November 29, 2021, and the plaintiffs agreed to
continue to pay club membership fees pending the outcome of the
appeal.
On June 23, 2023 the District Court affirmed the trial court
judgment in a split decision, with three separate opinions.
Recognizing the potential "far-reaching effects on homeowners
associations throughout the State," the District Court certified a
question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court,
and it filed a notice to invoke the discretionary review of the
Florida Supreme Court.
On November 2, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise
jurisdiction.
Following the Florida Supreme Court's decision, it paid $64.7
million to the plaintiffs during the quarter ended December 31,
2023, which included the amount of the trial court's judgment, club
membership fees received during the pendency of our appeal,
pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest.
The Company have recorded an accrual for its estimated liability
with respect to the plaintiff's legal fees and costs for this
matter, which is reflected in its legal accruals as of June 30,
2024 and is not material to our condensed consolidated financial
statements.
Plaintiffs have also asserted claims for additional pre-judgment
interest, for which it believes it has substantial defenses.
A hearing on the plaintiff's claims for additional pre-judgment
interest was held on July 2, 2024, and the plaintiff's claims
remain under the court's consideration.
Additional hearings on the plaintiff's claims for legal fees have
been scheduled for later in the third quarter of 2024.
Taylor Morrison Home Corporation is into residential homebuilding
and the development of lifestyle communities based in Arizona.
TESLA INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from antitrust and warranty laws violation class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On March 14, 2023, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. Several similar complaints were also filed in the same
court and these cases have now all been consolidated.
These complaints allege that Tesla violates federal antitrust and
warranty laws through its repair, service, and maintenance
practices and seeks, among other relief, damages for persons who
paid Tesla for repairs services or Tesla compatible replacement
parts from March 2019 to March 2023.
On July 17, 2023, these plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
On September 27, 2023, the court granted Tesla's motion to compel
arbitration as to three of the plaintiffs, and on November 17,
2023, the court granted Tesla's motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on
December 12, 2023, which Tesla moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs also
appealed the court's arbitration order, which was denied.
On June 17, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Tesla's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended
Complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company that operates and maintains A manufacturing facility
in Dublin, CA. [BN]
TESLA INC: Continues to Defend FSD Capability-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Full Self-Driving Capability-related class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against
Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the
Company's driver assistance technology systems under state and
federal law.
This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class
actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October
28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all
persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016,
to the present.
On October 5, 2022, a proposed class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
asserting similar state and federal law claims against the same
defendants.
On September 30, 2023, the Court dismissed this action with leave
to amend the complaint.
On November 20, 2023, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint,
which Tesla opposed.
On March 22, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Northern District of
California consolidated action filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction to order Tesla to (1) cease using the term "Full
Self-Driving Capability" (FSD Capability), (2) cease the sale and
activation of FSD Capability and deactivate FSD Capability on Tesla
vehicles, and (3) provide certain notices to consumers about
proposed court-findings about the accuracy of the use of the terms
Autopilot and FSD Capability. Tesla opposed the motion.
On September 30, 2023, the Court denied the request for a
preliminary injunction, compelled four of five plaintiffs to
arbitration, and dismissed the claims of the fifth plaintiff with
leave to amend the complaint.
On October 31, 2023, the remaining plaintiff in the Northern
District of California action filed an amended complaint, which
Tesla moved to dismiss, and on May 15, 2024, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Tesla’s motion.
On October 2, 2023, a similar proposed class action was filed in
San Diego County Superior Court in California.
Tesla subsequently removed the San Diego County case to federal
court and on January 8, 2024, the federal court granted Tesla's
motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Tesla moved to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not
oppose, and on June 27, 2024, the Court stayed the case pending
arbitration.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company that operates and maintains A manufacturing facility
in Dublin, CA. [BN]
TESLA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Falsely Advertised Autopilot and FSD Capability
technologies class suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company
executives.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's Autopilot and
FSD Capability technologies and seeks money damages and other
relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between
February 19, 2019, and February 17, 2023.
An amended complaint was filed on September 5, 2023, naming only
Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk as defendants.
On November 6, 2023, Tesla moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters;
however, we cannot predict the outcome or impact.
Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean
energy company that operates and maintains A manufacturing facility
in Dublin, CA. [BN]
TJX Companies: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The TJX Companies Inc. d/b/a Sierra Trading
Post, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02718 (D. Minn., July 16, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant's Website, www.sierra.com, is not fully
and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind
or who have low vision in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Website has a number of
digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full
and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant
makes available to its sighted Website users. The Plaintiff and the
putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief
will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by
Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and
services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader
technology, says the suit.
The TJX Companies Inc. offers clothing and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, pants, jeans, activewear, maternity,
pajamas, shoes, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
TMLK INC: Owen-Brooks Files TCPA Suit in E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMLK, Inc. The case
is styled as Susan Juanita Owen-Brooks, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TMLK, Inc., unknown, Funny Bone
Comedy Club & Restaurant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00039-D (E.D.N.C, July
24, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
TMK INC. -- http://www.tmkinc.net/-- can deliver quality IT
professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Fax: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
TRUE VALUE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. True Value Company LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02712 (D. Minn., July 16, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's alleged discriminatory conduct in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant's website, www.truevalue.com,
is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people
who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the
general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication
and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the federal law.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are
similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring
Defendant to make Defendant's website, accessible to Plaintiffs and
the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient
policies, practices, and procedures, the details to ensure that
Defendant's website remains accessible in the future. The
Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
True Value Company LLC is an Illinois company which offers home
improvement products, and accessories for sale including, but not
limited to, bath, kitchen, electrical, plumbing, lighting, lawn and
garden, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndselaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
TWITTER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 23
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and
X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order modify briefing schedule on motion
for class certification:
1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
certification shall be due by August 23, 2024.
2. The Defendants' opposition shall be due by Sept. 16, 2024.
3. The Plaintiff's reply brief shall be due by Sept. 23, 2024.
4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
shall
be set for Oct. 3, 2024, or another later date convenient for
the Court.
Twitter was an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its
flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sANmB1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
US METRO GROUP: Rios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. METRO GROUP,
INC. The case is styled as Pedro Rios, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. U.S. METRO GROUP, INC., Case No.
24CV084605 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
U.S. Metro Group -- https://www.usmetrogroup.com/ -- offers
facilities support services such as renovations, construction
clean-up, demolition, landscaping and janitorial.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
USF HOLLAND: Rashad Cannot Pursue ADA Claims Against Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Tanya Walton Pratt of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled on motions filed
by certain defendants in the case captioned as MUHAMMAD RASHAD,
Plaintiff, v. USF HOLLAND LLC US, DOT#75806, ANDREW COOK Director
of Linehaul, BRYCE MITCHEM Louisville, Terminal Manager, SCOTT
ROGERS Industrial Relations Manager, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00029-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind.).
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by pro
se Defendant Andrew Cook, and Motions to Dismiss and for Judgment
on the Pleadings, filed by Defendant Bryce Mitchem.
Pro se Plaintiff Muhammad Rashad, a 58-year-old male, was "a former
applicant" for a Professional Commercial Driver's License ("CDL")
Class A Driver position for USF Holland in 2021.
Rashad filed his original complaint on February 2, 2023. At the
time of his complaint, he suffered from a cancer diagnosis but he
was "fully capable of driving and possess[ing] a valid CDL."
Rashad alleges after he completed orientation and was dispatched on
his first assignment, "Defendants['] subordinate refused to
accommodate [him]". Central Dispatch informed Rashad that he "was
being removed off the board until [he] [received] a doctor's note
excuse [sic] to be fit for duty". Instead of accommodating Rashad,
Defendants "refused to hire [him] and wrongfully terminated [his]
employment after learning of [his] disability."
On May 10, 2021, Rashad submitted a charge of discrimination to the
Indiana Civil Rights Commission and followed up with a second
charge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on or about
July 12, 2021.
Rash filed his Amended Complaint on March 30, 2023. He alleges
that the "Defendants['] action in refusing to mai[n]tain employment
for [him] constitutes [d]isability discrimination, failure to
accommodate and wrongful[] termination under the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Americans with Disability Read liberally, Rashad's
Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA, of which only the ADA claims
are now before the Court.
Specifically, Rashad alleges that, as a disabled individual who
suffers from a cancer diagnosis, the Defendants:
(1) failed to hire him;
(2) failed to accommodate him; and
(3) wrongfully terminated his employment.
Cook filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss on February 15, 2024,
asserting amongst other things:
(1) he is not subject to personal jurisdiction;
(2) he was not properly served with the complaint;
(3) Rashad failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted; and
(4) Rashad failed to file his claim before the EEOC and obtain a
right to sue letter.
Cook also states he has never lived or conducted business in
Southern Indiana, has never met Rashad, and does not recall hiring,
working with, or terminating Rashad.
Mitchem, by counsel, filed a combined Answer to Complaint,
Affirmative Defenses, and Motion to Dismiss on May 31, 2024,
asserting claims similar to Cook's, to which Rashad responded. On
July 18, 2024, Mitchem also filed a Motion for Judgment on the
pleadings.
The ADA prohibits discrimination "against a qualified individual on
the basis of a disability." Seventh Circuit case law is clear that
ADA claims cannot be brought against individuals in their
individual capacity, the Court says.
Defendants Cook and Mitchem's Motions to Dismiss are granted, the
Court holds.
According to the Court, even if the Amended Complaint were to
clearly delineate which claims are related to the alleged actions
of Cook and Mitchem (which it does not do), they cannot be held
liable in their individual capacity under the ADA. Because the ADA
does not provide for recovery for Rashad's allegations against Cook
or Mitchem, in their individual capacities, the claims against
these Defendants are dismissed with prejudice, the Court further
holds. Since Mitchem has been dismissed with prejudice, his
recently filed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied as
moot, the Court notes.
As for Defendant USF Holland, the matter remains stayed and, as
previously ordered, "any party may file a motion to lift the
automatic stay following the conclusion of the bankruptcy
proceedings," the Court states.
A copy of the Court's decision dated July 24, 2024, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vy1VMY
USF Holland is a freight and logistics provider.
VANILLA CHIP: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. VANILLA CHIP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05639 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.truheightvitamins.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Vertiv Holdings Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2024, that the securities class
suit dismissal motion remains pending in the Southern District of
New York.
On May 3, 2022, a putative securities class action, In re Vertiv
Holdings Co Securities Litigation, 22-cv-3572, was filed against
Vertiv, certain of the Company's officers and directors, and other
defendants in the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022.
The amended complaint alleges that certain of the Company's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading with respect to
inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
These claims are asserted on behalf of a putative class of all
persons and entities that (i) purchased Vertiv securities between
February 24, 2021 and February 22, 2022; and/or (ii) purchased
Vertiv securities in or traceable to the November 4, 2021 secondary
public offering by a selling stockholder pursuant to a resale
registration statement.
On January 31, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing the
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.
The motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act remains pending.
Vertiv Holdings Co. (formerly known as GS Acquisition Holdings
Corp.) provides mission-critical infrastructure technologies and
life cycle services for data centers, communication networks, and
commercial and industrial environments that include AC and DC power
management products, thermal management products, integrated rack
systems, modular solutions, management systems for monitoring and
controlling digital infrastructure, and services.
VICOR CORPORATION: Valiquette Sues Over Securities Laws Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Valiquette, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VICOR CORPORATION, PATRIZIO VINCIARELLI,
JAMES F. SCHMIDT, and PHILIP D. DAVIES, Case No. 1:24-cv-11935 (D.
Mass., July 25, 2024), is brought on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Vicor's common stock between April
26, 2023 and February 22, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws (the "Class").
The Defendants provided investors with material information
concerning Vicor's second quarter 2023 earnings alongside a series
of promotional statements about the company's forthcoming AI
platform. These AI related statements led investors to believe that
Vicor had secured a significant deal with Nvidia for its H100
product. During an investor conference call the same day, analysts
asked Defendant Vinciarelli if the new AI platform was for a new
customer and how significant was the volume of the incoming
business. Defendant Vinciarelli assured the market that it was "new
generation for an existing customer" and that it was a "significant
customer." The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive
statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating
materially false and misleading statements that Vicor Corporation's
prospects for a big sales contract with Nvidia. This caused
Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Vicor's securities at
artificially inflated prices.
The truth began to emerge just a few months later on October 24,
2023, when Vicor issued a press release announcing its third
quarter 2023 earnings and guidance for the remainder of the year.
In pertinent part, Defendant Vinciarelli noted that although Q3
bookings remained weak the Company was in good position with the
progress made with its intellectual property and ChiP capacity and
potential for diversification and expansion into the AI power
system market. However, while discussing earnings, Vicor appeared
reluctant to discuss its AI platforms, which analysts took as a
sign of "shrinking" opportunity in the space.
In response to this news, Vicor's stock price fell by $14.14/share.
However, Defendants continued to materially misrepresent that Vicor
had secured a significant deal for its H100 product thereby causing
Vicor's stock price to increase under false pretenses over the next
few months, namely that the deal had been secured with Nvidia.
On February 22, 2024, Vicor issued a press release announcing its
end of year earnings, which also missed analyst expectations and
signaled a sharp reversal in new contracts and sales. As a result,
the price of Vicor stock declined from $46.84 per share on February
22, 2024, to $35.67 per share on February 23, 2024. Investors have
sustained significant damages as a result of Defendants' fraudulent
statements. Plaintiff seeks to recover those damages by way of this
lawsuit, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Vicor common stock at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Vicor is a global power technology company designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets modular power components and power
systems for converting electrical power in the United States,
Europe, and the Asia Pacific.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Phone: (203) 992-4523
Fax: (212) 363-7500
Email: shopkins@zlk.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: aapton@zlk.com
VISA INC: Mirage Wine Class Suit Remanded to S.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
VISA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 23, 2024, that the Mirage Wine class suit was
remanded to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
On December 14, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by Mirage Wine
+ Spirit's Inc. against Apple Inc., Visa Inc. and Mastercard
Incorporated on behalf of certain merchants in the United States
that accepted Apple Pay as a method of payment at the physical
point-of-sale from December 14, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy under which Apple agreed not to
enter a purported market for point-of-sale payment card networks
services and seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees
based on alleged violations of section 1 of the Sherman Act.
On January 5, 2024, Visa requested transfer of the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the MDL.
On February 2, 2024, the JPML entered a conditional transfer order
conditionally transferring the case to the MDL.
On February 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order.
On June 5, 2024, the JPML transferred the case to MDL 1720.
On July 11, 2024, the JPML remanded the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
VISA INC: Settlement Deal in Mackmin Suit for Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
VISA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 23, 2024, that the settlement agreement in the
Mackmin consumer class suit is subject to the court's preliminary
approval.
On May 2, 2024, in the consumer class action naming Visa,
Mastercard and three financial institutions as defendants, Mackmin
v. Visa Inc., et al., Visa and Mastercard entered a definitive
class settlement agreement with plaintiffs in that action, subject
to court approval.
Plaintiffs in Mackmin filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement on May 29, 2024.
Visa is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
WENDYS OF THE PACIFIC: Foster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wendys of the
Pacific, Inc. The case is styled as Marquinn Foster, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wendys of the Pacific, Inc., Case
No. BCV-24-102480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 24, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Wendy's of the Pacific Inc. -- http://www.wendys.com/-- operates
as a fast food restaurant chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
Michael J.S. Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92318
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
XAVIER BECERRA: HonorHealth Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xavier Becerra. The
case is styled as HonorHealth, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary, United States
Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 2:24-cv-01837-ESW
(D. Ariz., July 25, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
Xavier Becerra is an American lawyer and politician serving as the
25th United States secretary of health and human services, a
position he has held since March 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine Lusk, Esq.
Margaret M. Schuchardt
Martin Jaszczuk
JASZCUK PC
311 S Wacker Dr., Ste. 3200
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 442-0509
Fax: (312) 442-0519
Email: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com
- and -
Eric Dell Gere, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
2415 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016-4251
Phone: (602) 333-5460
Email: egere@spencerfane.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Defends Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc. has been a defendant in lawsuits involving
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The asbestos-related claims consist of claims
against the Company alleging: exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by
the Company or its subsidiaries ("Products Claims"); personal
injury caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned,
leased or occupied by the Company ("Premises Claims"); and
asbestos-related claims against a subsidiary the Company acquired
in 2013 ("Subsidiary Claims").
"The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its
asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated
liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to
determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims
is required. Additionally, as a supplement to its periodic
monitoring and review, the Company conducts discussions with
counsel and engages valuation consultants to analyze its claims
history and estimate the amount of the Company's potential
liability for asbestos-related claims. As of June 30, 2024 and
December 31, 2023, the Company's asbestos-related reserves totaled
$46 million and $48 million, respectively.
"The Company believes that, based on presently available
information, the total reserves of $46 million for asbestos-related
claims will be sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current
and estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These
reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets, involve significant
management judgment and represent the Company's current best
estimate of its liability for these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2hFKoO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Rejects Penn National's Bid To Avoid Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Journal reports that Pennsylvania National Mutual
Casualty Insurance Co. cannot escape the long tail of asbestos, and
must cover part of the litigation losses for an asbestos
installation company that went out of business more than 30 years
ago, the South Carolina Supreme Court decided this week.
The justices upheld lower courts' rulings in favor of Covil Corp.
and its receiver, with some minor modifications.
The insurer had denied full payment on the claim, arguing that
Covil, a subcontractor that installed and removed asbestos in South
Carolina for four decades, and its receiver waited more than a year
to notify Penn National that a lawsuit had been filed in 2019. The
subcontractor's insurance policy required it to "immediately
forward" the information about the lawsuit brought by former worker
David Rollins, who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma.
The receiver noted that, under previous South Carolina court
rulings, the timely notice provision applies only if the insurer
had been prejudiced by not knowing about the pending litigation.
But Penn National attorneys countered that the prejudice rule does
not apply unless the rights of an innocent third party were
harmed.
In this case, Rollins, the victim, had already been compensated and
thus was not harmed by the delay, the Supreme Court found,
overruling the lower courts on that point.
"In this case, the 'driving force' has no force at all because no
innocent third party's rights are implicated. The underlying
plaintiff—Rollins—has already been paid the full amount of his
settlement by Covil and other insurers," Justice John Cannon Few
wrote for the majority.
But the justices said the failure to give timely notice was not
fatal to the insurance claim for another reason: Case law has
established that the failure must constitute a material breach.
Covil's late notice to Penn did not harm anyone, the justices
found.
"The point that is important to analyzing the 'benefit . . .
reasonably expected' … is not whether Penn National's interests
were protected but whether Covil's interests were," the July 24
opinion reads. "Penn National was not deprived of this benefit
because Covil was represented by counsel hired by other insurers
from the very beginning of the case. Those attorneys timely
answered the complaint, conducted discovery, and handled other
pretrial matters they deemed necessary to protect Covil."
Policy exclusions also did not apply, the justices said. The court
modified the lower courts' ruling on other points, but upheld them
in substance. The opinion can be seen here. Justice John Kittredge
dissented on the finding that the breach of the notice provision
was immaterial.
*********
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 ***