/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240807.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 7, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 158
Headlines
5009 6TH AVE: Landaeta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Hulse Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
ACK HOME: Fails to Pay Nursing Assistant's OT Wages Under FLSA
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Carr Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
AIRBNB INC: Nevada Illegal Listing Class Action Sets Standard
AIRBNB INSURANCE: Sanks Sues Over Hidden Insurance Product Fees
ALIMERA SCIENCES: M&A Investigates Merger With ANI Pharmaceuticals
ALLETE INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Global Infrastructure
ALTUGLAS LLC: Chemical Spill Class Settlement Hearing Set Sep 23
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Alleges
ANN & ROBERT: Faces Turner Suit Over Patients' Compromised Info
ARBOR VINEYARDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villa Suit Alleges
ASR GROUP: Faces Suit Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
AUTO SYSTEMS: Stephens Must File class Cert Bid by Nov. 18
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Transfer Fees Class Suit for $21-Mil.
BANK OF AMERICA: Unlawfully Collects Chargeback Fees, Sidik Alleges
BEAUTYQUE NYC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Valencia Says
BH MANAGEMENT: Chiodni Seeks to Certify Class
BROOKLYN BABY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Perez Claims
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks to File Memo & Exhibits Under Seal
CBM GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cole Suit Alleges
CHEGG INC: Court Rejects New Attempt to Dismiss Leventhal Case
CHOICEONE FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger With Fentura Financial
CIRCLE K: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Abboud Amended to Dec. 17
COMMSCOPE INC: Settlement Deal in Huffman Suit Gets Final OK
COMPASS GROUP: Jurgens Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
COMPLETE CARE: Smith Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Wages
CONMEBOL: Denies Ticket Buyers Access to Stadium, Pou Suit Claims
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Parties in Duncan Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
CROWN OF BRITAIN: Faces Sinkfield Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
CULVER COLLISION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abraham Alleges
D RIVAS RESTAURANT: Abreu Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EAGLE RAILCAR: Brent Coon Hosts Class Action Town Hall
ECP OPTOMETRY: Seeks More Time to File Responsive Pleading
ELON MUSK: Parties Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Deadline
EQT CORP: Hice Sues Over Exposure of Property to Harmful Chemicals
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bennett Alleges
EXAMONE WORLD: Brauer Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal
FASTENAL COMPANY: Petrosino Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
FASTEVICT.COM/LAW GROUP: Steals Property in Trust, Crosland Claims
FEDEX GROUND: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Villanueva Sues Over Debt Collection
FLORIDA: Medicaid Class Action Trial Resumes July 29
FOLEY HOAG: Faces Modny Suit for Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
FORD MOTOR: Faces Wah Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
FSR INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies WARN Class & EmPact Class
GAMESTOP CORP: Final Pretrial Date Set for June 11, 2026
GENERAL MILLS: Tobin Sues Over Cocoa Puffs Dangerous Lead Level
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Seeks to Strike Evidence in Plaintiffs' Reply
GO TO LOGISTICS: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Seal Documents Partly OK'd
GOOGLE LLC: Case Management Conference in Rabin Set for August 1
GOOGLE LLC: Court Certifies Google Assistant Data Breach Class Suit
HALO LAND MANAGEMENT: Baldwin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Hafoka Files Suit in D. Utah
HERSCHEL SUPPLY: Solis Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Caccavale
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert. Bid in Mondello Due May 30, 2025
IDAHO: Nelson Seeks to Certify Class of Current & Former Inmates
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Seibert Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
INTEGRATED DECISIONS: Sued Over Hotel Room Rate Price Fixing
INTEGRITY VEHICLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 1, 2025
IOWA: Court Junks Winters Bid for Class Certification
IOWA: Court Tosses Hildreth Bid for TRO
JAM PAPER: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Valencia Suit Says
JIMCO MAINTENANCE: Mentry Seeks Maintenance Technicians' Unpaid OT
JUSTIN CLARABUT: Purvis Files Suit in Tex. Cty. Ct.
K & Z CABINET: Czernek Suit Removed to C.D. California
LATOYA HUGHES: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
LD NATURAL: Qiu Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Massage Workers
MDL 3107: Alessi Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Afanasyeva Says
MISSING SOCK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Says
MMI SERVICES INC: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Hackett Sues Over Patients' Unsecured Personal Info
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Moalimyusuf Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Schultz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Stout Balks at Consumers' Personal Info Exposure
MOMO ORCHARD: Saunders Sues Over Blind's Website Access Barriers
MULTIPLAN INC: Conspires to Suppress Provider Payments, Peak Says
MVM INC: Class Suit Seeks Damages Over Child Abduction Charges
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Approves Merger at Unfair Price, Baker Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Added Documents for Class Settlement Approval
NFM INC: Wood Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ODDITY TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 17
OVIS LLC: Dominguez Files Labor Suit in Calif.
PACIFICORP: Hegler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Smith Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Skydance Media Merger
PERFORMANCE LIVESTOCK: Witcher Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PROLOGIS LP: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Patients Sue Over Possible HIV Exposures
PULL-A-PART: Raymond Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
RITE AID CORPORATION: Claude Files ADA Suit in D. New Jersey
RITE AID: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bianucci Suit Says
RP'S GRIT: Hickman Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
RUN ROADLINES INC: Helm Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SELECT HOME WARRANTY: Ghebari Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SNAP INC: CRD Sues Over Unfair Compensation Scheme, Retaliation
SNOWFLAKE INC: Hornthal Sues Over Unsecured Customers' Info
SPOEFE INC: Romero Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY: Shatzer Seeks Housekeepers' Unpaid Overtime
SREE HOTELS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Sikes Suit Claims
STONE SECURITY: Faces Sam Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
STRAIN STARS: Saunders Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Matayoshi Balks at Seizure, Taking of Property
SWATCH GROUP: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Brown Suit Alleges
SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE: McMillen Sues Over Unprotected Info
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Action Over Lifetime Price Guarantee
TAMIAMI PETROL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says
TIMEX.COM INC: Brown Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
TRITON LOGISTICS: Underpays Customer Service Managers, Taja Claims
UNITED ENGINEERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnes Alleges
VALIDITY RESEARCH: Does not pay Proper OT Wages, Taylor Says
VESTA MINE: Fails to Pay Miners' OT Wages Under FLSA, Gray Alleges
VNGR BEVERAGE: Wheeler Sues Over Mislabeled Prebiotic Soda
WALSER AUTOMOTIVE: Cuminale Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Removes Alba-Pedilla Suit to N.D. Calif.
WESTGATE RESORTS: Helms Alleges Salespersons' Unpaid Reserve Funds
WILLIAMS UNITED: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wright Says
WILLS EYE: Rocci Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Personal Info
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Milito Sues Over Incomplete Job Postings
YARDI SYSTEMS: Lafleur Balks at Personal Info Use Without Consent
*********
5009 6TH AVE: Landaeta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------
Franklin Landaeta and Pedro Yamaiquer Sanabria Ortegano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 5009
6TH AVE SUPERMARKET INC. d/b/a CITY FRESH MARKET, BIENVENIDO
DEJESUS NUNEZ A/K/A BIENENIDO, and ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.
1:24-cv-05319 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024), is brought to remedy
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
State Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing them the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks.
The Defendants operate a supermarket that serves cold and prepared
foods for public consumption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin Mulholland, Esq.
36-36 33rd Street, Suite 308
Astoria, NY 11106
Phone: (347) 687-2019
- and -
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC
426 Main St, #201
Spotswood, NJ, 08884
Phone: 718-808-2224
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Hulse Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acadian Ambulance
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Anita Robertson Hulse, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Acadian
Ambulance Service, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-01034-GMB (W.D. La., July
30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Acadian Ambulance -- https://acadianambulance.com/ -- is an
employee-owner private ambulance service that covers most of the
state of Louisiana, a large portion of Texas, two counties in
Tennessee, and one county in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM (NO)
5301 Canal Blvd Ste A
New Orleans, LA 70124
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
ACK HOME: Fails to Pay Nursing Assistant's OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA D. JOHNS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACK HOME CARE LLC dba SENIOR HELPERS OF
DAYTON, SH FRANCHISING, LLC, dba SENIOR HELPERS, JOHN C.
KOFLOWITCH, Case No. 3:24-cv-00210-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, July 25,
2024) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's
fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current and
former employees of the Defendants who worked 24-hour live-in
shifts and were not paid at least the minimum wage for work
performed during what the Defendants' classified as "Sleep Time,"
did not have their Sleep Time hours added to their total hours
worked during a workweek, and were required to pay for groceries,
medication and other general living expenses for the Defendants'
patients without being reimbursed.
Furthermore, the Defendants did not provide the Named Plaintiff and
the Putative Plaintiffs adequate sleeping facilities such that they
could enjoy an uninterrupted night's sleep. Due to the demands of
the Defendant's clients, the Named Plaintiff and the putative
Plaintiffs did not get at least five hours sleep per night, the
suit claims.
As of the filing of this complaint, the Named Plaintiff and the
putative Plaintiffs have not been paid all the wages they earned
while working for the Defendants, and those unpaid wages have gone
unpaid for more than 30 days.
Ms. Johns is jointly employed by the Defendants as an in-home
Nursing Assistant since the end of September 2023.
Ack Homes provides in-home healthcare services, primarily for the
elderly and/or disabled individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Carr Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gary Carr, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-05475 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina on July 26, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00445-D-KS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Advance Auto Parts --
https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/home/default.aspx -- is a source
for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Phone: (312) 858-3239
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
- and -
Kailin Liu, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7700
AIRBNB INC: Nevada Illegal Listing Class Action Sets Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trudy Grundland, writing for OB RAG, shares her take on the story
about the class action filed against Airbnb in Nevada, June 2024,
in Giller v. Airbnb, Inc. using the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. There must be someone in California who wants to do
the same.
Nevada state and local laws require Airbnb to investigate its new
host applicants to confirm the person is authorized to rent the
property on a short-term basis. Airbnb is aware that a person may
be in violation of a lease homeowner or condo association rules,
and city zoning laws that restrict short-term rentals. These
conditions would make the property ineligible for a city business
license number, a Las Vegas Municipal Code mandate for every
short-term rental listing in the city, but there are "hosts"
willing to skirt the law and use fake license numbers.
This happened in Las Vegas to the owner of a single-family home in
Las Vegas. The woman rented out her home on a long-term basis of no
less than a one-year period with prohibitions on sub-leasing and
short-term rentals.
A young woman rented the home in 2021 and renewed the lease in June
2022 and May 2023. The homeowner/landlord went to the home in
November 2023 to do routine yardwork and observed "four strangers
entering and leaving the house freely via the use of the security
punch code on the front door."
The homeowner found her home listed for short-term rental on
Airbnb, with the renter shown as a "Superhost" and notified Airbnb,
but the platform "refused to take any action" and continued to
allow the renter to list the property on the website.
The class action lawsuit against Airbnb looks to cover all
individuals in Nevada who currently or previously owned property
from June 10, 2020 to present, that was rented out by an Airbnb
host, when the host was prohibited from renting out the property on
a short-term basis.
Clark County Code of Ordinances requires the facilitators of
short-term rentals, such as Airbnb, to verify the short-term rental
unit has been issued a short-term rental license, and that the
platform must "Deactivate all listings which lack a valid state or
county business license number, or which the department otherwise
requests the licensee remove, within five business days of receipt
of the request." CLARK COUNTY, NEV., CODE OF ORDINANCES Sec.
7.110.080(c).
Despite being well aware that many Hosts on www.airbnb.com are not
authorized to rent out property on a short-term basis, Airbnb
nevertheless enables and facilitates these Hosts to post their
illegal Listings on its platform; facilitates the advertising of,
and advertises, these illegal Listings to potential Airbnb Guests;
and facilitates the short-term rental of the subject properties, in
defiance of legal and/or contractual prohibitions on such
short-term rentals.
The plaintiff's complaint is that Airbnb willingly obtained revenue
from a property that violated Nevada short-term rental laws by not
performing their required due diligence in vetting a new host and
then knowingly allowed the host to continue to rent on the Airbnb
platform without the consent of the owner. The plaintiff seeks a
jury trial and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Another example of Airbnb's ruthless quest for money. Their famous
mantra: "We can't be held accountable for the actions of our hosts
and guests. Section 230 of Title 47 of the Communications Decency
Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of
1966." [GN]
AIRBNB INSURANCE: Sanks Sues Over Hidden Insurance Product Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIRBNB INSURANCE AGENCY LLC and GENERALI
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI S.P.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01098
(W.D. Wash., July 24, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act
and breach of the duty of good faith.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful marketing and sale of
travel insurance policies on various booking, travel, and
entertainment websites. The Defendants automatically bundle a
so-called "assistance fee" in the single price they charge
consumers for travel insurance. Although their travel insurance
offers are presented for a price that appears to be the insurance
premium, the Defendants secretly and unfairly charge unsuspecting
consumers additional fees, on top of the calculated premium,
without disclosing the nature of those fees and without giving
consumers an option to pay only the approved premium for the travel
insurance according to the filed and approved rate for that
insurance.
Airbnb Insurance Agency, LLC is a company that sells insurance
products, with its principal place of business at 222 Broadway New
York, New York.
Generali Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. is a company that sells
insurance products, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 837-4717
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
Email: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
ALIMERA SCIENCES: M&A Investigates Merger With ANI Pharmaceuticals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Alimera Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALIM), relating to
its proposed merger with ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms
of the agreement, Alimera Sciences shareholders will receive $5.50
per share, and one contingent value right which shall represent the
right to receive up to $0.50 per share contingent on reaching
certain net revenue targets in 2026 and 2027.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ALLETE INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Global Infrastructure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating ALLETE, Inc. (NYSE: ALE), relating to its proposed
merger with a partnership led by Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board and Global Infrastructure Partners. Under the terms of the
agreement, ALLETE stockholders will receive $67.00 per share in
cash for each share of common stock owned as of the closing of the
transaction.
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO ACT. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
August 21, 2024.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ALTUGLAS LLC: Chemical Spill Class Settlement Hearing Set Sep 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Altuglas agreed to a $2.7 million
Bristol water settlement to resolve claims that it contaminated
Pennsylvania water sources through a 2023 chemical spill.
The settlement benefits residents and entities that lived or
operated a physical business located in the area impacted by the
Altuglas chemical spill between March 24 and March 30, 2023.
The impacted area includes the following zip codes: 19102, 19103,
19106, 19107, 19109, 19111, 19112, 19114, 19115, 19116, 19119,
19120, 19121, 19122, 19123, 19124, 19125, 19126, 19128, 19129,
19130, 19132, 19133, 19134, 19135, 19136, 19137, 19138, 19140,
19141, 19144, 19145, 19146, 19147, 19148, 19149, 19152 and 19154.
In March 2023, the Altuglas chemical plant in Bristol, Pennsylvania
allegedly released thousands of gallons of latex emulsion solution
into a Delaware River tributary. According to a class action
lawsuit, this spill contaminated drinking water which caused
financial damages for residents and business owners.
Altuglas products are polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cast sheets
and blocks sold by Trinseo.
Altugas hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2.7
million to resolve the water contamination class action lawsuit.
Under the settlement terms, class members can receive a base
payment of $25 to $50 for economic losses due to the chemical
spell. No documentation is required for base payments. Class
members only need to file a claim attesting that they resided in
the affected area and suffered a loss.
Class members with documented losses can receive additional
payments. The settlement covers economic losses such as the
purchase of bottled water, transportation costs, loss of business
income and more. Claimants will receive proportional payments based
on the amount they claim in documented losses.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was July 17, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 23, 2024.
Class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 16, 2024 to
receive Bristol water settlement payments.
Who's Eligible
Residents and entities that lived or operated a physical business
located in the area impacted by the Altuglas chemical spill between
March 24 and March 30, 2023.
The impacted area includes the following zip codes: 19102, 19103,
19106, 19107, 19109, 19111, 19112, 19114, 19115, 19116, 19119,
19120, 19121, 19122, 19123, 19124, 19125, 19126, 19128, 19129,
19130, 19132, 19133, 19134, 19135, 19136, 19137, 19138, 19140,
19141, 19144, 19145, 19146, 19147, 19148, 19149, 19152 and 19154.
Potential Award
$50 or more
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, invoices, checks, card statements, expense reports,
income statements, financial documents and other documentation of
economic losses.
Claim Form Deadline
08/16/2024
Case Name
McGraw, et al. v. Altuglas LLC, et al., Case No. 240100060, in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Final Hearing
09/23/2024
Settlement Website
PhillyWaterSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
(888) 605-0772
Class Counsel
Shanon J Carson
Y Michael Twersky
BERGER MONTAGUE
Daniel C Levin
Charles E Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
Joseph C Kohn
William E Hoese
Elias A Kohn
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
Defense Counsel
Kathryn E Deal
J Gordon Cooney Jr
Mark A Fiore
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN]
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENIER BENITEZ; and MATT HAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING
COMPANY., d/b/a Keurig Dr. Pepper, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-01756 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as
drivers/merchandisers.
The American Bottling Company., d/b/a Keurig Dr. Pepper bottles and
distributes carbonated soft drinks and new age beverages. The
Company conducts business from its sales, operations, and
distribution facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
ANN & ROBERT: Faces Turner Suit Over Patients' Compromised Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY TURNER, on behalf of her minor child, S.T., 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-06290 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored on its computer systems following a
data breach between January 26 and January 31, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago is a
children's hospital in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
Chicago IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Email: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
ARBOR VINEYARDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villa Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO VILLA; JESUS ZAVALA; and JOSE ARELLANO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ARBOR
VINEYARDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02011-WBS-CKD (E.D.
Cal., July 24, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit
meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as laborers.
Arbor Vineyards, Inc. was founded in 1970. The Company's line of
business includes providing farm management services. [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
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com
ASR GROUP: Faces Suit Over Granulated Sugar Price Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
EVAN ANNIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff 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,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-02937 (D. Minn., July 24, 2024)
alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton
Antitrust Act, and the antitrust and trade regulation laws.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
financially benefited from their unlawful acts at the expense of
the Plaintiff and members of the Class, who paid supracompetitive
prices for Granulated Sugar during the Class Period.
The Defendants formed an unlawful contract, combination, or
conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of to raise, fix, maintain, or
stabilize Granulated Sugar prices. The Defendants agreed to and did
share pricing and other information that distorted and suppressed
competition in the relevant market knowing and intending that the
information would be used to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize
prices of Granulated Sugar sold to Plaintiff and members of the
Class, says the suit.
American Sugar Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, refines purchased raw cane sugar
and sugar syrup. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sitso Bediako, Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Peter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
pstphillip@lowey.com
sbediako@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
nveno@lowey.com
AUTO SYSTEMS: Stephens Must File class Cert Bid by Nov. 18
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE STEPHENS, et al., v.
AUTO SYSTEMS CENTERS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-05131-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to extend case deadlines.
-- Plaintiffs' class certification motion Nov. 18, 2024
must be filed by:
-- All discovery must be completed by: Oct. 22,
2024
-- Any dispositive motions must be filed by: Nov. 18, 2024
Auto Systems Centers is a Midas franchisee.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QCyaSY at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Transfer Fees Class Suit for $21-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers who paid wire transfer
fees could benefit from a $21 million Bank of America settlement
resolving claims that its fees violated account agreements.
The settlement benefits individuals with Bank of America consumer
checking or savings accounts who were charged certain wire transfer
fees on incoming payments between March 8, 2019 and Aug. 31, 2023.
According to the class action lawsuit, Bank of America violated its
account agreements and charged a hidden $15 fee on incoming wire
transfers. The lawsuit alleges that the bank intentionally obscured
these fees to profit from unknowing account holders without consent
or notice.
Bank of America is a nationwide bank and lender.
Bank of America hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$21 million to resolve the bank fee class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Bank of America settlement, class members
can receive a proportional share of the settlement fund based on
the amount they paid in wire transfer fees. Current account holders
will receive their share of the settlement fund as a credit to
their Bank of America accounts. Class members without an active
Bank of America account will receive their settlement payment in
the form of a mailed check.
Payment amounts will vary for each class member. No payment
estimates are available at this time.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 21, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
21, 2024.
No claim form is required to benefit from the Bank of America
settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will
automatically receive their settlement payment.
Who's Eligible
Individuals with Bank of America consumer checking or savings
accounts who were charged certain wire transfer fees on incoming
payments between March 8, 2019 and Aug. 31, 2023.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Exclusion Deadline
09/21/2024
Case Name
Aseltine v. Bank of America NA, Case No. 3:23-cv-00235-MOC-WCM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Final Hearing
10/21/2024
Settlement Website
BANAWireTransferFeeSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Aaron Aseltine v. Bank of America, N.A.
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
(833) 522-3647
Class Counsel
Jeff Ostrow
Jonathan Streisfeld
KPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
David M Wilkerson
THE VAN WINKLE FIRM
Sophia Gold
KALIELGOLD PLLC
Defense Counsel
Laura A Stoll
Laura G Brys
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Bradley R Kutrow
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Unlawfully Collects Chargeback Fees, Sidik Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REGINA SIDIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00678 (W.D.N.C., July 24, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violations of South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act and North
Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from Bank of America's practice of routinely
charging and collecting "Returned Item Chargeback Fees." By
administering such fees, Bank of America singles out customers; by
penalizing them for faulty checks such customers had no hand in
issuing. This has left the Plaintiff and other consumers in
financial turmoil, having to obtain external resources to sort
through hefty penalties. By imposing these fees, which provided no
service or product to its customers, Bank of America engaged in
unfair business practice, the suit says.
Bank of America, N.A. is a multinational financial services
institution headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany N. Lawson, 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
BEAUTYQUE NYC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Valencia Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTYQUE NYC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05625 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.beautyque.nyc, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Beautyque Nyc, Inc. sells grooming products, including pomegranate
face and beard wash for men. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Emal: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BH MANAGEMENT: Chiodni Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS CHIODNI, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00147-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to
certify class.
This is a class action by tenants seeking to recover security
deposits unlawfully retained by BH Management.
BH Management unlawfully retained residential lease security
deposits from more than 6,000 of its Florida tenants. Under the
Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act ("FRLTA"), landlords and
their agents cannot claim security deposit funds unless they first
send a notice letter explaining their intent to impose a claim
against those funds, detailing the landlord's claims, and providing
the tenant with time to object.
BH Management failed to provide FRLTA-compliant notices to members
of the class before retaining their security deposits.
Mr. Chiodini seeks to certify Count I of the operative Complaint
– unlawful retention of tenant security deposits without first
providing the required statutory notice in violation of FRLTA.
Plaintiff does not seek to certify his Count II FCCPA claim.
The Plaintiff proposes certification of the following Class:
Security Deposit Class:
"All persons in the state of Florida who had any portion of
their
security deposit withheld between January 27, 2019, and February
9,
2024 after being sent a Move Out Statement by BH Management,
substantially similar to Ex. C to the Complaint, which failed to
contain the required notice of the landlord’s intent to impose
a
claim against the security deposit, as required by Fla. Stat.
section 83.49(3)(a)."
BH Management is a national property manager that managed 117
Florida
apartment complexes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LsT08a at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
BROOKLYN BABY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Perez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES PEREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BABY CAKES INC. d/b/a BROWN BUTTER CRAFT BAR
& KITCHEN, and MYRIAM NICOLAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05100
(E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation;
unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day that Plaintiffs work
shift exceeded 10 hours; liquidated and statutory damages;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work at a restaurant
as a non-exempt cook on December 18, 2022 until June 26, 2024.
Throughout the entirety of his employment, the Plaintiff was not
paid proper overtime compensation.
Brooklyn Baby Cakes Inc. owns and operates a restaurant doing
business as "Brown Butter Craft Bar & Kitchen," located in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks to File Memo & Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC.
and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the
administrative motion to file under seal portions of memorandum of
law, declaration of Steven N. Williams and exhibits to opposition
to motion to deny class certification.
Each of the things for which sealing has sought is either testimony
that has been designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective
Order in this case or documents produced in discovery and
designated confidential in this case. As a result, the Plaintiff is
required to seek to file these things under seal.
The Plaintiff is not the designating party, and takes no position
as to whether confidentiality should be maintained pending the
Defendants and non-parties supporting their designations.
ByteDance is a Chinese technology company that has developed novel
video-sharing social networking applications, most notably TikTok.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9Mqkx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq.
STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C.
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 697-1509
E-mail: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com
khoward@stevenwilliamslaw.com
CBM GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cole Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA D. COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. THE CBM GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
S-CV-0053071 (Cal. Sup., Placer Cty., June 24, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The CBM Group is a general management consulting firm specialized
in the financial services industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alvin Brock Lindsay, Esq.
D. LAW, INC.
400 N Brand Blvd 7th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (855) 372-4693
CHEGG INC: Court Rejects New Attempt to Dismiss Leventhal Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as STEVEN LEVENTHAL, v. CHEGG, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09953-PCP (N.D. Calif.), Judge P. Casey
Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California denied defendants' motion for reconsideration and
denied as moot plaintiffs' motion to strike.
In December 2021, lead plaintiffs Pompano Beach Police and
Firefighters' Retirement System and KBC Asset Management NV brought
this securities fraud class action lawsuit against Chegg, Inc.,
Chegg CEO Daniel Rosensweig, Chegg CFO Andrew Brown, and Chegg
President of Learning Services Nathan Schultz. Defendants moved to
dismiss the case, and the Court denied defendants' motion on March
4, 2024. Defendants then moved for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court granted.
Defendants argue that the Court improperly denied their motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaint because plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation with
particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity
because their allegations did not link purported cheating with
Chegg's growth. Defendants also contend that the Court
impermissibly drew inferences from circumstantial evidence in
holding that plaintiffs pleaded with particularity that increased
cheating on Chegg during the class period led to increased revenue
and subscriber growth. Defendants further contend that plaintiffs
fail to quantify the rate of increased cheating through their
empirical analysis, thereby failing to meet the PSLRA's
particularity requirements.
The Court points out it already addressed these arguments in
denying defendants' original motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion
to reconsider the Court's decision regarding falsity is denied.
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs did not adequately plead a
"strong inference" of scienter as required by the PSLRA and Rule
9(b). They contend that plaintiffs failed to plead particularized
facts demonstrating that the individual defendants "intended to
deceive investors or were deliberately reckless in making the
statements to investors."
Again, defendants simply reiterate arguments from their motion to
dismiss that the Court did not find persuasive. As defendants
concede in their motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs can
adequately plead scienter under the PSLRA if their particularized
allegations show that defendants made statements with deliberate
recklessness. Contrary to defendants' assertions, the Court applied
this standard. As the Court held in its order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss, plaintiffs met this bar by specifically alleging
Chegg received a plethora of reports from universities and faculty
members about rampant cheating on the platform.
In short, and as the Court previously held, plaintiffs have pleaded
with particularity that the defendants (including the individual
executives) were at least deliberately reckless in making
statements to investors about the lack of cheating on Chegg.
Defendants' motion to reconsider whether plaintiffs adequately
pleaded scienter is denied.
Defendants finally argue that plaintiffs fail to plead loss
causation with particularity and that the Court misstated relevant
Ninth Circuit law in holding otherwise. Specifically, defendants
contend that the Court's reliance on Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp.
was improper because Lloyd involved a subsequent corrective
disclosure by the defendant confirming analysts' speculations about
the relationship between alleged misstatements and a stock price
decline. In contrast, defendants argue, no such corrective
disclosure occurred in this case.
But defendants fail to recognize that the Ninth Circuit has
permitted alternative approaches to pleading loss causation besides
alleging a corrective disclosure by the defendant, the Court
states. In In re Daou Systems, Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 1026 (9th Cir.
2005), the Court held that plaintiffs had plausibly pleaded loss
causation where the market learned of the defendants' misstatements
about its accounting practices not through a corrective disclosure
but instead through the company's reporting of its "true financial
condition." The Court found that loss causation had been adequately
pleaded where plaintiffs contended that defendants' misstatements
had inflated the company's stock price and the company's subsequent
financial reports demonstrated that the inflation was artificial.
The Court points out similarly in this case, plaintiffs allege that
defendants' misstatements about the lack of cheating on Chegg and
their failure to link that cheating with Chegg's growth were
substantial causes for the increase in the company's stock price,
and that this increase evaporated once Chegg issued revenue
guidance providing a more accurate impression of its business. As
in Daou, the analysts' belief that this lowered guidance resulted
from a return to in-person learning where cheating on Chegg was
less feasible simply strengthened plaintiffs' allegations of a
connection between defendants' prior misstatements and the inflated
growth of Chegg's stock price, the Court adds.
For these reasons, the Court again finds that plaintiffs have
adequately pleaded loss causation, and defendants' motion for
reconsideration of that issue is denied.
In support of its motion for reconsideration, defendants filed a
statement of recent decision on June 13, 2024. Plaintiffs move to
strike defendants' statement of recent decision, arguing that Civil
Local Rule 7-3 requires that such a statement be filed "[b]efore
the noticed hearing date." Plaintiffs argue that because the
hearing on the motion for reconsideration was scheduled for June 6,
2024, defendants' statement filed after that date does not comply
with Rule 7-3. Because the Court has not considered defendants'
statement of recent decision in denying their motion for
reconsideration, the Court denies as moot plaintiffs' motion to
strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lCycJG
CHOICEONE FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger With Fentura Financial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating ChoiceOne Financial Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: COFS),
relating to its proposed merger with Fentura Financial, Inc. Under
the terms of the agreement, ChoiceOne stockholders will receive
1.35 shares of Fentura stock per share of ChoiceOne stock they own.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
CIRCLE K: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Abboud Amended to Dec. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abboud v. Circle K Stores
Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-01683 (D. Ariz., Filed Aug. 17,
2023), the Hon. Judge Dominic W. Lanza entered an order granting
the parties' motion to amend case deadlines.
-- The deadline for expert disclosures for Sept. 24, 2024
the party with the burden of proof is
extended to:
for the responding party to: Oct. 22, 2024
for rebuttal experts to: Nov. 19, 2024
-- The deadline for expert depositions is Dec. 9, 2024
extended to:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Dec. 17, 2024
motion for class certification is:
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
COMMSCOPE INC: Settlement Deal in Huffman Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HUFFMAN and BRYAN
QUERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. COMMSCOPE, INC. OF NORTH CAROLINA and COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY,
INC.; Case No. 5:23-cv-00132-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Kenneth Bell entered final approval order and judgment:
-- The Settlement involves allegations in Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint against Defendants for failure to implement or
maintain
adequate data security measures and safeguards to protect
Private
Information, which Plaintiffs allege directly and proximately
caused injuries to Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members.
-- The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by
the Defendants, and the Court expressly does not make any
finding
of liability or wrongdoing by Defendants.
-- Unless otherwise indicated, words spelled in this Order and
Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
with
initial capital letters have the same meaning as set forth in
the
Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement
Agreement
submitted by the Parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e)(2), grants final approval of the Settlement
Agreement and for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this
Final Order and Judgment only, the Court finally certifies the
following Settlement Class:
"All individuals residing in the United States who were sent a
notice by CommScope informing them of the Data Incident
CommScope
discovered in March 2023."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the
judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct
families; (2) the Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
the
Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and
their
current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement
Class
Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the
OptOut Deadline or who have otherwise been permitted to
Opt-Out."
On March 11, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
CommScope manufactures communication equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nernzq at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMPASS GROUP: Jurgens Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Jurgens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Compass Group USA, Inc. d/b/a Levy
Restaurants, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06355 (N.D. Ill., July 24,
2024) seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful
collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, Levy Restaurants collects, stores,
possesses, and otherwise obtains, uses and disseminates its
employees' biometric data. Levy Restaurants' unlawful collection,
obtainment, storage, and use of its users' biometric data exposes
them to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if
Levy Restaurants' database containing fingerprint scans or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, Levy Restaurants' employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other
unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
information, says the suit.
Levy Restaurants also failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's
fingerprint scans following each time punch or at the conclusion of
Plaintiff's employment. As such, Levy Restaurants' retention of
Plaintiff's biometric information was unlawful and in violation of
the state law.
The Plaintiff worked at a Levy Restaurant located at 1901 West
Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois from approximately 2017 through
approximately 2024, as a bartender and had her biometric
information processed via a fingerprint scan as part of the time
clock procedure for timekeeping and payroll purposes.
Levy Restaurants is a Chicago, Illinois-based hospitality company
that provides food and beverage services at over 350 venues,
including sports and entertainment venues, cultural attractions,
special events, convention centers, and athletic venues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
COMPLETE CARE: Smith Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIAMOND SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETE CARE MANAGEMENT LLC and GLENDALE
CARE AND REHAB CENTER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-912 (E.D.
Wis., July 19, 2024) is a collective and class action against the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendants operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the
position of Certified Nursing Assistant during the years 2023 and
2024. She is still currently employed by Defendants.
Complete Care Management owns, operates, and manages skilled
nursing facilities and assisted living facilities in multiple
States across the U.S., including in the State of Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
CONMEBOL: Denies Ticket Buyers Access to Stadium, Pou Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM POU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD.,
and SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22828
(S.D. Fla., July 24, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to manage, maintain,
or direct the crowds at the July 14, 2024 Copa America soccer final
at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida. Due to the
Defendants' negligence and omissions, thousands of ticket buyers
were denied access due to chaos, cancellations, stampedes, and
rejection at the gate despite paying for and presenting valid
tickets. Instead of maintaining order and ensuring that bona fide
ticket holders could enter the Stadium, the Defendants ceased to
let anyone else inside including bona fide ticket holders. The
valid ticket holders locked out of the Copa America Final have not
been provided refunds for the price of their tickets and the
Defendants have not announced a plan, timeline, or proposal to
provide refunds to ticket holders who were denied entry to the
Stadium or access to their seats, says the suit.
CONMEBOL is an international sports organization with headquarters
in Luque, Paraguay.
CONCACAF is an international sports organization with headquarters
in Miami-Dade, Florida.
Miami Dolphins, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with
principal address in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
South Florida Stadium LLC is a limited liability company with its
headquarters located in Miami Gardens, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eduardo A. Maura, Esq.
Luis F. Quesada, Esq.
Ryan M. Sawal, Esq.
Orestes D. Garcia, Esq.
AYALA LAW, P.A.
2490 Coral Way, Ste. 401
Miami, FL 33145
Telephone: (305) 570-2208
Email: eduardo@ayalalawpa.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Parties in Duncan Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE DUNCAN, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; RIZO-LOPEZ FOODS, INC.; RESER'S FINE FOODS,
INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60231-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 7.1 and 7.6, continuing
the class certification deadlines set forth in this Court's Order
Setting Trial and Pre-Trial Schedule.
The parties have been diligently engaged in discovery. The parties
have exchanged written discovery, are working on their responses
and reviewing documents for production.
The Plaintiff has issued a 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Defendant
Costco but was recently informed that Costco would be changing its
representation soon. As such, the parties request a three (3) month
extension of all Class Certification deadlines.
The parties are requesting a continuance of the trial and pretrial
deadlines in this putative class action necessitated by the
procedural posture of the case, the time required to conduct
discovery, and the forthcoming change of counsel for Defendant
Costco. The parties seek an additional three (3) month continuance
of all Class Certification deadlines.
The joint request for the continuance is not due to delay or lack
of diligence but instead necessitated by the nature of the action
– a class action – with voluminous discovery, much of which is
related to class certification. The parties attach an amended
scheduling report with the requested extensions.
Due to the volume of discovery and Costco changing counsel, the
parties are unable to complete written discovery, depositions, and
the necessary document review before the August 30, 2024, deadline
to file a Motion for Conditional Certification of Putative Class.
As a result, the parties seek an order continuing all Class
Certification related deadlines.
The Plaintiff Kyle Duncan filed this putative class action on Feb.
9, 2024, and served the complaint upon the Defendants in February
of 2024. On April 19, 2024, the Court entered the initial
Scheduling Order setting the trial for the period beginning Feb. 9,
2026.
Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gmcGam at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Gale, Esq.
D. G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
Patrick Pantazis, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
101 N. Woodland Blvd., Suite 600
DeLand, FL 32720
Telephone: (386) 675-6946
Facsimile: (386) 675-6947
E-mail: jgale@wigginschilds.com
dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
ppantazis@wigginschilds.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David F. Cooney, Esq.
COONEY TRYBUS KWAVNICK PEETS PLC
1600 West Commercial Blvd., Suite # 200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Telephone: (954) 568-6669
E-mail: dcooney@cooneytrybus.com;
reception@cooneytrybuscom;
tzaccour@cooneytrybus.com
- and -
Kathryn Lee Ender, Esq.
Seth Victor Alhadeff, Esq.
Caroline G. Massey, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2401
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 957-1136
E-mail: katie.ender@dinsmore.com
seth.alhadeff@dinsmore.com
caroline.massey@dinsmore.com
- and -
Jerrel Kent Crocker, Esq.
Juan Garrido, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 704-5950
E-mail: jcrocker@cozen.com
jgarrido@cozen.com
CROWN OF BRITAIN: Faces Sinkfield Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEON SINKFIELD, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN OF BRITAIN: CHARLES III HIS
MAJESTY'S TREASURY, ROMAN CHURCH: POPE FRANCIS, HOLY SEE ON THE
BEHALF OF THIS TRI-MISSION, GINA M. RAIMONDO, KAMALA HARRIS, THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC., BIS INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS, WORLD
BANK GROUP, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, THE BANK OF LONDON, THE BANK
OF ENGLAND, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE
GROUP PLC, BARON CAPITAL, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, Defendants,
Case No. 0:24-cv-02967-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., July 25, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged violation of civil
rights.
BIS International Settlements is a foreign exchange company
headquartered in Switzerland.
World Bank Group is a development bank based in Washington, DC.
World Trade Organization is an intergovernmental organization
headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Bank of London is a British clearing, correspondent and
wholesale bank operating in the United Kingdom, the United States
and Europe.
The Bank of England is the central bank of the United Kingdom.
International Monetary Fund is a major financial agency of the
United Nations.
London Stock Exchange Group PLC is a provider of financial markets
data and infrastructure, headquartered in London, England.
Baron Capital is a financial institution in New York, New York.
[BN]
CULVER COLLISION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abraham Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE ABRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY FILANGERI; and CULVER COLLISION
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05165 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2024)
Culver Collision Inc is an auto body shop located in Brooklyn, NY
that offers bodywork services.
Plaintiff Abraham was employed by the Defendants as a paint
technician.
Culver Collision Inc is an auto body shop located in Brooklyn, NY
that offers bodywork services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
D RIVAS RESTAURANT: Abreu Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLYS PANIAGUA ABREU, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D RIVAS RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a LA FLOR DEL P
ARAISO, DANIEL RIV AS, and WALTER RIVAS, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05114 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act seeking to recover unpaid overtime
compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day that
Plaintiffs work shift exceeded 10 hours; liquidated and statutory
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt dishwasher, porter, stock person, and food delivery
worker at a restaurant from December 26, 2022 through June 16,
2024.
D Rivas Restaurant Inc., owns and operates a restaurant doing
business as "La Flor Del Paraiso," located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
EAGLE RAILCAR: Brent Coon Hosts Class Action Town Hall
------------------------------------------------------
Representatives of a local law firm hosted a town hall to address
the lawsuits and restraining order filed in relation to a chemical
release which resulted in an Orange County shelter-in-place order
earlier this month. Over 60 people attended the first town hall
session on Thursday at the Orange Train Depot Museum. "What
happened here last week, that is something we know very little
about right now," said Brent Coon of Brent Coon & Associates. "Our
goal is to let you guys who have already signed up with us know
more about what we have found out, and also come back here into the
community for the convenience of people that want to retain us to
help them with the legal issues that they face as a result of this
incident."
Coon said his firm is looking to launch a class-action lawsuit
against Eagle Railcar Services, where flaring from a railcar on
July 18 resulted in the release of ethyl acrylate. The release
prompted an hours-long shelter-in-place order for Bridge City,
Orangefield and West Orange.
The lawyer cited lack of communication from Eagle Railcar Services,
the EPA's classification of ethyl acrylate and its negative health
effects as primary drivers of a potential class-action suit.
Brent Coon & Associates filed the case in Orange County on July 19,
as well as a restraining order which is supposed to prevent removal
or destruction of any evidence related to the event at Eagle
Railcar Services.
Whether the master complaint results in approval of a class-action
lawsuit remains at the court's discretion. Coon said that courts
sometimes deny class-action suits due to differing exposure levels
and medical histories of those affected. It will likely take
multiple months for the legal process to play out and result in a
decision. If a class action suit is not approved, those looking for
legal recourse will have to file individual claims through their
own counsel. "We want to be sure that anybody that wants their name
in the claim has an individual document authorizing us to represent
them, and to put them on a complaint to be individually made," Coon
said. "That way we make sure that your rights are protected no
matter what ."
Coon said ethyl acrylate is an irritant and can cause symptoms such
as headaches, drowsiness and irritation of the eyes, the throat and
the gastrointestinal system. These symptoms match what many
residents say they experienced in the hours following the chemical
release. At least 15 attendees raised their hand when asked if they
experienced lingering headaches after the flaring. According to
Coon, some clients sought medical treatment and were hospitalized
through the weekend, including one person who was kept in the ICU.
One man at the town hall said his dog passed away shortly after the
chemical release. A woman who lives near Eagle Railcar Services
spoke with The Orange Leader and said she experienced adverse
health effects of her own. "The smell was strong," Kathy Fleming
said. "My eyes burned and watered, and it felt like I had hot
pokers up my nose. My throat burned and I couldn't breathe. I was
thirsty and had a really bad headache for a couple of days since
then." Coon advised people who are still experiencing adverse
reactions to seek a doctor's evaluation. Medical professionals were
on site to evaluate those in need, regardless of insurance status.
The EPA classifies ethyl acrylate as a Group B2, probable human
carcinogen. The substance has been shown to cause cancer in rats
after prolonged exposure. However, the EPA has not developed a
potency estimate to quantify risk by inhalation. Coon said he would
like to host at least one more town hall as the legal process
continues to update the community on proceedings. [GN]
ECP OPTOMETRY: Seeks More Time to File Responsive Pleading
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jodeci Vanorden, an
Arizona resident, and Gabriella Gantt, an Arizona resident; v. ECP
Optometry Services, LLC, a Delaware company, and Eyecare Partners,
LLC, a Delaware company; Case No. 2:24-cv-01060-DWL (D. Ariz.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to extend their deadline
to file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification from July 25, 2024, to Aug. 8, 2024.
Counsel for the Defendants were in a Jury Trial from July 16 to
July 19, 2024 (Pima County Superior Court for Mr. Badoux as lead
counsel, and Ms. Proskey as assisting co-counsel), in an
arbitration hearing from July 15 to July 18 (AAA Arbitration in
Phoenix for Ms. Proskey, as second chair), with the attendant
preparations for these proceedings in the two weeks leading up to
those appearances.
Consequently, counsel for Defendants were unable to evaluate
meaningfully the factual assertions underlying the arguments raised
in Plaintiffs’ Motion, including interviewing individuals that
may have relevant information to contribute to such inquiry, in
conjunction with the preparation of a response.
The Defendants contacted the Plaintiffs and are authorized to
represent that the Plaintiffs do not oppose this request.
The Defendants provide a full spectrum of eye care—from optometry
to ophthalmology.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQ2Ygq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Weiler, Esq.
Jason Barrat, Esq.
WEILER LAW PLLC
5050 N. 40th Street, Suite 260
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (480) 442-3410
E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com
jbarrat@weilerlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Laurent R.G. Badoux, Esq.
Lindsay Proskey, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Camelback Esplanade
2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 474-3600
Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
E-mail: lbadoux@littler.com
lproskey@littler.com
ELON MUSK: Parties Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ELON R.
MUSK, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the parties ask the
Court extending class certification briefing deadline:
1. Defendant's deadline to file his Opposition to the Motion
shall
be extended to Sept. 2, 2024;
2. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Reply in Support of their
Motion shall be extended to Sept. 16, 2024.
3. The hearing for the Motion shall remain on Sept. 27, 2024,
at
10:00 a.m.
On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify.
On June 4, 2024, the Court entered an order extending the time for
briefing on the Motion upon the parties' stipulation.
On July 1, 2024, the Court entered a further order extending the
time for briefing on the Motion upon the parties' stipulation that
additional time was needed in order for each party to adequately
conduct certification-related fact and expert discovery relevant to
the Motion.
The parties have completed several depositions and exchanged
document production related to deposed witnesses. However,
additional time is necessary to complete certification-related
depositions.
Elon Musk is a businessman and investor known for his key roles in
space company SpaceX and automotive company Tesla, Inc.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQuryk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq.
Gia Jung, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
gjung@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Aaron Arnzen, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
aarnzen@bottinilaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alex Spiro, Esq.
Jesse A. Bernstein, Esq.
Jonathan E. Feder, Esq.
Michael T. Lifrak, Esq.
Joseph C. Sarles, Esq.
Alex Bergjans, Esq.
Nathan Archibald, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Madison Ave 22nd floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com
jonathanfeder@quinnemanuel.com
michaellifrak@quinnemanuel.com
josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com
alexbergjans@quinnemanuel.com
nathanarchibald@quinnemanuel.com
EQT CORP: Hice Sues Over Exposure of Property to Harmful Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HICE, JOSEPH MOORE, and CHRISTINA BARLOW, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQT
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania corporation, and BEUSA HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00896 (W.D. Pa., June 20,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants to remedy the
environmental contamination and polluting events caused by
negligent gas drilling operations, seeking compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including future medical
monitoring for the residents affected by the Frac-out incident.
On June 19, 2022, Defendants' oil and gas operations caused a
"Frac-Out" incident, where a hydraulically fractured well owned and
operated by Defendants injected hazardous chemicals and industrial
waste into the water supply of surrounding residents.
The complaint alleges that Defendants' negligent, careless,
reckless, and/or intentional conduct in connection with the
Frac-out, caused surrounding residents and their property to be
exposed to hazardous gases, chemicals, and industrial waste, and
caused damage to the natural resources of the environment,
including contaminating the drinking water supply. Residents, like
Plaintiffs, have suffered significant damages, including increased
risk of serious health issues, loss of use and enjoyment of their
property, diminution in value, loss of quality of life, and other
damages, says the suit.
EQT Corporation is an oil and gas production company with
operations focused in the Appalachian Basin.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kimberly Russell, Esq.
THE RUSSELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
1140 3rd Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 430-5085
Email: kimberly@russellatlaw.com
- and -
Joy D. Llaguno, Esq.
HOOK & HOOK PLLC
430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101
Waynesburg, PA 15370
Telephone: (724) 824-3302
Facsimile: (724) 638-2186
Email: jllaguno@hooklaw.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bennett Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
CARL BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00635-DPM (E.D. Ark., July 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information including the
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' name, social security number,
date of birth, account information and other personal information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained the Private
Information in a reckless and negligent manner. In particular, the
Private Information was maintained on the Defendant's computer
system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Upon
information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and
potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiffs and Class
Members' Personal Information was a known risk to Defendant and
thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary
to secure the Personal Information from those risks left that
information in a dangerous condition.
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft,
says the suit.
Evolve Bank & Trust as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes
loans, and provides mortgage solutions, card facilities, and online
banking services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martha Tucker Ayres, Esq.
TABLE LAW PLLC
Markham Executive Center
10201 W. Markham St., Suite 311
Little Rock, AR 72205
Telephone: (501) 491-0300
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: leigh@ellzeylaw.com
EXAMONE WORLD: Brauer Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his application for leave to file his and
his son's health information in Exhibit 22.
Pursuant to Central District of California Local Civil Rule
79-5.2.2 and the Protective Order entered by this Court on
September 29, 2023, ECF 61, Plaintiff submits this Application for
Leave to File Under Seal certain documents or portions of documents
that have been designated confidential by Defendants or that
include Plaintiff's and his family members' confidential health
information.
Document Portions conditionally
filed
under seal
Exhibit 19 (excerpts from ExamOne0016349- 0016364) Entire document
Exhibit 20 (excerpts from ExamOne0016319-0016348) Entire document
Exhibit 22 (excerpts from Brauer deposition transcript) Redactions
highlighted in green Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification Redactions highlighted in green
Examone provides diagnostics services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ymnwrt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
asteiner@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, 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
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
FASTENAL COMPANY: Petrosino Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN PETROSINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASTENAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 612943/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., July 24, 2024) is a class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all of Defendant Fastenal
Company's employees in the State of New York that engage in manual
work in the course of their employment pursuant to New York Labor
Law.
The complaint alleges that Defendant has violated the state law by
paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly
basis. The Plaintiff, therefore, demands liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees on behalf of himself and a putative
class comprised of all manual workers employed by Defendant in New
York State over the last six years.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2016
to 2017 as a sales associate at a Fastenal location in Schenectady,
New York.
Fastenal Company owns and operates an industrial supplies company
with a principal place of business in Winona, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
FASTEVICT.COM/LAW GROUP: Steals Property in Trust, Crosland Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA RENEE CROSLAND, a citizen of California, Los Angeles,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MICHAEL C. EARLE, individually and in his personal
capacity; MARY E. COOPER, individually and in her personal
capacity; GEORGE S. BIRD JR., individually and in his personal
capacity; SYBIL HALL, individually and in her personal capacity;
TERESA TURNER, individually and in her personal capacity; TATIANA
LOPEZ, individually and in her personal capacity; FASTEVICT.COM/LAW
GROUP, a criminal enterprise and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06277-AB-PVC (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer
Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), conspiracy,
restitution, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from FastEvict.com/Law Group's improper conduct of
stealing real property in "trust" by filing sham lawsuits only with
the Superior Court of California. The Defendants devised a scheme
to defraud, obtain money and real property and unlawfully transfer
the money and real property and/or securities by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses and representations under the guise of
"effecting dispossession or disablement of real property" and in
concert with FastEvict.com/Law Group to implement the scheme. The
scheme includes but not limited to: (a) obtaining personal
identifying information without consent; (b) procuring and offering
false or forged instruments to be filed, registered, or recorded in
any public office within this state; (c) sending collection letter
to the Plaintiff and putative class of people for California under
the false pretense of a valid contract/agreement. The Plaintiff
seeks to recover the real property and monies and kickbacks stolen
from Californians by FastEvict.com/Law Group and Defendants,
through FastEvict.com/Law Group's agents through fraudulent means
and in violation of RICO.
Fastevict.com/Law Group is a law firm located in San Bernardino,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, appears pro se.
FEDEX GROUND: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARA DEPINA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00156-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting the stipulated request to
continue the Oct. 8, 2024 hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification by one week, to Oct. 15, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's administrative
motion to continue the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. The hearing was continued from July 16, 2024 to Oct.
8, 2024.
The Defendant represents that its corporate representative will be
traveling to the certification hearing from out-of-state, and has a
travel conflict on Oct. 8, 2024.
The defense counsel inquired with the Court's Courtroom Deputy
whether October 1 or Oct. 15, 2024, are available for a modified
hearing on the certification motion. The Courtroom Deputy responded
that as of today's date, Oct. 15, 2024, is available for the motion
to be heard, but that October 1, 2024, is not.
Fedex provides package delivery services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1wBXeM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Brian Louis, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
brian@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
Omar M. Aniff, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
zander.chemers@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
omar.aniff@ogletree.com
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Villanueva Sues Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness,
Defendants, Case No. 24TRCV02107 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., June
24, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
LA Fitness International, LLC operates sports and fitness clubs.
The Company offers exercise equipments, fitness classes and
programs, personal trainers, sports leagues, and education on
healthy living. LA Fitness International serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FLORIDA: Medicaid Class Action Trial Resumes July 29
----------------------------------------------------
Jackie Llanos, writing for Florida Phoenix, reports that the trial
in the class action filed by Medicaid patients who say the state
illegally kicked them off from the health care program meant for
low-income people is set to resume in Jacksonville on Monday, July
29.
Florida's handling of the Medicaid eligibility review process that
happened after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency led
to 1.9 million people losing health care coverage, according to
KFF's tracker of the situation. However, if the judge presiding
over the case sides with the plaintiffs, all of the people the
state kicked out of Medicaid without proper notice could have their
coverage restored.
The named plaintiffs, two children and three adults, argue that the
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida
Department of Children violated their constitutional right to due
process because the notices they received lacked an explanation for
the loss of benefits and/or didn't allow them to appeal the
decision before they were cut off.
One of the plaintiffs took the stand at the U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville on July 11, testifying
that she lost access to Medicaid because the process to prove she
was still eligible was too vague and confusing, according to the
Tributary. The remainder of the bench trial is set to go from July
29 to Aug. 2.
Attorneys from the Florida Health Justice Project and the National
Health Law Program are representing the plaintiffs.
Employees with AHCA and DCF are going to testify but the agencies'
heads won't take the stand, according to the witness lists from the
parties.
Originally, the trial was supposed to take place in May but the
court postponed it because a family member of Judge Marcia Morales
Howard died. [GN]
FOLEY HOAG: Faces Modny Suit for Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MODNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOLEY HOAG LLP, and GARY LESHINSKI,
individually and in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05586 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2024) is a class action to
recover damages for Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as well as
Defendants' discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
wages and wages and deducted wages; (2) liquidated damages; (3)
damages for late payment of wages; (4) damages for violations of
notice and record keeping requirements; (5) statutory penalties;
(6) liquidated damages; (7) prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and (8) attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants further discriminated and retaliated against
Plaintiff under ADA for being a Moldovan, Russian-speaking man with
a disability, and for Plaintiff engaging in protected activity
under the law, such as opposing unlawful discrimination against
others in the workplace, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant FOLEY HOAG from July 11,
2022 until June 2, 2024 as a W-2 employee to work as a Support
Technician in the New York office.
Foley Hoag LLP is a law firm headquartered in Boston, with
additional offices in New York City, Paris, Washington, D.C., and
Denver.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly L. O'Connell, Esq.
O'CONNELL LAW, PLLC
175 S.W. 7th Street, Suite 2410
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 209-9246
E-mail: ko@kellyoconnelllaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Wah Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY WAH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMP ANY LLC D/B/A LINCOLN
AUTOMOTIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-010370
(Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., July 23, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of
Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's consent to
communicate with her between the said hours. As such, by and
through the electronic communication, the Defendant violated the
FCCPA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt.
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC is the financial services arm of Ford
Motor Company, and is headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, ESQ.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
FSR INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies WARN Class & EmPact Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELENA STALEY, VIVIAN
HOLMES, and OLIVE IVEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. FSR INTERNATIONAL HOTEL INC., doing business
as FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, HOTEL 57 SERVICES, LLC, HOTEL
57, LLC, TY WARNER HOTELS & RESORTS LLC, and H. TY WARNER, Case No.
1:22-cv-06781-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed Rakoff entered an
order granting the motion to certify class action under Rule
23(b)(3).
The court certifies two classes, defined as:
-- The "WARN Class" is defined as "all non-union employees of
the
Defendants who worked for the Defendants at the Hotel, and
whose
employment was furloughed on or after March 14, 2020, and
whose
employment at the Hotel was furloughed for more than 6 months,
commencing on or after March 14, 2020."
-- The "EmPact Class" is defined as "all non-union employees of
the
Defendants who worked for the Defendants at the Hotel, and
remained on furlough through June 25, 2021 and were not paid
their No-Fault Severance Pay."
The Clerk is directed to close document 84 on the docket of this
case.
The case arises out of the continued closure of the Four Seasons
Hotel in midtown Manhattan, which shuttered its doors to guests at
the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and has yet to open them anew.
FSR is a luxury hotel chain founded in 1960.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BnXSIQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GAMESTOP CORP: Final Pretrial Date Set for June 11, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ODLE,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
GAMESTOP CORP., doing business as GameStop, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-01417-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered
an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and
discovery order as follows:
-- Final Pretrial Date: June 11, 2026
-- Bench Trial Date: June 22, 2026
The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report
by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if
such modification would impact (1) the date of any court
appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation
session or the mandatory mediation process (if applicable), (3) the
deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for
filing dispositive motions.
GameStop provides games and entertainment products through its
stores and ecommerce platforms.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UItaPa at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MILLS: Tobin Sues Over Cocoa Puffs Dangerous Lead Level
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Mark
Tobin filed a class action lawsuit against General Mills Sales Inc.
Why: Tobin claims General Mills fails to disclose that its Cocoa
Puffs cereal contains dangerous levels of lead.
Where: The lead in cereal class action lawsuit was filed in
California federal court.
General Mills Sales fails to disclose its chocolate-flavored Cocoa
Puffs cereal product contains "substantial" and "dangerous" levels
of lead, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Mark Tobin's class action claims independent testing and
analysis of an average-size bowl of Cocoa Puffs cereal showed it
contained lead levels exceeding the California Proposition 65
Maximum Allowable Daily Level (MALD).
Even at the lower end of the average consumer's serving size, "the
Products contain .532 mcg of lead and exceed the MALD," the Cocoa
Puffs class action says.
Tobin is seeking to represent a class of California citizens who
purchased General Mills' Cocoa Puffs cereal in the state and who do
not claim any personal injury from them within the past four years.
General Mills should have known of Cocoa Puffs lead content, class
action claims
Tobin argues General Mills knew or should have known that its Cocoa
Puffs cereal contained lead and had an "independent duty" to
disclose its presence to consumers, due to it being "unfit for
human consumption."
"Defendant fails to warn consumers -- and materially omits from the
labels of the Products -- that they contain lead," the Cocoa Puffs
class action says.
General Mills is further accused of "specifically" and
"intentionally" targeting children in its marketing and advertising
of Cocoa Puffs, despite there being no safe level of lead for them
to consume.
Tobin claims General Mills is violating California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, monetary and
punitive damages for himself and all class members.
A pair of similar class action lawsuits were filed against WanaBana
and Procter & Gamble late last year over claims the companies
failed to disclose unsafe levels of lead in their applesauce
products and metamucil fiber supplements, respectively.
Have you purchased Cocoa Puffs cereal? Let us know in the
comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Naomi B. Spector of Kamberlaw, LLP.
The Cocoa Puffs lead class action lawsuit is Tobin, et al. v.
General Mills Sales, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04397, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Seeks to Strike Evidence in Plaintiffs' Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE
BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY
CARDONE, MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking new
evidence filed in the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification or, in the alternative, for leave to file a
surreply.
Despite having the burden of obtaining class certification, the
Plaintiffs seek to introduce new evidence in support of a new
argument for the first time in their Reply. But Plaintiffs cannot
raise new arguments or evidence in their Reply, particularly since
the evidence was available when they filed their Motion, and
Plaintiffs should have been aware of the import of the evidence.
Specifically, in their Reply, Plaintiffs attach as new evidence
Exhibit 11— CB911's Master Word Index—and raise for the first
time the concept of a "Terminated Merchant File" to argue that "if
any one of the legitimate banks and payment processors the Keto
Racket worked with had sniffed out their scheme, they would have
been 'TMF'ed' or added to the 'Terminated Merchant File. '"
But absent from their Motion for Class Certification is any mention
of a Terminated Merchant File or its impact on RICO causation or
class certification. Instead, Plaintiffs argue for the first time
in their Reply that CB911's "work in keeping Brightree from getting
TMF'ed was thus a cause of all class members' injuries."
Simply put, the Plaintiffs' efforts to show that classwide issues
of causation predominate through the introduction of new Reply
evidence is procedurally improper.
In the alternative, the Defendants should be permitted to file a
surreply in order to respond to the argument and evidence
Plaintiffs present for the first time in their Reply. Should the
Court not strike the evidence and argument raised for the first
time in Reply, the Defendants seek leave from the Court to file a
surreply brief of not more than two (2) pages within seven days of
the Court's ruling.
Global E-Trading specializes in online trading services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIF2yV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Ross Marder, Esq.
Joshua A. Rubin, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com
rubinj@akingump.com
- and -
Corey Roush, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8624
E-mail: corey.roush@sidley.com
- and -
William J. Schifino Jr., Esq.
GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A.
401 E. Jackson St., Ste. 1500
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 228-9080
E-mail: wschifino@gunster.com
GO TO LOGISTICS: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Go To Logistics, Inc.
The case is styled as Carlos Eliel Islas Cruz, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Go To Logistics, Inc., Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008941 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
July 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Go To Logistics -- https://go2.us/ -- is a transport company
offering freight transportation and logistics services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
KARASIK LAW FIRM
16021 Aiglon St.
Pacific Plsds, CA 90272-4202
Phone: 310-463-9761
Fax: 310-943-2582
Email: greg@karasiklawfirm.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Seal Documents Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., LLOYD C. BLANKFEIN, HARVEY M. SCHWARTZ,
and R. MARTIN CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-12084-VSB-KHP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the parties' motions to seal:
-- The following documents are to be unsealed in their entirety,
consistent with Defendant's representation that they have no
objection: ECF Nos. 294-07; 294- 09; 294-11; 294-11; 294-15;
294-18; 294-35; 294-36; 294-37; 294-39; 294-41; 294-48; 294-52;
294-53; 315-8; and 315-9.
By Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024, the Defendants shall re-file their
motions to seal with revised proposed redactions consistent with
this opinion or with more detailed explanations as to why
particular names should remain under seal. If Defendants do not
refile their motion by Aug. 15, 2024, the Court will direct that
the following documents be unsealed in their entirety: ECF Nos.
294-08; 294-32; 294-38; 294-40; 294-42; 294-43; 294-44; 294-45;
294-46; 294-47; 294- 49; 294-50; 294-51; 294-54; 315-2; 315-3;
315-4; 315-5; 315-6; 315-7.
The Defendants have already agreed to unseal roughly half of the
documents at issue without redaction. See ECF No. 302-1. Further,
Goldman has advised the Court that it is not opposed to the
unsealing of transcripts from depositions of their experts. ECF No.
321. As for the remaining documents, to the extent Goldman's
proposed redactions obscure the identities of employees without a
specific rationale – the redactions are overbroad.
However, redactions to protect the personal identifying information
of those employees or entities, including email addresses and phone
numbers, are permissible.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions to seal
at ECF Nos. 290 and 312.
This securities fraud litigation, filed in 2018 arises out of the
1Malaysia Development Berhad ("1MDB") scandal. The Plaintiffs were
investors in the Defendant.
Goldman is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VCqzJm at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Case Management Conference in Rabin Set for August 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rabin, et al., v. Google
LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 5, 2022), the
Hon. Judge P Casey Pitts entered an order setting a case management
conference for Aug. 15, 2024, at 1:00 PM.
-- The parties shall submit a Joint Case Management Statement by
Aug.
1, 2024.
-- The deadline for disclosure of class certification experts is
reset to Oct. 24, 2024.
-- The deadline for plaintiffs' class certification expert
report(s)
is reset to Nov. 21, 2024.
-- The deadline for Google's class certification expert report(s)
is
reset to Dec. 19, 2024.
-- The joint motion to amend the case schedule is otherwise denied
without prejudice.
-- Further modifications to the case schedule will be addressed at
the Case Management Conference.
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Other Contract.
Google LLC 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.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Court Certifies Google Assistant Data Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit is pending against Google LLC and Alphabet
Inc. ("Google") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Court"). The case is styled In re
Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, No. 19-cv-04286 (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that Google Assistant can activate
and record communications even when a user does not intentionally
trigger Google Assistant with a hot word, like "Okay Google," or
manually activate Google Assistant on their device. Plaintiffs
refer to such instances as "False Accepts" and allege that Google
wrongfully collects, uses, and discloses user audio recordings
resulting from False Accepts to improve the speech recognition
abilities of Google Assistant. Plaintiffs allege Google's conduct
constitutes a breach of the privacy assurances that Google makes to
users in its Privacy Policy and is an unlawful practice under
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (collectively, the
"Class Claims"). Google denies Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court
has not made any determination as to who is right or whether Google
did anything wrong but has decided that the Class Claims should
proceed as a class action on behalf of a "Class," or a group of
people, that could include you.
If you're included in the Class, you have to decide whether to (1)
stay in the Class and be bound by the results of the case as to the
Class Claims or (2) ask to be excluded and keep your right to
separately pursue these claims against Google. Only purchasers of
certain devices manufactured by Google, whose Gmail accounts were
associated with that device during a certain time period, are Class
Members. If you are not a Class Member, you do not need to take any
action.
Who is in the Class?
The Court certified the following Class:
All Users in the United States who purchased a Google-Made Device,
where:
-- "Users" are individuals whose Gmail accounts were associated
with at least one Google Assistant Enabled Device during the class
period from May 18, 2016 to December 16, 2022;
-- "Google Assistant Enabled Devices" are devices that come with
Google Assistant pre-installed; and
-- "Google-Made Devices" are Google Assistant Enabled Devices
manufactured and sold by Google, including Google's Pixel
Smartphones; Smart Home Speakers (Google Home, Google Home Mini,
Google Home Max, Nest Audio, Nest Mini); Smart Displays (Google
Home Hub, Nest Hub, Nest Hub Max); Laptops and Tablets (Pixelbook,
Pixelbook Go, Pixel Slate); Digital Media Players (Chromecast with
Google TV); and Wireless Earphones (Pixel Buds, Pixel Buds A
Series, Pixel Buds Pro).
A more detailed Long-Form Notice, including the exact Class
definition and exceptions to Class membership, is available at
www.googleassistantprivacylitigation.com.
Your Rights and Options
DO NOTHING: If you are a Class Member and do nothing, you are
choosing to stay in the Class and may be able to share in any money
or benefits that may be recovered in this case. You will be bound
by all Court orders and any judgment entered or settlement reached
in the lawsuit, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will give
up your right to separately pursue these claims against Google.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS: The Court will exclude any person
who timely asks to be excluded. If you exclude yourself from the
Class (i.e., opt out), you will not be entitled to money or
benefits if they are awarded or recovered. You will not be bound by
any orders or judgments of the Court, and you will not give up your
right to separately pursue these claims against Google. The
deadline to exclude yourself is September 9, 2024. Specific
instructions on how to request exclusion are available at
www.googleassistantprivacylitigation.com.
When and Where Is the Trial?
Class Counsel will have to prove Plaintiffs' allegations at a
trial. The trial is scheduled to begin on September 22, 2025, at
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street,
San Jose, CA 95113. During the trial, a jury and the Judge will
hear all the evidence to help them reach a decision about which
party is right about the allegations in the lawsuit. There is no
guarantee that Plaintiffs will win or that they will be able to get
money for all or some of the members of the Class.
Want More Information?
If you have questions about your rights, go to
www.googleassistantprivacylitigation.com, call 1-877-411-4704, or
write to:
Google Assistant Privacy Class Action
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217 [GN]
HALO LAND MANAGEMENT: Baldwin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Baldwin, individually and for others similarly situated v.
HALO LAND MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01294 (N.D. Ohio, July
29, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay The
Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the
Defendant misclassifies The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate
Workers as independent contractors and pays them a flat amount for
each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they
worked in a workweek (a "day rate").
the Defendant pays The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers
under its day rate pay scheme regardless of individualized factors.
the Defendant's uniform day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA by
depriving The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers of overtime
wages for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Day Rate
Workers.
Halo Land Management is a leading land services provider
nationwide. Our experienced teams offer specialized services in
land acquisition, right of way, surveying, real estate brokerage,
full service GIS, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Hafoka Files Suit in D. Utah
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HealthEquity, Inc.
The case is styled as Kristin Hafoka, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HealthEquity, Inc., Further
Operations, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00528-JNP (D. Utah, July 29,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
HealthEquity, Inc. -- https://healthequity.com/ -- is an American
financial technology and business services company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
Jacob W. Nelson, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W BROADWAY STE 600
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
jnelson@aklawfirm.com
HERSCHEL SUPPLY: Solis Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERSCHEL SUPPLY COMPANY, LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05202 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.herschel.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Herschel Supply Company, Ltd. is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Caccavale
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccavale, et al., v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00974 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered
an order denying without prejudice and with leave to renew once the
Court lifts the stay of the claims brought by the Plaintiffs
against the HP Defendants in this action:
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing on the Class Certification
Motion, and
-- HP Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Hewlett-Packard was an American multinational information
technology company.[CC]
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert. Bid in Mondello Due May 30, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONDELLO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF
TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-01037-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sean Flynn entered a
case management and scheduling order as follows:
Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures: July 26, 2024
Amended Pleadings/Joinder of Parties: Aug. 2, 2024
Conditional Collective Certification Oct. 11, 2024
Motion:
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure: Mar. 14, 2025
Defendants' Expert Disclosure: Mar. 14, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Apr. 4, 2025
Completion of Discovery: May 2, 2025
Class Certification Motion: May 30, 2025
Dispositive/Daubert Motions: May 30, 2025
On or before June 27, 2025, the parties are directed to conduct a
mediation conference in accordance with Chapter Four of the Local
Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.
ICF Technology is a streaming and processing service provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=luVxPh at no extra
charge.[CC]
IDAHO: Nelson Seeks to Certify Class of Current & Former Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charee Nelson v. All
Defendants listed in prisoner complaint and continuation page, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00333-BLW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion to certify class of current and
former inmates int the State of Idaho.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vJtZCS at no extra
charge.[CC]
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Seibert Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL SEIBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INFOSYS MCCAMISH SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03302-JPB (N.D. Ga., July 25, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its computer
systems following a data breach between October 29, 2023, and
November 2, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC is a system software company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Hungeling, Esq.
Adam S. Rubenfield, Esq.
Peachtree 25th, Suite 599
1718 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 574-2466
Facsimile: (404) 574-2467
Email: david@hungelinglaw.com
adam@hungelinglaw.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
INTEGRATED DECISIONS: Sued Over Hotel Room Rate Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY AU; KAREN AUSTIN; MIGNON BACON; SHA-QUWANA BOYD; AMANDA
CASNAVE; CHARLOTTE DANIELS; TRISTA MCRAE; NADIA MORENO; ANDREW
RIVERS; SALIMU SCOTT; ELIZABETH SURIANO; MATTHIAS WILL; and CYNTHIA
WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. INTEGRATED DECISIONS AND SYSTEMS, INC.
D/B/A IDEAS REVENUE SOLUTIONS; SAS INSTITUTE INC.; HILTON WORLDWIDE
HOLDINGS, INC.; EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC.; SONESTA INTERNATIONAL
HOTELS CORPORATION; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP PLC; CHOICE
HOTELS INTERNATIONAL INC.; WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; and
HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06324 (N.D.
Ill., July 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to fix, raise, or stabilize the
prices of extended stay hotel guest room rentals across the United
States, including in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas
specifically listed and alleged herein, from no later than January
1, 2016 to the present.
Integrated Decisions & Systems, Inc. provides revenue management
software solutions. The Company offers software solutions in the
areas of revenue management, pricing, forecasting management,
function space revenue management, and pricing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. McNulty
Robert A. Clifford
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C
120 North LaSalle Street 36th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-899-9090
Email: rclifford@cliffordlaw.com
smm@cliffordlaw.com
- and -
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
Spencer Cox, Esq.
Matt Strauser, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 577-3977
Email: ccormier@burnscharest.com
scox@burnscharest.com
mstrauser@burnscharest.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Quinn Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
qburns@burnscharest.com
- and -
Matthew Tripolitsiotis, Esq.
Barbara Bates, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
757 Third Ave, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (469) 895-5269
Email: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com
bbates@burnscharest.com
INTEGRITY VEHICLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 1, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELANIE KOTLARSZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. INTEGRITY
VEHICLE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-00569-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order modifying the
Court's July 19, 2024, Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Date
Jury Trial First Day:
Nov. 18, 2026
Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Nov. 5, 2026
Motions in Limine
Last Date to File Motion for Class Apr. 1, 2025
Certification and for Plaintiff to serve
any expert reports supporting class
certification
Last Date to File Opposition to Motion for June 2, 2025
Class Certification and for the Defendant to
serve any rebuttal expert reports in
opposition to class certification
Last Date to File Reply in Support of July 1, 2025
Motion for Class Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification July 24, 2025
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off Jan 22, 2026
Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference July 17, 2026
The Defendant is a vehicle service contract company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QpJ0yY at no extra
charge.[CC]
IOWA: Court Junks Winters Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WINTERS, v. STATE
OF IOWA, KIM REYNOLDS, ADAM GREGG, BETH SKINNER, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, IOWA LEGISLATIVE BOARD, CHRIS TRIP, REBECCA BOWKER,
BRIAN KOECHLE, ANN GEHLE, RUDOLFO GONZALEZ, BRENDON FREEMAN, DIANA
BILLHORN, DOUG BOLTON, SEAN ATWATER, JOHN MARTINEZ, LADONNA WILCOX,
UNKNOWN NAMED MAIL APPEALS OFFICER, CHRIS JONES, RANDY GIBBS,
ABIGAIL WILLIAMS, and UNIT MANAGER PETERSON, Case No.
4:24-cv-00233-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame
Ebinger entered an order
-- denying as moot the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion to Serve
Pursuant to 4(c). The Court will issue service of process to
any
defendant if it is appropriate to do so and if Winters can
demonstrate he qualifies to proceed without prepayment of
fees;
-- denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion for Class
Certification;
-- granting the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion for Expedited
Review. The Court has expedited ruling on the motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, and a full initial review order
will be forthcoming;
-- denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction; and
-- denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Request for Appointment
of
Pro Bono Counsel without prejudice to him renewing the request
if
circumstances change.
The Court finds the Dataphase factors weigh against Winters, and
the motion for a temporary restraining order to stop Iowa
Department of Corrections Policy Number OP-MTV-02 from going into
effect is denied.
The Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters along with Marvin Hildreth, Michael
E. Jespersen, Steven Ray Wycoff, Jeffrey Winters, and Dustin
Sample—all of whom have been or are currently incarcerated at the
Iowa State Penitentiary—brings this complaint under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.
In addition to other relief, Winters asks the Court to enjoin the
enforcement of a State of Iowa law and policies by the Iowa
Department of Corrections which prohibit materials containing
nudity and sexually explicit material.
On behalf of all plaintiffs, Hildreth moves for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent prison
officials from implementing the new policies.
Iowa is a doubly landlocked state in the upper Midwestern region of
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MtfA9G at no extra
charge.[CC]
IOWA: Court Tosses Hildreth Bid for TRO
---------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN HILDRETH, v. STATE
OF IOWA, KIM REYNOLDS, ADAM GREGG, BETH SKINNER, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, IOWA LEGISLATIVE BOARD, CHRIS TRIP, REBECCA BOWKER,
BRIAN KOECHLE, ANN GEHLE, RUDOLFO GONZALEZ, BRENDON FREEMAN, DIANA
BILLHORN, DOUG BOLTON, SEAN ATWATER, JOHN MARTINEZ, LADONNA WILCOX,
UNKNOWN NAMED MAIL APPEALS OFFICER, CHRIS JONES, RANDY GIBBS,
ABIGAIL WILLIAMS, and UNIT MANAGER PETERSON, Case No.
4:24-cv-00231-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame
Ebinger entered an order
-- denying as moot the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion to Serve
Pursuant to 4(c). The Court will issue service of process to
any
defendant if it is appropriate to do so and if Winters can
demonstrate he qualifies to proceed without prepayment of
fees;
-- denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion for Class
Certification;
-- granting the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion for Expedited
Review. The Court has expedited ruling on the motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, and a full initial review order
will be forthcoming;
-- denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction; and
-- denying the Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters's Request for Appointment
of
Pro Bono Counsel without prejudice to him renewing the request
if
circumstances change.
The Court finds the Dataphase factors weigh against Winters, and
the motion for a temporary restraining order to stop Iowa
Department of Corrections Policy Number OP-MTV-02 from going into
effect is denied.
The Plaintiff Jeffrey Winters along with Marvin Hildreth, Michael
E. Jespersen, Steven Ray Wycoff, Jeffrey Winters, and Dustin
Sample—all of whom have been or are currently incarcerated at the
Iowa State Penitentiary—brings this complaint under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.
In addition to other relief, Winters asks the Court to enjoin the
enforcement of a State of Iowa law and policies by the Iowa
Department of Corrections which prohibit materials containing
nudity and sexually explicit material.
On behalf of all plaintiffs, Hildreth moves for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent prison
officials from implementing the new policies.
Iowa is a doubly landlocked state in the upper Midwestern region of
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2dgp56 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAM PAPER: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Valencia Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JAM PAPER & ENVELOPE DIRECT MARKETING SERVICES, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05626 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) contends that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.jampaper.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when the Plaintiff attempted multiple
times, most recently on March 14, 2024 to access the Defendant's
Website from the Plaintiff's home, but encountered barriers that
denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to
purchase staples (Blue Staples - 5,000 Box), the suit asserts.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. Despite this
direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to
access the Website in the future to purchase products and services
the Website offers, and more specifically staples (Blue Staples -
5,000 Box), if remedied.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant offers an array of colorful office supplies and paper
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
JIMCO MAINTENANCE: Mentry Seeks Maintenance Technicians' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MENTRY, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JIMCO MAINTENANCE INC., a Florida Profit Corporation
and LYNN FIELD, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-01747-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2024) alleges on behalf
of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, current and former
employees of Defendants, who elect to opt into this action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act that they are entitled to: (i)
unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and (ii)
liquidate damages pursuant to the FLSA, because Defendant's
violations lacked a good faith basis.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance
technician from March 2018 through January 15, 2024, in Tampa,
Florida.
JIMCO Maintenance, Inc. is a rolling cart maintenance company with
its principal office located in Venice, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
JUSTIN CLARABUT: Purvis Files Suit in Tex. Cty. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justin Clarabut. The
case is styled as Bobby Purvis, JoAnn Purvis, Bobby Purvis,
Representative of the Estate of Brent Purvis, Deceased and on
Behalf Similarly Situated Person v. Tamayo Produce, Inc., Gloria R.
Tamayo, Case No. 24-07-11522 (Tex. Cty. Ct., Montgomery Cty., July
26, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Injury or Damage - Over
$250,000."
Tamayo Produce Inc. -- https://www.tamayoproduceinc.com/ -- offer a
complete selection of fresh vegetables, herbs, and specialty items
year-round.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Plumbar, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH K. PLUMBAR, PLLC
1200 Rothwell Street
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 384-5507
Fax: (866) 252-3048
Email: info@plumbarlaw.com
K & Z CABINET: Czernek Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Czernek, individually, on a
representative basis, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
v. K & Z CABINET CO., INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2403343 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on July 29, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01582.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleged eight causes of action for:
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to timely pay final
wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and
unfair and unlawful competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David A. Wimmer, Esq.
Meghan E. O'Kane, Esq.
Julia M. Staudinger, Esq.
SWERDLOW FLORENCE SANCHEZ SWERDLOW & WIMMER
A Law Corporation
10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1650
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 288-3980
Facsimile: (310) 733-1727
Email: dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com
mokane@swerdlowlaw.com
jstaudinger@swerdlowlaw.com
LATOYA HUGHES: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brozak v. Hughes, et al.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03299 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 19, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order:
-- granting Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to
respond to motion to certify class.
-- granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file
response to defendants' motion to dismiss.
-- granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file reply brief.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
LD NATURAL: Qiu Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Massage Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
JIAJIA QIU a/k/a Jojo Qiu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LD NATURAL CARE INC. d/b/a Minghui
Massage Spa and YAKUN LUAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-07988
(D.N.J., July 24, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a massage worker at
Minghui, located in Princeton, New Jersey from April 2023 through
on or about May 27, 2024.
LD Natural Care Inc., doing business as Minghui Massage Spa, is a
spa owner and operator located in Princeton, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
Email: troylaw@troypllc.com
MDL 3107: Alessi Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN ALESSI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE
GÉNÉRALE DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS
LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.;
PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS,
INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-01305, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on June 20, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 24-rt-55013-SL to the proceeding.
The Defendants moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern
District of Ohio under MDL No. 3107, along with other member cases.
The case was assigned to Judge Sara Lioi.
Plaintiff John Alessi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, brings this class action complaint for
equitable relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act and for damages
and/or restitution under state antitrust laws against the
Defendants.
Continental Aktiengesellschaft manufactures tires, automotive
parts, and industrial products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gedney M. Howe, IV, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEDNEY M. HOWE III
PO Box 1034
Charleston, SC 29402
Telephone: (843) 722-8048
Facsimile: (843) 722-2140
- and -
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 388-7202
Facsimile: (843) 388-3194
The Defendant is represented by:
H. Sam Mabry, III, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
PO Box 2048
Greenville, SC 29602
Telephone: (864) 240-3200
Facsimile: (864) 240-3300
MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Afanasyeva Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
YULIYA AFANASYEVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS, INC. d/b/a
NEME GASTRO BAR, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22762-XXXX (S.D.,
Fla., July 19, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Fanasyeva was employed by the Defendant as a server.
Melissa Entertainments, Inc. d/b/a Neme Gastro Bar owns and
operates a restaurant at Miami, Florida 33145. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
MISSING SOCK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO GARCIA, JUAN JOLEANES, CLAUDIA QUITIAN, JESUS RUIZ, DELIA
SIMMARRON, LAURA TEPOZ, SANDRA GOMEZ, LUIS GALLARDO, ROSAURA
RODRIGUEZ and JONNY MOREY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. MISSING SOCK LAUNDRY SERVICE LLC, MISSING
SOCK HOLDING LLC, ANDREW TRENK, JANE & JOHN ROES 1-10, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-08045 (D.N.J., July 25, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for the Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated co-workers -- all of whom worked as non-exempt
workers for the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs often worked more than 10 or 12 hours per day. For
example, the Mr. Garcia, who regularly made deliveries and pickups
for the Defendants, was often out on deliveries/pickups late and
worked three or four hours beyond the end of his scheduled shifts,
or more.
Despite them working many hours in excess of 40 per week, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA
Collective and the Class any overtime premiums for the overtime
hours they worked for Defendants, the Plaintiffs aver.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers employed
by the Defendants at Missing Sock who elect to opt-in to this
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and specifically
the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to
remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA by
the Defendants that have deprived Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated of their lawfully earned overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs also bring this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated current and former non-exempt workers employed by the
Defendants at Missing Sock to remedy violations of the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
Mr. Garcia was employed by the Defendants from March 2022 until
June 23, 2024.
Mr. Joleanes was employed by the Defendants from April 2024 until
the middle of July 2024.
Missing Sock is "a family-owned and operated laundry service."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239-4410
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
MMI SERVICES INC: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MMI Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Francisco Javier Palos Chavez, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MMI Services, Inc., Case No.
BCV-24-102528 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 26, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
MMI Services, Inc. -- https://mmi-services.com/ -- provides oil
well contracting services. The Company offers hydro testing, rigs,
wire line, and vacuum truck services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo St., Ste. 336
El Segundo, CA 90245-4783
Phone: 310-322-2211
Fax: 310-322-2252
Email: thomas@kallaw.com
kevin@kallaw.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Hackett Sues Over Patients' Unsecured Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRK HACKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, Case No. 0:24-cv-02971 (D.
Minn., July 25, 2024) is a class action arising out of the recent
targeted cyberattack and data breach that occurred on Aug. 20,
2023, which affected the Defendant's inadequately protected
computer systems and/or network, and which did result in the
unauthorized access to approximately 765,937 individuals'
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.
The suit says that the company began an investigation but did not
determine until nearly a year later, on June 7, 2024, that patient
information had been accessed. While the Defendant claimed to have
discovered the breach in August 2023, it did not notify victims of
the breach until nearly 11 months later, in July of 2024, when it
confirmed that cybercriminals had accessed its systems and the
personal information of its patients, and began to mail breach
notification letters to victims, including the Plaintiff, the suit
adds.
Presently, the Defendant has offered no assurance to the Plaintiff
and Class members that the sensitive and private information that
was accessed in the Data Breach has been recovered or destroyed.
The information compromised in the Data Breach was disclosed by the
Defendant to be patients' names, Social Security numbers ("SSNs"),
driver's license or state identification numbers, passport numbers,
dates of birth, medical information and health insurance
information, payment card information, and account numbers. The
Plaintiff and Class members are now at a substantially increased
risk of experiencing misuse of their PII/PHI in the coming years,
the suit avers.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members
whose PII/PHI was exposed in the Data Breach, assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and
breach of Minnesota consumer protection laws and seek declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized
by law.
The Plaintiff received medical treatment from the Defendant and was
required to submit his personal information to the Defendant as a
condition of those services and treatment.
MNGI is a gastroenterology healthcare practice with 11 clinics in
the Twin Cities area, spanning both Minnesota and Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
bmm@chimicles.com
amk@chimicles.com
mnp@chimicles.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Moalimyusuf Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAID MOALIMYUSUF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-24-11091 (Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial,
Hennepin Cty., July 24, 2024) is a class action arising from
Defendant MNGI Digestive Health's failures to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.
According to the complaint, the failure to secure and monitor its
network resulted in an August 2023 data breach of highly sensitive
documents and information stored on the computer network of MNGI,
an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment
to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The
Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack
in or about August 2023 to compromise Defendant's network that
contained personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiffs and other individuals.
Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose
private information was accessed during the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied
contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment,
and (vi) declaratory relief.
MNGI Digestive Health provides diagnosis and treatment of adults
and children with gastrointestinal disorders.[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 -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Schultz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICKA SCHULTZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Defendant, Case
No. 27-CV-24-11008 (Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., July
23, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or
Class Members' protected health information and personally
identifiable information stored within Defendant's information
network.
With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated
persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly
discovered by Defendant on August 25, 2023, by which cybercriminals
infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network on August
20, 2023 and accessed the private information which was being kept
underprotected.
As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party
seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative
Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their
information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and
other equitable relief.
MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. is a physician practice with its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
MCSWEENEY/LANGEVIN, LLC
2116 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Telephone: (612) 746-4646
Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
Email: ram@westrikeback.com
- and -
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
Email: sec@colevannote.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Stout Balks at Consumers' Personal Info Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI Digestive Health, P.A., Defendant, Case
No. 0:24-cv-02893-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., July 23, 2024) is a class
action lawsuit to address Defendant's alleged unlawful and
widespread unauthorized practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and
Class members' personally identifying information and protected
health information to third parties.
According to the complaint, the Defendant warrants that the
services it offers on its website are safe and secure. Contrary to
its assurances, the Defendant did not maintain adequate systems and
procedures to ensure the security of the highly sensitive PII and
PHI consumers entrusted to it. As a result, the Defendant was the
target of a data breach in which Plaintiff's and Class members'
private information was exposed to hackers and/or cybercriminals.
The harm resulting from a breach of private data manifests in a
number of ways, including identity theft, financial fraud, and the
filing of false medical claims, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data
security, and breach of its duty to handle Private Information with
reasonable care, Plaintiff's Private Information has been accessed
by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of an implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking
actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
MNGI Digestive Health owns and operates several outpatient clinics
and endoscopy centers in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
Anthony M. Carter, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
acarter@tostrudlaw.com
MOMO ORCHARD: Saunders Sues Over Blind's Website Access Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOMO ORCHARD HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05619 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.momofuku.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text, inaccessible forms, and
improper use of headings, which are essential for navigation by
screen readers.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Momo Orchard Holdings, Inc. is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
MULTIPLAN INC: Conspires to Suppress Provider Payments, Peak Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEAK CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH AND WELLNESS LLC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06284 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and
2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
According to the complaint, MultiPlan facilitates a conspiracy
among insurers, including the 15 largest in the country, to
suppress the payments that healthcare providers, like the Plaintiff
and the Class, receive for providing out-of-network health care
services to patients. The prices MultiPlan extracts from providers
on behalf of the co-conspirators are take-it-or-leave-it offers
that providers must accept lest they face extended delays or the
risk of receiving no payment at all. When MultiPlan pays a
healthcare provider just a fraction of the provider's reasonable
rate for its services, MultiPlan then rewards itself with a
percentage of the savings its repricing algorithm achieved. As a
result, MultiPlan and its co-conspirators extract and pocket as
profit payments that can exceed the unlawfully diminished amount
paid to the provider for providing the medical care, the suit
says.
Peak Chiropractic Health and Wellness LLC is a provider of
chiropractic care based in Bessemer, Alabama.
MultiPlan, Inc. is a data analytics and cost management company
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
Bret K. Pufahl, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
1541 E. Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-7450
Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com
ecc@fmcolaw.com
bkp@fmcolaw.com
- and -
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
David Rochelson, Esq.
Deborah Elman, Esq.
GARWIN GERSEIN & FISHER LLP
88 Pine Street, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
drochelson@garwingerstein.com
delman@garwingerstein.com
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Email: dsorensen@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
zcaplan@bm.net
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
Email: dwalker@bm.net
- and -
Stuart Des Roches, Esq.
Andrew Kelly, Esq.
Dan Chiorean, Esq.
Chris Letter, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC
Poydras Center
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
Email: stuart@odrlaw.com
akelly@odrlaw.com
dchiorean@odrlaw.com
cletter@odrlaw.com
- and -
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER LLP
1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
eleger@ssrllp.com
- and -
D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB LLC
The Kress Building
301 Nineteenth Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0557
Email: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
dgp@wigginschilds.com
MVM INC: Class Suit Seeks Damages Over Child Abduction Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Padre (alias) and Junior (alias), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MVM, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01265-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 23, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for committing, conspiring to commit,
and aiding and abetting violations of safe conduct, torture,
enforced disappearance, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment
under the Alien Tort Statute; conspiring to deprive Plaintiffs and
the Class of constitutional rights under the Civil Rights Act of
1871; and for common-law child abduction and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
According to the complaint, within weeks of taking office, the
Donald Trump Administration launched an orchestrated campaign to
deter non-white immigration to the United States by abducting
migrant children from their parents known as the "Family Separation
Campaign." The goal of the campaign was to threaten asylum seekers
with, in essence, state-sanctioned kidnapping.
In the spring of 2017, agents from Customs and Border Patrol and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement began abducting children
without due process along the length of the U.S. Mexico border,
from San Diego through Texas. Since at least 2014, Defendant MVM
has been awarded an exclusive contract by the Department of
Homeland Security to escort and transport "unaccompanied minor"
children detained by ICE. An "unaccompanied minor" is a child who
arrives at the U.S. border without a parent or legal guardian.
Beginning in or around March 2017, MVM knowingly agreed to carry
out the Family Separation Campaign and began transporting thousands
of abducted children away from their parents, says the suit.
The complaint alleges that MVM's participation in the Family
Separation Campaign was a violation of international human rights
law. The widespread enforced disappearance of children is a grave
breach of jus cogens norms. MVM, in concert with DHS agents,
treated parents and children from allied states (including
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico) as enemies on
American soil, depriving them, due to their national origin, race,
and ethnicity, of due process and the right to family integrity,
the suit asserts.
In December 2023, the United States entered into a settlement
agreement in the certified class action Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which was ultimately approved by this
Court. No. 3:18-cv-000428-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal. 2023). The class
settlement enjoined the practice of family separation and provided
various mental health and legal benefits. But it did not
financially compensate the thousands of victims for the trauma and
lifelong damage caused by the Family Separation Campaign. The
Plaintiffs are members of the Ms. L. Class. The Plaintiffs --
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated members of the
Ms. L. Class -- bring this class action against MVM, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages and the establishment of an
equitable rehabilitation fund.
MVM, Inc. is a private security contractor that previously provided
armed guards for security agencies, such as the CIA in Iraq.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott A. Gilmore, Esq.
Amanda Lee-DasGupta, Esq.
Mary S. Van Houten Harper, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: sgilmore@hausfeld.com
alee@hausfeld.com
mvanhouten@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
John C. Washington, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
200 Pier Avenue, Suite 226
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Telephone: (310) 717-7373
E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
jwashington@sshhzlaw.com
- and -
Katie Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
- and -
James Gotz, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
One Marina Park Drive, Suite 14010
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 207-0600
E-mail: jgotz@hausfeld.com
- and -
Ashley Crooks, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: acrooks@hausfeld.com
- and -
Andrew Fels, Esq.
AL OTRO LADO
3214 Fountain Park Blvd.
Knoxville, TN 37917
Telephone: (865)-567-4881
E-mail: andrew@alotrolado.com
- and -
Erin Anderson, Esq.
AL OTRO LADO
10413 Nicollet Circle
Bloomington, MN 55420
Telephone: (323)-681-5422
E-mail: erin@alotrolado.org
- and -
Natalie Cadwalader-Schultheis, Esq.
AL OTRO LADO
150 S Eastbourne Ave, Apt. A7
Tucson, AZ 85716
Telephone: (323) 423-5310
E-mail: natalie.cadwalader@alotrolado.org
NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Approves Merger at Unfair Price, Baker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARI REDSTONE, NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC.,
BARBARA BYRNE, LINDA M. GRIEGO, JUDITH McHALE, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS,
JR., SUSAN SCHUMAN, SKYDANCE MEDIA, LLC, and DAVID ELLISON,
Defendants, Case No. 2024-0790 (Del. Ch., July 24, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties.
According to the complaint, the Controlling Stockholders breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff and the Class by agreeing
to enter into the merger between Paramount Global and Skydance
Media, LLC without ensuring that it was entirely fair to the
Plaintiff and the Class. The merger is inadequate and unfair,
reflecting an unfair price and an unfair process. As a result, the
Plaintiff and the Class are and will be harmed by the failure to
receive fair consideration for their Paramount Class B shares and
the diminished value of their investments, says the suit.
National Amusements, Inc. is an American privately owned movie
theater operator and mass media holding company headquartered in
Massachusetts.
Skydance Media, LLC is an American production company located in
Santa Monica, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
800 N. West Street, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 691-9545
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
John R. Timmer, Esq.
Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3062
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Added Documents for Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Ten Communications reports that formal settlement documents
were filed with the Northern District Court of California on
Friday, July 26, to advance the settlement approval process to
resolve class-action lawsuits involving the NCAA and the Atlantic
Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12
Conference and Southeastern Conference (Autonomy 5 conferences).
The settlement documents address three cases -- House v. NCAA,
Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA -- involving back damages and
future benefits for Division I student-athletes.
"This is another important step in the ongoing effort to provide
increased benefits to student-athletes while creating a stable and
sustainable model for the future of college sports," said the
commissioners of the five conferences and the NCAA president.
"While there is still much work to be done in the settlement
approval process, this is a significant step toward establishing
clarity for the future of all of Division I athletics while
maintaining a lasting education-based model for college sports,
ensuring the opportunity for student-athletes to earn a degree and
the tools necessary to be successful in life after sports."
THE SETTLEMENT
The settlement addresses three primary issues: payment of back
damages for claims relating to NIL, academic-related awards and
other benefits; increased benefits from institutions to
student-athletes going forward, including additional name, image
and likeness (NIL) opportunities for student-athletes directly with
the institution; and eliminating scholarships limits in favor of
roster limits.
The settlement calls for total back damages of approximately $2.78
billion, to be paid over 10 years, equating to approximately $280
million annually with distribution of back damages as determined by
plaintiffs.
Going forward, the settlement allows the A5 conference member
institutions (and other DI schools that choose to participate in
the new structure) to provide increased benefits to
student-athletes, including for NIL. If approved by the court, this
model will allow schools to provide up to 22% of the average
Autonomy 5 athletic media, ticket, and sponsorship revenue to
student-athletes, starting in the 2025-26 academic year. The future
model could result in student-athletes receiving $1.5 billion to $2
billion in new benefits annually.
-- The new benefits that may be made available to
student-athletes would be in addition to the myriad benefits
currently provided to student-athletes, including free tuition,
room & board, educational grants, academic support and tutoring,
medical and mental health resources & support, nutrition resources
& support, life skills development, superior coaching and training
and extended medical coverage after they stop competing. Adding
these existing benefits together with the benefits to be available
under the new model, many A5 schools would be providing nearly 50
percent of athletics revenue to their student-athletes.
-- Under the new model, institutions may pay student-athletes
directly for their NIL rights. Any institutional NIL payments would
apply toward the 22% cap. Third parties may continue to enter into
NIL agreements with student-athletes. Such agreements will be
subject to review to ensure they are legitimate, fair market value
agreements and not used for pay-for-play. NIL payments by third
parties would not apply toward the 22% cap but must be disclosed to
a clearinghouse for review.
-- The new model allows for the establishment of a robust and
effective enforcement and oversight program to ensure the new NIL
model achieves its objectives. The establishment of a clearinghouse
for NIL payments over $600 would give institutions access to
information about external NIL activities, providing a level of
transparency that does not currently exist to allow for better
management of third-party influence and better assurance of
legitimate NIL activity.
Lastly, scholarship limits will be eliminated in all sports, and
roster limits will be established. Institutions have the discretion
to offer partial or full scholarships provided they do not exceed
the roster limits. This change will allow institutions to provide
additional scholarships to student-athletes in the future.
NEXT STEPS
The settlement must be approved by the court before it becomes
final, a process expected to take several months. If the court
preliminarily approves the settlement, the class members will be
provided notice of the settlement. Class members with claims for
monetary damages based on prior conduct will have an opportunity to
opt out of the settlement if they choose. Class members --
including incoming student-athletes -- will also receive notice and
be allowed to present objections to the future relief/model to the
court.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
While approval of the settlement would be a significant step
forward, there would still be pending issues to be addressed that
highlight the continuing need for federal legislation. These issues
include:
-- The settlement does not resolve the patchwork of state laws,
many of which may conflict with the settlement. These laws will
need to be preempted by federal legislation in order for the
settlement to be effective.
-- The settlement does not address ongoing efforts to designate
student-athletes as employees under state and federal labor and
employment laws. These efforts by the NLRB and plaintiffs'
attorneys pose a direct threat to both the sustainability of sports
programs (especially for non-revenue generating ones) and to the
baseline of support provided to all athletes.
"This settlement is an important step forward for student-athletes
and college sports, but it does not address every challenge," said
the A5 conference commissioners and NCAA president. "The need for
Federal legislation to provide solutions remains. If Congress does
not act, the progress reached through the settlement could be
significantly mitigated by state laws and continued litigation."
[GN]
NFM INC: Wood Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
William Wood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NFM Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02207-ADC (D. Md., July 29,
2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), seeking full compensation for all unpaid wages, including
unpaid overtime wages.
The Defendant has engaged in unlawful wage payment patterns and
practices by failing to honor its contracts with employees and
failing to meet the requirements of the FLSA and Ohio law.
Defendant's policy and practice is to not compensate Loan Providers
for all hours worked, despite knowingly permitting and encouraging
employees to work beyond traditional office hours.
The Defendant suffers Loan Providers to work—and frequently
directs them to do so—after normal business hours have concluded
and on weekends in order to maximize customer satisfaction and
obtain new clients in the competitive residential mortgage market.
The Defendant's unwillingness to pay its hourly workers for all of
this extra time worked violates the FLSA, the common law, and Ohio
law.
To add insult to injury, Defendant miscalculates the rate of pay
for loan providers--in direct violation of the FLSA. Specifically,
Defendant's practice is to use the regular hourly rate when
compensating employees for overtime--rather than 1.5 times the
regular hourly rate as required by federal and state law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt employee who worked for
Defendant as a Loan Provider in Columbus Ohio.
The Defendant is in the business of providing mortgage loans
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Mark D. Patronella, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP
412 H. St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
mpatronella@classlawdc.com
ODDITY TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 17, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Oddity Tech Ltd. ("Oddity" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ODD) securities between July 19, 2023 and May
20, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Oddity investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Oddity-Tech-Ltd/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On May 21, 2024, NINGI Research published a report alleging, among
other things, that Oddity "completely misled investors about every
critical aspect of its business," specifically regarding its AI,
stating that former employees disclosed that the Company's AI is
nothing but a questionnaire"; that Oddity's lauded "repeat purchase
rates" are attributable to "customers unknowingly enter[ing] into
non-cancelable plans" that allow the Company "to recognize repeat
purchases in the following quarters even though the customers don't
want the product." Additionally, the report claimed that it had
"found hundreds of undisclosed lawsuits filed against ODDITY and
its subsidiaries in the US and Israel, frequently alleging unpaid
bills and violations of consumer protection laws," including
multiple class action lawsuits filed within the past several
years.
On this news, Oddity's stock price fell $3.02, or 7.4%, to close at
$37.97 per share on May 21, 2024, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Oddity overstated its AI technology and capabilities,
and/or the extent to which this technology drove the Company's
sales; (2) Oddity's repeat purchase rates and revenues were, at
least in part, derived from unsustainable and deceptive sales and
advertising practices; (3) Oddity downplayed the true scope and
severity of ongoing civil litigation against the Company and/or its
subsidiaries; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oddity securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 17,
2024 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
OVIS LLC: Dominguez Files Labor Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against OVIS LLC. The case is
captioned as Joseph Dominguez, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVIS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2024CUOE026684 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty.,
June 27, 2024).
The case is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law
violation.
A case management conference is scheduled for January 3, 2025 at
08:35 AM in Hall of Justice at Department 43.
OVIS LLC provides hospitality services.[BN]
PACIFICORP: Hegler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PACIFICORP, et al.
The case is styled as Brian Hegler, Gary Hegler, the Estate of
George W. Van Buskirk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PACIFICORP, et al., Case No. 24CV015116 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Claims Involving Mass Tort."
PacifiCorp -- https://www.pacificorp.com/ -- is an electric power
company in the western United States.[BN]
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Smith Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRISTAN SMITH and CHRISTOPHER BARTON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARAGON INDUSTRIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00354-MTS (N.D. Okla., July 25,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Smith and Barton worked for the Defendant as welders at
its pipe manufacturing facility in Sapulpa, Oklahoma from
approximately July 2022 to June 2023 and from approximately July
2022 to July 2024, respectively.
Paragon Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of oil country tubular
goods, line products and similar products, with its principal place
of business located in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Skydance Media Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Manfredi, writing for The Wrap, reports that Paramount
Global's $8 billion merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media
could cost shareholders $1.65 billion, according to a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on
Wednesday.
"The principal reason for the Merger is to cash out Redstone's
floundering Paramount investment -- and at a substantial premium to
what will be received by other stockholders. Additionally, the
Merger will allow Redstone to pay down NAI's fast-maturing debt,"
attorneys for Scott Baker, who owns over 40,000 Class B Paramount
shares, wrote. "Redstone's and NAI's conduct, in conjunction with
that of the Director Defendants, harmed and will harm Paramount's
Class B stockholders, who will not receive a fair share of benefits
in the Merger as opposed to Redstone and NAI. Even Paramount's
non-NAI Class A shareholders, whose shares lack any true voting
power, will inequitably receive an 88% premium over Class B
shareholders in the Merger."
Baker is suing to block the deal, accusing Redstone, Skydance and
the Paramount board of directors, whom he claims is "packed with
Redstone insiders over whom she exercises control," of breaching
their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
He argues the Paramount-Skydance process has been "history
repeating itself from the earlier CBS-Viacom deal."
"Redstone wanted the CBS-Viacom merger and did everything in her
power to get it done, even if it took her a couple of years and
required ousting directors, packing boards of both merging
companies with directors who would support her, and using NAI's
status as controlling shareholder to get what she wanted," the
lawsuit states.
Under the terms of the Skydance agreement, which is expected to
close in the third quarter of 2025 subject to regulatory approval
and other customary closing conditions, National Amusements will
receive $2.4 billion, including $1.75 billion for the equity and
the assumption of $650 million in debt, while non-NAI shareholders
will receive $4.5 billion. Meanwhile, $1.5 billion in new capital
will be used to pay down Paramount's $14.6 billion in long-term
debt and recapitalize its balance sheet.
Skydance's consortium of investors, which include RedBird Capital
Partners and the Ellison family, will control 70% of shares
outstanding and have 100% voting ownership in new Paramount, which
will remain public.
Class A shareholders can elect to receive $23 cash per share or
1.5333 shares of Class B stock of new Paramount. Class B
shareholder can elect to receive $15 per share or one share of
Class B stock of new Paramount, which is subject to proration if
those elections exceed $4.3 billion in aggregate. If shares are
elected over cash, reducing the cash required to under $4.3
billion, the $1.5 billion of cash going to Paramount's balance
sheet could grow up to a cap of $3 billion.
But Baker argues that there is not enough cash in the deal to
buyout all of the non-NAI Class B shares.
"That payout is only worth $12.23 per Paramount Class B share," he
said. "Thus, when the Merger closes, the non-NAI Class B
shareholders will suffer $1.645 billion in damages."
The Skydance deal also includes a 45-day go-shop provision, in
which Paramount would pay a $400 million breakup fee in the event
that the company receives a better offer from another bidder, which
he argues is "exceptionally high."
"Of the over 1,000 acquisitions in the United States in the last
decade that were valued at more than $1 billion, only 3% had a
break-up fee of 4.8% or more," Baker added. "This impediment makes
it unlikely that a better offer will surface in the go-shop
period."
Baker's lawsuit comes after GAMCO Investors Inc. chairman Mario
Gabelli filed a books and records request in Delaware earlier this
month seeking more specifics on Redstone's payout in the deal.
Gabelli is the largest class A shareholder behind Redstone, with
GAMCO representing clients that own 5 million Class A shares and 1
million Class B shares.
Additionally, the Employees' System of Rhode Island filed its own
records request in May, with the pension fund expressing concern
that Paramount's board not preventing Shari Redstone from diverting
corporate opportunities or interfering with Paramount's ability to
seek the best deal for Paramount and its other stockholders." A
ruling in that case has been scheduled for Aug. 2.
Representatives for Paramount declined to comment. Skydance and
National Amusements did not immediately return TheWrap's request
for comment. [GN]
PERFORMANCE LIVESTOCK: Witcher Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOJE WITCHER on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERFORMANCE LIVESTOCK & FEED COMPANY, LLC,
and PURINA ANIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00028-TTC-CKM (W.D. Va., July 23, 2024) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
The suit contends that Defendants have violated and continue to
violate the FLSA and VOWA by having a policy or practice of failing
to include non-discretionary bonuses and similar forms of incentive
compensation in calculating overtime rates paid to Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees for work in excess of 40 hours per
week. This resulted and results in Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees receiving less overtime wages than they are entitled to
receive under the FLSA and VOWA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately 2021 to the
present at their Martinsville, Virginia location. The Plaintiff's
position is heavy equipment operator. The job duties of the
position entailed operating equipment and performing manual labor.
Performance Livestock & Feed Company, LLC is a joint venture
company supplying feed and other animal nutrition products.[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
Email: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Telephone: (434) 218-3133
Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com
PROLOGIS LP: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. PROLOGIS, L.P. f/k/a AMB
PROPERTY, L.P.; and PECLAU LLC d/b/a BOCAS GRILL, Case No.
1:24-cv-22883-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property
have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located
within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in
violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have 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 Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
PROLOGIS, L.P. f/k/a AMB PROPERTY, L.P., owned and operated a
commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Patients Sue Over Possible HIV Exposures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ezra Kaplan, writing for KPTV, reports that a class action lawsuit
was filed on Friday night, July 26, in federal court against
Providence and the Oregon Anesthesiology Group.
This is the newest development in the case of thousands of patients
potentially exposed to infectious diseases by an anesthesiologist
who Providence said failed to follow proper procedures.
The lawsuit was brought by four Clackamas County patients who all
received IV anesthesia during surgery at Providence Willamette
Falls Medical Center.
They are represented by a law firm based in Seattle which has a
history of litigating infectious disease cases.
Lawyers are first asking to be recognized as a class, allowing the
lawsuit to represent the 2,400 impacted patients.
The doctor in question was employed by the Oregon Anesthesiology
Group but contracted to work at Providence from 2017 to 2023.
Both organizations are named as defendants and accused of
negligence.
The lawsuit alleges that "Providence's acts and omissions had a
great probability of causing significant harm and in fact did cause
such harm."
Providence spokesperson Gary Walker declined to comment on the
lawsuit citing pending litigation. The Oregon Anesthesiology Group
has not responded to a request for comment.
The case will now be heard by a judge in Oregon district court who
will decide if it can proceed as a class action lawsuit. [GN]
PULL-A-PART: Raymond Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pull-A-Part, LLC. The
case is styled as Mathew Raymond, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pull-A-Part, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03321-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 26, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Pull-A-Part, LLC -- https://www.pullapart.com/ -- is a United
States chain of automotive recycling yards where customers bring
their own tools and remove parts out of used vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
26 Grand Georgian Ct.
Cartersville, GA 30121
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
RITE AID CORPORATION: Claude Files ADA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rite Aid Corporation.
The case is styled as Wislande Claude, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No.
2:24-cv-08057 (D.N.J., July 26, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is an American
drugstore chain based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.[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
RITE AID: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bianucci Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET BIANUCCI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03356 (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and approximately 2.2 million other individuals'
personally identifiable information, including names, dates of
birth, drivers' license numbers, and other forms of government
issued IDs.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the
Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and
obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff and
approximately 2.2 million Class Members suffered injury and
ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket expenses, loss of
value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the
effects of the attack, the diminution in value of their personal
information from the exposure, and the present and imminent thread
of fraud and identity theft.
Rite Aid Corporation operates a retail drugstore chain in various
states and the District of Columbia. The Company sells prescription
drugs, as well as other products such as health and beauty aids,
nonprescription medications, and cosmetics. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
RP'S GRIT: Hickman Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN E. HICKMAN and AMBER K. DODGE, individually and on behalf
of all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RP'S GRIT &
GRACE, LLC, dba SHAKER'S PUBLIC HOUSE, TRIUMPH VENTURE, LLC, dba
SHAKER'S PUBLIC HOUSE, CAITLIN B. CAMPBELL, SPENCER CAMPBELL,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03757-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 24,
2024) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio Constitution, and O.R.C. Sec.
2307.60.
Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are current and
former employees of Defendants who were paid a tipped hourly wage
less than the federal and Ohio statutory minimum wage and minimum
overtime wage for hours worked over 40 in a workweek and for whom
Defendants relied on the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA and
applicable Ohio Wage Laws to satisfy their statutory minimum wage
obligations. These Tip Credit Employees include, for example,
servers and bartenders.
The Defendants violated the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Laws because
they: (1) failed to satisfy the notice prerequisite for taking the
tip credit; (2) required tip credit employees to share tips with
back-of-house employees who earn have no or only de minimis
interaction with customers while taking a tip credit; (3) required
tip credit employees to spend substantial amounts of time
performing non-tip-producing and directly supporting work tasks
before and after serving customers and throughout their shift while
being paid less than the statutory minimum wages, says the suit.
Plaintiffs Hickman and Dodge were employed as servers/bartenders at
Defendants' Worthington location from approximately March 19, 2024
until May 23, 2024 and from approximately March 18, 2024 until June
18, 2024, respectively.
RP'S Grit & Grace, LLC owns a restaurant in Ohio under the name
Shaker's Public House.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
RUN ROADLINES INC: Helm Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Run Roadlines Inc.
The case is styled as Jeniya Helm, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Run Roadlines Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008939 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., July 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Run Rail -- https://www.run-rail.com/ -- is an equipment provider
on all Class 1 North American railroads (US, Canada, and
Mexico).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
SELECT HOME WARRANTY: Ghebari Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Home Warranty,
LLC. The case is styled as Nasim Ghebari, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Home Warranty,
LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-50321 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Select Home Warranty -- https://www.selecthomewarranty.com/ --
provides excellent coverage for your home warranty needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
SNAP INC: CRD Sues Over Unfair Compensation Scheme, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, an agency of the State of
California, on behalf of the group or class, Plaintiff v. SNAP
INC., Defendant, Case No. 24STCV15382 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., June 20, 2024) is an enforcement action brought by CRD
against Snap in its prosecutorial role, seeking relief in the
public interest and for a group of women who worked at Snap from
2014 to this filing to remedy, prevent, and deter unlawful
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act as well as California Equal Pay
Act.
According to the complaint, Snap underwent a period of rapid growth
in 2014 to 2017, increasing its employee count from 250 in 2015 to
over 5,000 full time employees in 2022. Despite its growth, Snap
did not take adequate measures to ensure that women were paid or
promoted equally, resulting in the marginalization of women at
Snap. The Defendant intentionally discriminated against members of
the Group in compensation by offering them lower compensation at
hire, assigning them to lower paid and less opportunity roles, and
affording them less advancement and other opportunities than their
male counterparts.
As a result of Defendant's unlawful employment practices, members
of the Group suffered and continue to suffer harm, including but
not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, lost future employment
opportunities, and other financial loss as well as non-economic
damages, says the suit.
Plaintiff CRD is a state agency tasked with investigating and
prosecuting civil rights actions.
Snap is a technology and camera company headquartered in Santa
Monica, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie Crook, Esq.
Alexis McKenna, Esq.
Rumduol Vuong, Esq.
MacKenzie Anderson, Esq.
Irene Meyers, Esq.
Jenny Chhea, Esq.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT
320 West 4th Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 439-6799
Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
SNOWFLAKE INC: Hornthal Sues Over Unsecured Customers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HORNTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., AT&T, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00068-TJC (D. Mont., July 25, 2024) sues the
Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive phone call and text
message records, including phone numbers, phone numbers they
interacted with, number of calls or texts, call duration, and cell
site identification numbers ("Customer Proprietary Network
Information" or "CPNI").
On July 12, 2024, AT&T confirmed that call data for nearly all of
its customers was illegally downloaded from a third-party cloud
platform provided by Snowflake between April 14 and April 25, 2024
(the “Data Breach”). During the Data Breach, unauthorized
persons accessed and acquired the CPNI of Plaintiff and Class
members for the period from May 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022, and
January 2, 2023.
As a direct result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered
injury and damages including a substantial and imminent risk of
identity theft; the wrongful disclosure and loss of confidentiality
of his highly sensitive CPNI; deprivation of the value of his CPNI;
lost time and money mitigating the effects of the Data Breach; and
overpayment for services that did not include adequate data
security, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and violations of the
Federal Communications Act, and seeks declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law.
Mr. Hornthal has been a customer of AT&T for approximately 24
years. He paid AT&T for secure cellular, messaging, and data
services, including during the period from May 1, 2022 to Oct. 31,
2022, and on Jan. 2, 2023.
Snowflake is a "fully managed SaaS (software as a service) that
provides a single platform for data warehousing, data lakes, data
engineering, data science, data application development, and secure
sharing and consumption of real-time / shared data."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON DEOLA PLLP
401 N. Last Chance Gulch
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 442-3261
Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
SPOEFE INC: Romero Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
DAMIAN ROMERO, an individual and as a representative of aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. SPOEFE, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV15343 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 20, 2024) is a representative action
for penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code, arising from Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor practices.
According to the complaint, Defendant Spoefe has committed numerous
violations of the Labor Code against Plaintiff, including but not
limited to: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to
pay all wages immediately upon termination or within 72 hours after
notice of separation; failure to pay all earned wages; failure to
pay all undisputedly owed wages; failure to include the name and
address of established place of business in the state on pay checks
to cash or deposit pay checks; unauthorized payment of final wages
via direct deposit; failure to provide timely and accurate wage
statements; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to
pay all wages immediately upon termination; failure to pay overtime
and double time compensation; and failure to maintain compliant
employee and payroll records.
The Plaintiff, a Hispanic man, was hired by the Defendants in the
job position of maintenance technician from October 1, 2022 until
his alleged wrongful termination on December 26, 2023.
Spoefe, Inc. operates a real estate management firm in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron N. Colby, Esq.
Zoe Yuzna, Esq.
COLBY LAW FIRM, PC
13263 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 203
Studio City, CA 91604
Telephone: (818) 253-1599
Facsimile: (818) 475-1981
E-mail: aaron@colbylegal.com
zoe@colbylegal.com
SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY: Shatzer Seeks Housekeepers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAYMIE SHATZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01244-CCC (M.D. Pa., July 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Ms. Shatzer was hired as a housekeeper by the Defendant on or about
September 5, 2023.
Springwood Hospitality, LLC is a hotel ownership and management
company based in York County, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
Michael J. Bradley, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
smahan@weisbergcummings.com
mbradley@weisbergcummings.com
SREE HOTELS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Sikes Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN SIKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SREE HOTELS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00679 (W.D.N.C., July 24, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its computer
systems following a data breach on or no later than February 29,
2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
Sree Hotels, LLC is a hotel ownership and management company,
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
STONE SECURITY: Faces Sam Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STONE SECURITY SERVICE, INC., and GLOBAL
EVENT STAFFING, INC., both d/b/a STONE SECURITY SERVICES, and DAVID
STONE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05620 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours wages, failure
to timely pay wages, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff worked as an armed security guard for Stone Security
from 2022 until June 30, 2024.
Stone Security Service, Inc. is a provider of security services
located in New York, New York.
Global Event Staffing, Inc. is a staffing company headquartered in
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Simpson, Esq.
Raya F. Saksouk, Esq.
MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
80 Pine St., 33rd Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 509-1616
Email: ssimpson@nyemployeelaw.com
rsaksouk@nyemployeelaw.com
STRAIN STARS: Saunders Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRAIN STARS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05622 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://strainstarsny.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The barriers have not only limited the Plaintiff's and
Class members' ability to make informed decisions but also
infringed on their rights as consumers and individuals with
disabilities.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Strain Stars LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Matayoshi Balks at Seizure, Taking of Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
GENSHO MATAYOSHI, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, and JOHN
M. KENNEDY, JR., COMPTROLLER AND TREASURER, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW
YORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05161 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2024)
seeks to redress the constitutional violations practiced by
Defendants in collecting from Plaintiff and the putative class more
than they owed the government, in violation of the Takings Clause
of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of other state and
federal rights.
This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the following
class: All owners of property in Suffolk County in the State of New
York where such property was: 1) seized or otherwise subject to
foreclosure for unpaid taxes and associated obligations; 2) NOT an
owner-occupied residence which has been owner-occupied for at least
five years prior to the date of the recording of the County's
foreclosure deed; 3) was either a) sold in foreclosure, or b)
retained by any governmental entity; 4) the amount received in the
sale, or the value of the property taken, was more than the taxes
owed, that is, was in excess of the amount of the owner's debt for
which the property was taken; and the owner was not given the
excess.
By the conduct as alleged herein, the Defendants took the property
of Plaintiff and the putative class without just compensation. The
property of Plaintiff and the putative class was taken both
physically, and under color of law, depriving Plaintiff and the
putative class their right, title, and interest to same. The
Defendants are now in the possession of the property of the
Plaintiff and the putative class; or sold same and received the
proceeds of such sale. The value of the property, or the proceeds
from the sale thereof, exceeded the amount owed for the taxes or
other charges for which the property was seized and taken.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and
the putative class have not received just compensation for the
property seized and taken from them. The Defendants have not
provided Plaintiff or the class members adequate procedure to seek
just compensation for the taking of their surplus proceeds. The
Plaintiff and the putative class members have been harmed and
damaged by the foregoing, including but not limited to their loss
of their surplus equity, for which they demand and are entitled to
just compensation relief under law and equity, says the suit.
Suffolk County is a political subdivision and body politic of the
State of New York, sued in its official capacity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven E. Cole, Esq.
Robert P. Yawman III, Esq.
ADAMS LECLAIR LLP
1200 Bausch and Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604
Telephone: (585) 327-4200
Facsimile: (585) 327-4200
Email: scole@adamsleclair.law
ryawman@adamsleclair.law
- and -
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
Patrick J. Brickman, Esq.
Shmuel S. Kleinman, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
pbrickman@dworkenlaw.com
skleinman@dworkenlaw.com
- and -
Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq.
MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS
28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 831-0042
Facsimile: (216) 831-0542
Email: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, LLP
One City Center P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
Email: ghansel@preti.com
- and -
David M. Giglio, Esq.
DAVID M. GIGLIO & ASSOCIATES, LLC
13 Hopper Street
Utica, NY 13501
Telephone: (315) 797-2854
Email: davidgigliolaw@yahoo.com
- and -
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
- and -
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Avenue Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
Email: nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Pincus, Esq.
JONATHAN D. PINCUS, ESQ.
10 Whitestone Ln
Rochester, NY 14618-4118
Telephone: (585) 732-8515
Email: jdp@jdpincus.com
SWATCH GROUP: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Brown Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.), INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05601 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.omegawatches.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
The Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE: McMillen Sues Over Unprotected Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
FAYE MCMILLEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYSINFORMATION HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC
d/b/a EQUALIZERCM, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00819 (W.D. Tex.,
July 24, 2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its
client's patients and healthcare customers, including Plaintiff
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised, and unlawfully accessed by cybercriminals in June
2023. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and dates of birth
and medical history/treatment information, which is protected
health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendant’s inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' private information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party
and precisely what specific type of information was accessed.
SysInformation Healthcare Services, LLC d/b/a EqualizeRCM provides
revenue analytics services to hospitals, medical billing companies,
and other healthcare entities throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Steckler, Esq.
Austin P. Smith, Esq.
Paul D. Stickney, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@swclaw.com
austin@swclaw.com
judgestick@gmail.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Action Over Lifetime Price Guarantee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lovejoy, writing for 9to5MAC, reports that a T-Mobile class
action lawsuit has been filed by customers on plans with a lifetime
price guarantee. The carrier broke that apparent promise by
cancelling legacy plans, and switching them to a more expensive
one.
The lawsuit relates to a number of plans sold with the promise that
"T-Mobile will never change the price you pay" . . .
T-Mobile's lifetime price guarantee
T-Mobile sold a total of seven different plans with a lifetime
price guarantee:
-- T-Mobile One Plan
-- Simple Choice plan
-- Magenta
-- Magenta Max
-- Magenta 55+
-- Magenta Amplified
-- Magenta Military Plan
For each of these, the company said this:
New Rule: Only YOU Should Have the Power to Change What You Pay --
Introducing Un-contract [. . . ] T-Mobile ONE customers keep their
price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change
the price you pay for your T-Mobile ONE plan. When you sign up for
T-Mobile ONE, only YOU have the power to change the price you pay.
Many customers signed up on the basis of that promise, unaware that
the company's small-print rendered it virtually worthless. All the
company was actually promising was to allow them to cancel the
contract if the price was ever increased, with T-Mobile covering
the cost of their final month of service.
T-Mobile class action lawsuit
The carrier subsequently discontinued many of these plans, offering
to switch customers to a new one, with price rises of up to $5 per
line.
Wired reports that a class action lawsuit has now been filed on
behalf of affected customers.
The complaint, filed on July 12, has four named plaintiffs who live
in New Jersey, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. They are seeking
to represent a class of all US residents "who entered into a
T-Mobile One Plan, Simple Choice plan, Magenta, Magenta Max,
Magenta 55+, Magenta Amplified or Magenta Military Plan with
T-Mobile which included a promised lifetime price guarantee but had
their price increased without their consent and in violation of the
promises made by T-Mobile and relied upon by Plaintiffs and the
proposed class" [. . . ]
The complaint seeks "restitution of all amounts obtained by
Defendant as a result of its violation," plus interest. It also
seeks statutory and punitive damages, and an injunction to prevent
further "wrongful, unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
conduct."
New language, same old small-print
While T-Mobile stopped using the term "lifetime price guarantee,"
it switched instead to advertising something it called the "price
lock guarantee." This was essentially the same thing by a different
name, with the same small-print.
BBB National Programs -- which grew out of the Better Business
Bureau -- said this was misleading, and called on the carrier to
stop advertising it. T-Mobile last month agreed to comply. [GN]
TAMIAMI PETROL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAMIAMI PETROL INC. d/b/a TAMIAMI CHEVRON,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22840-BB (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2025)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
commercial gas station at 12805 SW 137 Avenue Miami, Florida 33186,
is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of
ADA.
Tamiami Petrol Inc. d/b/a Tamiami Chevron owns and operates a
commercial gas station Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
TIMEX.COM INC: Brown Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIMEX.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05602 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.timex.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
missing alternative text (alt-text), hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Timex.com, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
TRITON LOGISTICS: Underpays Customer Service Managers, Taja Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
YEYDELIN TAJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRITON LOGISTICS, INC., MODESTO GIL, and
ANTONIO ITURRIAGA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22834 (S.D. Fla.,
July 25, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a customer service
manager between approximately mid-May 2022 and late January 2023.
Triton Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company located in Miami,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
Email: employlaw@keithstern.com
- and -
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HAZEL SOLIS ROJAS, P.A.
3105 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 400
Doral, FL 33172
Telephone: (305) 558-8402
Email: hazel@solisrojaslaw.com
UNITED ENGINEERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnes Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TODD BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07991 (D.N.J., July 24, 2024) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Barnes was employed by the Defendant as a construction
manager.
United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. is an engineer, general
contractor, specialty contractor that serves the Mount Laurel
Township, NJ area and specializes in design and engineering,
project management and coordination. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4635
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: crodriguez@bm.net
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
VALIDITY RESEARCH: Does not pay Proper OT Wages, Taylor Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHUNDELL TAYLOR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALIDITY RESEARCH, INC., and, KGS
RESEARCH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01309 (D. Nev., July
19, 2024) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff
arising from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Nev. Rev. Stat., and Nevada's Minimum Wage
Amendment.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay call center
agents for their time spent starting up their computers, logging
into required systems and applications, and reviewing work-related
e-mails and other information, before their shifts and upon
returning from their meal breaks, including time worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants remotely from home in Las
Vegas, Nevada, as a call center agent from February 2024 to April
2024.
Validity Research, Inc. provides market research services to its
clients and customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger Wenthe, Esq.
ROGER WENTHE, PLLC
2831 St. Rose Pkwy. # 200
Henderson, NV 89052
Telephone: (702) 971-0541
E-mail: Roger.wenthe@gmail.com
- and -
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
VESTA MINE: Fails to Pay Miners' OT Wages Under FLSA, Gray Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL GRAY, individually and for others similarly situated v. VESTA
MINE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a VESTA MINE SUPPLY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01069
(W.D. Pa., July 25, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other
damages from Vesta for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.
The lawsuit contends that Vesta does not pay Mr. Gray and its other
Miners for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety
gear and protective clothing, gathering and storing their tools and
equipment, attending meetings, completing paperwork, and washing-up
"off the clock" before and after their shifts.
Accordingly, Vesta's uniform pre/post shift off the clock policy
and meal deduction policy violate the FLSA and PMWA by depriving
Mr. Gray and the other Miners of overtime wages for all overtime
hours worked.
Additionally, Vesta deducts 30 minutes a day from the Miners' hours
worked to record they took a meal break, regardless of whether they
actually received a bona fide, uninterrupted meal break (Vesta's
"meal deduction policy").
Throughout his employment, Mr. Gray typically worked 9-12 hours a
day for 6-7 days a workweek (54 to 84 hours a workweek). Likewise,
the other Miners typically worked 9-12 hours a day for 6-7 days a
workweek (54 to 84 hours a workweek).
Vesta employed Mr. Gray as a Miner Shift Foreman. Throughout his
employment, Vesta classified Mr. Gray as non-exempt and paid him on
an hourly basis.
Vesta "is a product contract employer to the mining industry."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
VNGR BEVERAGE: Wheeler Sues Over Mislabeled Prebiotic Soda
----------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN WHEELER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VNGR BEVERAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-04396 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for misleading Plaintiff and others similarly
situated consumers of the true and accurate gut health benefits
derived from the ingredients in Poppi soda in violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.
According to the complaint, VNGR sells "Prebiotic Soda" they label
as allegedly made with prebiotics "For a Healthy Gut." VNGR also
advertises Poppi with the slogan "Be Gut Happy. Be Gut Healthy."
Consumers purchased Poppi with the belief from its marketing that
it would not exacerbate their symptoms, but actually improve their
gut health. However, reports indicate that the prebiotic
ingredients VNGR uses in Poppi have been found to create adverse
side effects in those with irritable bowel syndrome and other
conditions, says the suit.
Thus, VNGR misled Plaintiff and Class Members of the nature and the
benefits of the included prebiotics and Poppi's ability to be
consumed "For a Healthy Gut," rendering the marketing deceptive and
misleading. VNGR's prominent and systematic mislabeling of Poppi
and its false and deceptive advertising form a pattern of unlawful
and unfair business practices that harms the public and, if
unstopped, could continue to lead to substantial harm, the suit
asserts.
VNGR Beverage, LLC sells "Poppi" soda in various flavors,
including, but not limited to Root Beer, Doc Pop, Watermelon,
Grape, Classic Cola, Orange, Wildberry, Raspberry Rose, Lemon Lime,
Cherry Limeade, Ginger Lime, and Strawberry Melon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4709
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
breed@kaplanfox.com
colivares@kaplanfox.com
WALSER AUTOMOTIVE: Cuminale Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAARON CUMINALE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALSER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC; and
WALSER HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-24-9692
(Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., June 20, 2024) is a
class action against Defendants for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personally identifying information, including full names, Social
Security numbers, financial account and credit information, which
as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession.
On or about May 30, 2024, the notorious criminal ransomware group
known as Play accessed Defendants' computer network systems and
exfiltrated files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. On
June 4, 2024, Play published the PII it obtained from Defendants'
networks on the Play Dark Web portal, where, as of June 18, 2024,
the PII has already been viewed 3,836 times.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data
security and breaches of their duties to handle PII with reasonable
care, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII has been accessed by
hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals.
To recover from Defendants for these harms, Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and the Class who are current and former customers of
Defendants, brings claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence to
address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII they collected and maintained, and for failing
to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class
Members that their information was subject to the unauthorized
access by a notorious ransomware group in the data breach.
Walser Automotive Group, LLC owns and operates an automotive
dealership group that sells and leases vehicles to customers at
locations throughout Minnesota and Kansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Christopher Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Removes Alba-Pedilla Suit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOEL JOSE DE ALBA-PEDILLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WESCO INTERNATIONAL INC.; STAND PETERSON; and does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Contra Costa (Case No. C24-01297) to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 24, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-03767-TSH.
WESCO International, Inc. distributes electrical products and other
industrial maintenance, repair, and operating supplies. The Company
also provides integrated supply services. WESCO operates branches
and distribution centers in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Guam, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, which serve
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com
- and -
Lilah J. Wylde, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: lwylde@seyfarth.com
WESTGATE RESORTS: Helms Alleges Salespersons' Unpaid Reserve Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE HELMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WESTGATE RESORTS, INC.; WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD, WESTGATE
MYRTLE BEACH, LLC; CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC; JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-25, Case No. 4:24-cv-04154-JD (D.S.C., July 25,
2024) sues the Defendants' for failing to pay commissions and other
compensation to the Plaintiff, a former sales employee of the
Defendants, at the Westgate Oceanfront Resort.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated commission-only sales employees the "reserve
funds" that were accumulated from past earned commissions upon said
employee's resignation or termination of employment with the
Defendants. The Plaintiff, as a condition of her employment with
the Defendants, had to maintain certain "reserve funds" with the
Defendants, such reserve funds being accumulated from the
commissions that the Plaintiff was owed by the Defendants. These
"reserve funds" were typically three to four thousand dollars in
amount, the suit says.
The Defendants allegedly have made a pattern and practice of
wrongfully retaining and converting employees' reserve funds and
have consistently refused to release said funds to employees, often
stating that the reserve funds are depleted or that the terminated
employee actually owes money back to the Defendants.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of herself and a
subclass of all similarly situated salespersons employed by the
Defendants who sustained damages from the Defendants' breach of its
contracts with its salespersons and acts of conversion within the
applicable statute of limitations until entry of judgment after
trial.
The Plaintiff was employed as a salesperson in the WTBE's Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina time share sales business during the two
years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
Westgate are themed destination resorts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
cmad@poulinwilley.com
WILLIAMS UNITED: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wright Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS UNITED LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00121-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., July 23, 2024) is an action to
recover compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and
other relief from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and breach of contract.
The complaint alleges Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff
and those similarly situated for their overtime pay in violation of
the provisions of the FLSA and the regulations thereunder.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a delivery
driver in September 2023. Around January 1, 2024, he was promoted
to the position of team leader, but he was continued to be paid on
an hourly basis.
Williams United Logistics, LLC is a Florida corporation which
provided package delivery services from a hub in Alachua County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
2112 SW 34th Street
Gainesville, FL 32608
Telephone: (352) 244-2069
E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com
WILLS EYE: Rocci Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
LORRAINE ROCCI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLS EYE HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No.
240602210 (Pa. Com Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 20, 2024) seeks to
remedy relief for Defendant's negligence; invasion of
privacy-intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of Privacy-Public
Disclosure of Private Facts; breach of implied contract; unjust
enrichment; breach of fiduciary duty; violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and violation of
the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act.
This is a class action to address Defendant's improper practice of
disclosing the confidential personally identifying information
and/or protected health information of Plaintiff and the proposed
Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Meta, Google, LLC, Microsoft, DoubleClick, StackAdapt,
Hotjar, Salesforce CrazyEgg, and potentially others via tracking
technologies used on its website.
According to the complaint, WEH breached its statutory and common
law obligations to Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia,: (i)
failing to adequately review its marketing programs and web based
technology to ensure the hospital Website was safe and secure; (ii)
failing to remove or disengage technology that was known and
designed to share web-users' information; (iii) aiding, agreeing,
and conspiring with third parties to intercept communications sent
and received by Plaintiff and Class Members; (iv) failing to obtain
the written consent of Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose
their Private Information to Facebook and others; (v) failing to
protect Private Information and take steps to block the
transmission of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
through the use of Meta Pixel and other tracking technology; (vi)
failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members; and (vii) otherwise
failing to design and monitor its Website to maintain the
confidentiality and integrity of patient Private Information.
Wills Eye Hospital provides a range of medical eye services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLL
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Milito Sues Over Incomplete Job Postings
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MILITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; HASBRO, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and
DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No.
24-2-13892-7 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., June 20, 2024) is a
class action lawsuit pursuant to RCW 2.08.010 to remedy Defendants'
ongoing violation of Plaintiff and the Class members' civil
rights.
This is a class action on behalf of individuals who applied to job
openings with the Defendants where the job postings did not include
the wage scale or salary range being offered in direct violation of
RCW 49.58.110. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief
to address Defendants' refusal to include a wage scale or salary
range in their job postings, and statutory damages pursuant to the
state law.
Plaintiff John Milito resides in King County, Washington and
applied for a position with Defendants in the state.
Wizards of the Coast LLC is a foreign limited liability company
that regularly transacts business in King County, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
YARDI SYSTEMS: Lafleur Balks at Personal Info Use Without Consent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA LAFLEUR and MICHAEL GROSE SR., Ohio residents,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. YARDI SYSTEMS Inc., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01262-PAB (N.D. Ohio, July
24, 2024) seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief
from Yardi for violations of the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute
and Ohio common law.
According to the complaint, despite failing to obtain written
consent from Plaintiffs and the Class, Yardi nevertheless utilized
their personal identifying information for the purpose of enticing
users of PropertyShark, a property-research website offering
reports for commercial and residential properties, to enter into
paid premium subscriptions for additional access to reports
contained in the platform. In other words, Yardi used Plaintiffs'
and other Class Members' identities for commercial purposes without
their written permission in violation of ORPS and Ohio common law.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint seeking an order (i) declaring
that Yardi's conduct violates ORPS and common law, (ii) requiring
that Yardi cease the unlawful activities described herein, (iii)
awarding Plaintiffs and the Class actual damages, including any
profits derived from and attributable to the unauthorized use of
their names or likenesses, or statutory damages between $2,500 and
$10,000, and (iv) an award for punitive damages, if warranted, and
reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and other expenses
associated with this action.
Yardi Systems Inc. is a real estate software company that offers
solutions for property management and investment management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 W. Algonquin Rd. Ste 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: wsolberg@andersonwanca.com
bwanca@andersonwanca.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***