/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240808.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 159
Headlines
3499NW LLC: Gil Sues Over Commercial Property's ADA Non-Compliance
3M COMPANY: Slunt Suit Alleges Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
780 FULTON: Faces Bacon Class Suit Over ADA Violations
AJM PACKAGING: Caplinger Sues Over Unlawful Wage Payment Scheme
ALBEE BABY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
ANTHONY WILLS: French Suit Asks Court to Certify Class
AT&T INC: Faces Hale Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
BIRDIES INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says
BIRTH OF THE COOL: Hernandez Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says
BUILT BRANDS: Bars Has False Protein Content, Sullivan Alleges
BUREAU OF PRISONS: West Loses Bid for Injunctive Relief
CALLIDITAS THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Tender Offer From Asahi Kasei
CAMPBELL SOUP: Dunst and Smith Sue Over Worker Misclassification
CAPITAL ONE: Arpaia Breach of Contract Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
CLEO HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
COLORADO'S PRIME: Testagrose Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
COOPER COMPANIES: J.G. Sues Over Defective Embryo Culture Technique
COURIER PLUS: Hempnotize Sues Over Illegal Merchant Agreement
COVENANT TRANSPORT: Rogers Wage Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fragomeni Says
DENTAL BROOKLYN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Andrews Alleges
DOBBS TIRE: Pulliam Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
EVOLVE BANK: Buchanan et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach
EXTRACTION OIL: Plaintiffs in Royalty Case Lose Bid to Remand
FARM BUREAU: Hollis Insurance Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
FREIGHTSTAR EXPEDITED: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Improper Wages
FUTURITY FIRST: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Verderame Says
GENESIS RESTORATION: Vasquez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
GOTHAM BUDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Alleges
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Faces Aneckstein Class Suit Over Data Breach
HERC RENTALS: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
HUNGRY POT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cao Suit Alleges
HUNGRY PUPPY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Claude Says
INHALE CANNABIS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Alleges
IRISH COFFEE: Banegas Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
JILDOR SHOES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cantwell Alleges
KEG SOUTH: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges
KEN CIRKA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Gomberg Says
KLUB CANIVIBE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Alleges
LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Rojos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LATE STAGE: Faces Suit Over "No-Fee" Unregistered Securities Scheme
LEIDOS INC: Plaintiffs Seeks Conditional Class Certification
LIC SOUTHWEST: Court Narrows Claims in Calif. Teachers' Case
LOS ANGELES, CA: Park Facilities Violate ADA, Griffin Suit Alleges
MAK PHARMA: Bermudez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
MDL 3096: Addison Data Breach Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
MENDOCINO FARMS: Batres Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices
MRO CORPORATION: Hudson-Swoope Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
MUNICIPAL PARKING: Smiley DPPA Suit Removed to N.D. Fla.
NOVO LLC: Cruz-Bello and Bello Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
NRP FOOD: Correa Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
NYC MEDICAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Glasel Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PACIFIC GAS: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
PECO FOODS: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Harrison Says
POTBELLY SANDWICH: Jones and Norman Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Jean Mary DPPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RELIABLE GUTTERS: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Yocsales Says
RENTERS WAREHOUSE: Hansen & Arquette Sue for Security Deposit Fraud
RITE AID: Fails to Protect Customers' & Employees' Info, Judka Says
SANTONI NORTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Alleges
SAVE MART: Seeks to Revise Class Certification Briefing Deadlines
SEABOARD FOODS: Antitrust Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod
SECOND NATURE: Best Seeks to Certify Class Action
SELLARS ABSORBENT: Court Adjourns Case Deadlines
SHADE STORE: Bid to Dismiss Fitzgerald Class Suit Denied
SHEET METAL: Settlement in Campa Suit Gets Initial Nod
SLAM TRUCKING: Guerrier Sues to Recover Minimum Wage
SMG BFPL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bravo Suit Claims
SNOWFLAKE INC: Bobbitt Files Suit in D. Montana
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Whipple Suit
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Mills Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
SPEEDWAY LLC: Fails to Pay Cashiers' OT Wages Under FLSA & IMWL
STAT COURIER: Submission of Expert Reports Extended to Nov. 21
STATE EMPLOYEES: Green Sues Over Non-compliance of Discharge Orders
STREAMLABS LLC: Leventhal Seeks Conditional Class Certification
SUNRISE RESTAURANTS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Fellers
SUNRISE SENIOR: Class Settlement in Heredia Suit Gets Initial Nod
TAMAYO PRODUCE: Cruz-Yau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TAMKO BUILDING: Court OK's Melnick Bid for Class Certification
TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Exhibit
TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite Seeks to Certify Class Action
TAQUERIA SAINT MARKS: Faces Apolinar Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
TAYLOR CHIP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Forrest Alleges
TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Filing Date
TERAWULF INC: Christman Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
TERRACON CONSULTANTS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TETHER LTD: Plaintiffs Can File Second Amended Complaint
THUY DIEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
TIKTOK INC: Griffith Suit Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
TOOL COMPONENTS: Borrego Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TOUS USA: Faces Lafont Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TRIPLE CROWN: Ankem Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Hearing in Malone Set for August 13
UNITED PARCEL: Court Narrows Claims in Wynn Suit
UNITED STATES: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition in LNP by Sept. 17
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA: Sangster Seeks Conditional Status
UNO RESTAURANT: Tassoni Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
US CITIZENSHIP: Class Settlement in Perez Suit Gets Final Nod
VAQUERO ENERGY: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VERENCA INVESTMENTS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says
VISION OF HOPE: Calvache Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
VOODOO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Guthrie & North Allege
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bhaila Sues Over Securities Law Violations
WALT DISNEY: Fact Discovery in Thompson Due Jan. 20, 2025
WASHLAND LLC: Gervacio Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
WEST MARINE: Fails to Pay Accumulated Paid Time Off, Herzstein Says
YARDI SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Placeholder Bid for Class Status
ZELLA HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
*********
3499NW LLC: Gil Sues Over Commercial Property's ADA Non-Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS GIL, Plaintiff v. 3499NW LLC, a Florida limited
liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-22617-JB (S.D. Fla.,
July 10, 2024) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, a
declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's commercial property on or
about February 21, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the
ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
property.
The 3499NW LLC, was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company that
owned and operated a commercial property location at 3499 NW 25
Street, Miami, FL.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen E. Lungarelli, Esq.
ADAVOCATE, LLC
777 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 481-9809
E-mail: Karen@Adadvocates.org
Ed@Adadvocates.org
George@Adadvocates.org
Lili@Adadvocates.org
3M COMPANY: Slunt Suit Alleges Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SLUNT v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04192-RMG (D.S.C., July 29,
2024) is a class action seeking for or damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his military
career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC., CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE
SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS
FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-ininterest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN
LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY
GROUP.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, Alabama 35244
Telephone: (205) 988-9253
Facsimile: (205) 788-4896
E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com
780 FULTON: Faces Bacon Class Suit Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
ASA BACON v. 780 FULTON REALTY CORP., 780 FULTON CHICKEN CORP., and
POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-05367 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff
on behalf of herself and for the benefit of all others similarly
situated for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
for negligence.
The lawsuit opposes pervasive, ongoing, and inexcusable disability
discrimination by Defendants. In this action, the Plaintiff seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as monetary
damages and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, to redress
Defendants' unlawful disability discrimination against Plaintiff,
in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendants own, lease, lease to, operate, and/or control a
place of public accommodation that violates. The Defendants are
vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their employees
and agents for the alleged conduct. The Defendant is the
leaseholder and/or operator of the restaurant establishment located
on the Premises, and/or otherwise controlled and managed the
operation of the premises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica E. Soultanian-Braunstein, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
ASA BACON
116 Jackson Ave.
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: JSB@BellLG.com
AJM PACKAGING: Caplinger Sues Over Unlawful Wage Payment Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thurman Caplinger, an individual, on behalf of himself and those
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. A.J.M. Packaging Corporation, a
Domestic Profit Corporation, and Robert A. Epstein, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11789-FKB-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 10,
2024), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
In May 2020, the Plaintiff began working as a maintenance
tech/millwright for AJM. They ultimately agreed upon a rate of
$31/hour as his compensation. The Defendants utilized a payment
scheme called "Spot Pay" but they did not explain it to Plaintiff.
Moreover, the Defendants treated him as an hourly employee by
routinely deducting his pay when he worked less than 40 hours in a
week. Accordingly, Defendants' Spot Pay violates the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated at a rate of
time and a half their actual hourly rate when they worked over 40
hours in a workweek, says the suit.
A.J.M. Packaging Corporation is a manufacturer of paper products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ertis Tereziu, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 739-1953
E-mail: etereziu@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
ALBEE BABY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ALBEE BABY CARRIAGE CO., INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05350
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, ,
www.albeebaby.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
Based on a 2020 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impair, including
2.0 million who are blind.
According a 2016 report published by the National Federation of the
Blind, 2016 report, approximately 418,500 visually impaired persons
live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he was
looking for a comfortable baby car seat for his child. He wanted to
find a versatile travel system designed for active parents, with
advanced technology for superior side impact protection, an
anti-rotation stability leg, and a cushioned seat pad for comfort.
Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale
and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features
which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation
bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the
ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[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
ANTHONY WILLS: French Suit Asks Court to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as French, et al., v. Wills,
et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01462 (S.D. Ill., Filed Jun 6, 2024), the
Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting motion to
certify class.
The Plaintiffs are pro se inmates who are currently incarcerated,
and all seek to challenge their ability to observe their religion
at Menard.
Although the subject of their lawsuit and their claims may be
identical or substantially similar, this matter cannot be certified
as a class action because pro se parties are not allowed to act as
lawyers on each other's behalf, and thus they cannot receive class
certification.
Accordingly, to the extent they have moved for class certification,
the Motions are denied. However, the Plaintiffs may decide to
proceed together in this case, as the Court previously explained in
the July 16, 2024, Order.
If the Plaintiffs want to proceed together in a single case, they
can do this, but they are still required to EACH pay a filing fee,
and to EACH personally sign the complaint and any future document
filed in this case.
Chappel Craigen and Allen Ford shall have until Aug. 5, 2024, to
send the Court personally signed copies of the complaint.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
AT&T INC: Faces Hale Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE HALE and NICK MARGEAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01943-E
(N.D. Tex., July 30, 2024) is a class action complaint on filed by
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and defined as:
"All persons (i) with the wireless carriers T-Mobile, Verizon,
Black Wireless, Boost Infinite, Consumer Cellular, Cricket
Wireless, FreedomPop, FreeUp Mobile, Good2Go, H2O Wireless,
PureTalk, Red Pocket, Straight Talk Wireless, TracFone Wireless,
Unreal Mobile, Wingor, and any other mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) that used AT&T's network for the period May 1,
2022 to Oct. 31, 2022 or for the period January 2023, and (ii)
whose personally identifiable information was accessed and/or
acquired in the data incident that is the subject of the Data
Breach announced by AT&T on July 12, 2024."
The Class alleged in this Complaint specifically excludes persons
whose wireless carrier was AT&T between May 1, 2022, and October
31, 2022 and January 2023.
On or about July 12, 2024, AT&T admitted that information about
more than 100 million of its customers' cellular telephone calls
and texts were exposed in a massive data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals (the "New Data Breach") in or about April of 2024.
AT&T also disclosed that the compromised data included the
telephone numbers and text records of the Class members, i.e.
customers of wireless providers that used its network between May
1, 2022, and October 31, 2022, as well as a number of Class members
that used its network in January 2023, and the records of their
telephone numbers and texts, says the suit.
AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave No. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 523-6600
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (630) 273-2625
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
megan@feganscott.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD &
WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Ste. 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
BIRDIES INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BIRDIES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05816 (S.D.N.Y., July
31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant’s
website, www.birdies.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
“visually-impaired" as Plaintiff’s central visual acuity with
correction is less than or equal to 20/200.
Birdies, Inc. operates as an online footwear store. [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
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BIRTH OF THE COOL: Hernandez Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIRTH OF THE COOL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04866 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024), arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
Due to the Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner
that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was
unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and
was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the menu and making a
reservation at the restaurant. Accordingly, Plaintiff Hernandez
alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website is a violation of the laws.
Birth of the Cool, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New York
City. It maintains the website, www.elevenmadisonpark.com, which
offers users the ability to peruse the restaurant's menus and to
make a reservation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-0534
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.mybobs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[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
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05348
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.mybobs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
Based on a 2020 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impair, including
2.0 million who are blind.
According a 2016 report published by the National Federation of the
Blind, 2016 report, approximately 418,500 visually impaired persons
live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[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
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BROOKLYN BEDDING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05813
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against
Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant’s website, www.helixsleep.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause
a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" as Plaintiff’s central visual acuity with
correction is less than or equal to 20/200.
Brooklyn Bedding is an American made manufacturer of
mattresses.[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
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BUILT BRANDS: Bars Has False Protein Content, Sullivan Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. BUILT BRANDS LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
Case No. 3:24-cv-04565 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2024) is a class action
complaint against Built alleging that its Built Protein Bars and
Puffs, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised,
distributed, and sold by the Defendant, are misbranded and
deceptively labelled because they contain far fewer grams of
protein per serving than stated upon their labels.
The Plaintiff contends that the front label of the Products states
that they contain 15-19 grams of protein per serving, depending on
the specific Product. The same claim is made on the Built website
(https://built.com/collections/original-built-puffs and
https://built.com/collections/original-built-bars).
These claims regarding protein content are false. Testing conducted
at the undersigned's direction on or about Oct. 31, 2023 by an
independent, third-party laboratory (EMSL Analytical, Inc.)
employing the AOAC method reveals that the protein content in the
Products is overstated, the Plaintiff adds.
Mr. Sullivan has made multiple purchases of the Products over
several years from the Built website, including but not limited to:
a. December 30, 2020 (White Chocolate Coconut, German Chocolate,
and Banana Nut Bread bars);
b. February 9, 2023 (Maple Donut puffs);
c. March 17, 2023 (mixed 24-count box of bars and puffs); and
d. May 11, 2023 (White Chocolate Birthday Cake puff).
The Plaintiff seeks to represent Class members who are citizens of
states or countries different from the Defendant.
Built is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place
of business and headquarters in American Fork, Utah. No members of
the limited liability company reside in or are citizens of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
BUREAU OF PRISONS: West Loses Bid for Injunctive Relief
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DONALD JOSEPH WEST, Plaintiff v. (FNU)
(LNU), Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 24-3051-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution - Leavenworth, formerly known as the
United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, filed this pro
se civil action regarding his conditions of confinement at FCIL.
Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that prisoners at FCIL are being
treated inhumanely. Plaintiff submitted the Amended Complaint,
which purports to be a class action and seeks immediate injunctive
relief.
The Amended Complaint sets forth various claims regarding the
conditions at FCIL, arguing that money allotted by Congress is not
being used properly and staff are lazy and refuse to do their jobs.
Plaintiff then argues FCIL has been locked down for the past two
months without a good reason. Plaintiff seeks an investigation into
the conditions at this facility "and throughout the federal prison
system." Plaintiff alleges mismanagement at the facility,
including: the mishandling of inmates' property; understaffing;
"poor" food; the denial of court access; and the denial of
out-of-cell recreation/sun light/fresh air.
Plaintiff alleges that during the recent 45-day lockdown in March
and April, staff and laundry services were unavailable, causing
inmates to go without clean bedding or clothing for over 45 days;
showers were denied for nine to eleven days during the 45-day
lockdown; hygiene and writing/mailing supplies were unavailable;
and the water was shut off for three days for a search and inmates
"were made to urinate/defecate in a nasty toilet without water or
in plastic bags." Although the 45-day lockdown ended, Plaintiff
claims that they were once again placed on lockdown and are
"continually being locked down." Plaintiff alleges that he has been
waiting six months to have a chipped tooth repaired and was told
that the dentist called in sick, and he had to wait eight months to
see a doctor. Plaintiff alleges that the facility contains black
mold and rodents. Plaintiff also alleges that he is being harassed
and retaliated against for filing complaints.
Plaintiff names as defendants: (fnu) (lnu) Director, Federal Bureau
of Prisons; (fnu) Carter, USPL Warden; and (fnu) (lnu) USPL Staff
Members. For relief, Plaintiff seeks "[i]njunctive relief described
in petition and monetary damages for violations."
In the attached Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief in the form of an order for "the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and Warden Carter to stop the continued
lockdowns, allow the orderly running of the prison which has not
properly functioned for the past 10 months, and allow all the
issues numbered one through fourteen be granted and ordered to be
followed per federal law, federal guidelines, B.O.P. policy and
Constitutional Law."
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an
employee of a governmental entity. The Court must dismiss a
complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that
are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
"To state a claim under Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law."
The Court has conducted the required screening and concludes that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is deficient in several respects.
Because Plaintiff's original complaint was not on a court-approved
form, the Court directed Plaintiff to resubmit his complaint on the
proper form.
The Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a second
amended complaint on the court-approved form to cure the
deficiencies.
Plaintiff has also filed multiple motions to supplement his Amended
Complaint and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Because the Court is giving Plaintiff an opportunity to file a
second amended complaint, the Court denies the motions to
supplement and motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff should include all of his claims in any second amended
complaint that he files.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief, seeking an
order directing prison officials to stop the harassment and
retaliation against Plaintiff, and ordering them to unfreeze
Plaintiff's trust fund account to allow him to pay the filing fee
in this case and to purchase commissary items. Plaintiff also
seeks to restore family communications via e-mails. Plaintiff then
makes arguments regarding his July 2023 transfer to USPL, claiming
that although he was supposed to be transferred closer to home, he
was actually transferred further away from home. He also argues
that in retaliation for filing grievances regarding his medical
care, his Financial Responsibility Plan was revised to raise it
from $50 per quarter to $200 per month. Plaintiff also re-alleges
claims from his Amended Complaint, including arguing that he is not
receiving proper medical care and arguments regarding conditions
during the 45-day lockdown.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
demonstrate four things: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of the
equities tip in the movant's favor; and (4) that the injunction is
in the public interest.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to make a
heightened showing that entry of a preliminary injunction is
warranted; he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits such that his right to relief is clear and unequivocal.
However, the Court denies the request for injunctive relief without
prejudice to refiling the motion after the Martinez Report has been
filed and the Court has screened any second amended complaint filed
by Plaintiff.
The Court also finds that a limited Martinez Report is warranted in
light of Plaintiff's allegations regarding the availability of
administrative remedies at FCIL. Accordingly, the Court orders the
appropriate FCIL officials to prepare and file a limited Martinez
Report.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 18,
2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rhjBio
CALLIDITAS THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Tender Offer From Asahi Kasei
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Calliditas Therapeutics AB (NASDAQ: CALT), relating
to a tender offer from Asahi Kasei Corporation. Under the terms of
the offer, Asahi Kasei Corporation will acquire all the outstanding
shares of Calliditas stock for SEK 0.04 in cash per ADS.
The Tender Offer will expire on August 30, 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]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Dunst and Smith Sue Over Worker Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL DUNST and JAMEY SMITH, individuals, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP
COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation; and SNYDER’S-LANCE, INC., a
North Carolina corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-CV-568
(M.D.N.C., July 10, 2024) seeks all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
Plaintiffs Dunst and Smith served as "distributors" from
approximately 2015 through present. Allegedly, Defendants
misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors. As a result,
the Plaintiffs were denied of their access to critical benefits and
protections they are entitled to by law, such as minimum wage,
overtime compensation, and indemnification for business
expenses/deductions.
Headquartered in Camden, NJ, Campbell Soup Company is a New Jersey
corporation produces and distributes snack foods in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
Christopher Bagley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
555 South Mangum Street, Suite 800
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 883-4813
Facsimile: (880) 716-7881
E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
cbagley@farrin.com
- and -
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Jordan Belcastro, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASELVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org
CAPITAL ONE: Arpaia Breach of Contract Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN ARPAIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., a
foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2024-CA-005387, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on July 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:24-cv-80848 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fear dealing in
connection with its imposition of $39 annual fees on Capital One
Platinum Cards as well as interest fees charged on those annual
fees.
Capital One, N.A. offers financial products and services such as
personal and business checking and savings accounts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sara F. Holladay, Esq.
Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
Kathleen D. Dackiewicz, Esq.
McGUIREWOODS LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300
Jacksonville, FL: 32202
Telephone: (904) 798-3224
Facsimile: (904) 798-3207
E-mail: sholladay@mcguirewoods.com
erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
kdackiewicz@mcguirewoods.com
clambert@mcguirewoods.com
flservice@mcguirewoods.com
CLEO HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CLEO HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.babycottons.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[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
COLORADO'S PRIME: Testagrose Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA TESTAGROSE, ANNE RUSSI, and PETER HOLT, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLORADO'S PRIME
STEAK, INC., GIGI PRATT, and ESTATE OF DWAYNE PRATT, Case No.
6:24-cv-01389 (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking individual claims for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act.
Ms. Testagrose was employed for over twenty years at CPS. By the
end of her employment on December 31, 2023, Ms. Testagrose was
employed in dual roles as a bartender and a general manager at
CPS.
CPS is a steakhouse in Sanford, Florida that has been serving the
Central Florida community for the last 30 years. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Ryan LaBar, Esq.
Scott C. Adams, Esq.
LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
2300 East Concord Street
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 835-8968
Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
E-mail:rlabar@labaradams.com
sadams@labaradams.com
COOPER COMPANIES: J.G. Sues Over Defective Embryo Culture Technique
-------------------------------------------------------------------
J.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., COOPERSURGICAL, INC., and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-04613 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2024) is a
class action lawsuit claiming on behalf of a Nationwide Class, a
New York Subclass, and a North Carolina Subclass of fertility
patients whose embryos were impacted by the defective Global Media.
The technique used to culture and grow embryos requires use of a
medium, or solution, that provides the appropriate environment and
nutrients for the embryos to grow and mature. CooperSurgical's
medium, which it calls global Media ("Global Media") is one type of
medium developed to culture embryos to the blastocyst stage and
prepare them for transfer.
The Plaintiff and the Class seek to recover for the expense of IVF
wasted when, at the very last stages, CooperSurgical's defective
solution ruined the embryos that were developed, matured, and
fertilized throughout the burdensome process.
The Plaintiff also seeks to recover for their lost and damaged
embryos, which were irreparably harmed by the Global Media, ruining
the opportunity to bring those embryos to life.
Finally, the Plaintiff seeks to recover for the significant and
lasting emotional harm caused by the loss of one or more embryos.
The Plaintiff brings claims for Strict Liability for a
Manufacturing Defect, Strict Liability for Failure to Warn,
Negligence, Negligent Failure to Recall, Trespass of Chattel, and
Unjust Enrichment.
CooperSurgical manufactures a medium for culturing embryos, that
is, a solution in which fertilized embryos (starting at just a
single cell) develop sufficiently to be transferred to a patient's
uterus to facilitate pregnancy.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Marker, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
Michael.laird@zimmreed.com
COURIER PLUS: Hempnotize Sues Over Illegal Merchant Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEMPNOTIZE, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. COURIER PLUS, INC.,
an Oregon corporation, Case No. e 6:24-cv-01225-MC (D. Or., July
30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant also promised Plaintiff and
Class Members that its network would function properly on April 20,
2024 following its failure on April 20, 2023, however, the
Defendant breached the contract by failing to ensure its network
would work on April 20, 2024 as promised.
The Plaintiff and Class Members each entered into a merchant
agreement with Dutchie for use of Dutchie's services within
Plaintiff's and Class Member's dispensaries. Within section 6.1 of
the merchant agreement Defendant asserted that they would use
commercially reasonable efforts consistent with prevailing industry
standards to maintain its services materially. The Defendant also
breached the contract by failing to use commercially reasonable
efforts consistent with prevailing industry standards to maintain
its services materially, says the suit.
Dutchie, a company which offers software tools and a marketplace
that enables cannabis e-commerce for pickup or delivery, failed to
ensure its services would be working for its contracted
dispensaries on the most profitable day for all dispensaries around
the nation.
On April 20, 2024, from 12PM to 3PM (EST), Dutchie's Point of Sale
("POS") system experienced a three-hour outage, preventing any
sales for all dispensaries operating on the POS system's "bluegate
network". Notably, the issue was avoidable and foreseeable, as
Dutchie's POS system experienced a similar failure on the exact
same day the previous year. However, following this first failure,
Dutchie assured all POS system users that such failures would not
be experienced again as they had sufficient time to prevent a
recurrence, the suit added.
Hempnotize is the owner of a lawful marijuana retail dispensary
doing business as Nar Cannabis Monroe, located in Monroe, Michigan.
Courier Plus operates as an online ordering platform that allows
users to order cannabis for delivery or pickup from local
dispensaries. Dutchie serves customers in the United States and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
Keith A. Ketterling, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING
& SHLACHTER P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
E-mail: tdejong@stollberne.com
kketterling@stollberne.com
- and -
Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Esq.
Basem M. Younis, Esq.
HAMMOUD, DAKHLALLAH, & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
6050 Greenfield Rd., Ste., 201
Dearborn, MI 48126
Telephone: (313) 551-3038
E-mail: kd@hdalawgroup.com
by@hdalawgroup.com
- and -
Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
COVENANT TRANSPORT: Rogers Wage Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC.,
a Foreign Profit Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 24-2-13005-5, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
July 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01043 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged use of job postings that
do not include the wage scales or salary ranges to be offered to
hired applicants.
Headquartered in Tennessee, Covenant Transport, Inc. provides long
haul freight transportation. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq.
Derek A. Bishop, Esq.
Madhura Panjini, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3122
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com
debishop@littler.com
mpanjini@littler.com
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fragomeni Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA FRAGOMENI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03412
(E.D. Pa., July 27, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and the
proposed Class Members, thousands of Defendant's current and former
employees and customers.
On Jan. 22, 2024, the notorious criminal ransomware group known as
LockBit 3.0 accessed the Defendant's network systems and
exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII stored in it,
including dates of birth, Social Security numbers, identification
documents, employment information, and tax information, causing
widespread injury and damages to the Plaintiff and Class Members.
Instead of remedying its deficient cybersecurity practices
following LockBit's theft of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII
from its systems, the Defendant did nothing. As a result, another
notorious criminal ransomware group known as WereWolves hacked the
Defendant's network and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII on Feb. 14, 2024—less than one month after LockBit did the
same, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the PII stolen and now
disseminated, which they cannot change and cannot be made private
again, the lawsuit asserts.
To make matters worse, despite that the LockBit cyberattack
occurred in January 2024 and the WereWolves cyberattack occurred in
February 2024, the Defendant to date—six months later—has
failed to provide any notice or information whatsoever to the
Plaintiff and Class Members regarding the Data Breach or the fact
that their PII is now in two criminal ransomware groups'
possessions and almost certainly disseminated on the Dark Web,
depriving the Plaintiff and Class Members the opportunity to
mitigate harm from the Data Breach timely, the suit added.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the proposed Class of persons whose PII
was compromised in the Data Breach, asserting causes of action for
negligence/negligence per se; reach of implied contract; breach of
fiduciary duty; violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act;
and (V) unjust enrichment; seeking an award of monetary damages and
injunctive relief, due to Defendant's failure to adequately protect
the Plaintiff and Class Members' highly sensitive PII and
Plaintiff's and Class Members' resulting injuries.
The Plaintiff is a former customer and employee of Defendant. She
was required to provide the Defendant with her PII to obtain
employment and products from the Defendant.
The Defendant is a bridal and occasion store in America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
DENTAL BROOKLYN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Andrews Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dental Brooklyn, P.C., Case No. e 1:24-cv-05361
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Dental
Brooklyn for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to services
Dental Brooklyn provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.downtowndentalbrooklyn.com. The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision.
Downtowndentalbrooklyn.com provides to the public a wide array of
services, price specials and other programs offered by Dental
Brooklyn. Dental Brooklyn specializes in a variety of dental
services such as restorative dentistry, dental implants, cosmetic
dentistry, Invisalign, and preventative care including exams, and
cleanings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
Telephone: (718) 501-3122
Brooklyn, New York 11234
2377 56th Dr.
E-mail: Cohenhasher@gmail.com
DOBBS TIRE: Pulliam Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH PULLIAM on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOBBS TIRE & AUTO CENTERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 24SL-CC02428, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on July 10, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:24-cv-00939 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
Based in High Ridge, MO, Dobbs Tire & Auto Centers, Inc. provides
professional tires and automotive services. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melody L. Rayl, Esq.
Samantha J. Monsees, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4622 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 910
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 842-8770
Facsimile: (816) 842-8767
E-mail: mrayl@fisherphillips.com
smonsees@fisherphillips.com
EVOLVE BANK: Buchanan et al. Sue Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA BUCHANAN, SAMANTHA WALKER, BRITNEY SIPA and TAMAIKA OSBY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00586-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 12, 2024), seeks to obtain
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief in connection with
Defendant's failure to secure its systems and data from
cyberattacks.
On or about June 25, 2024, Evolve announced that a "known
cybercriminal organization" stole its customers' personal
identification information and posted it on the dark web. As a
result, the Plaintiffs has been unable to access their funds held
by Defendant. This caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiffs to
suffer significant monetary losses and other harms. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of
fiduciary duty.
Headquartered in West Memphis, AR, Evolve Bank & Trust accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage solutions, card
facilities, and online banking services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
hbates@cbplaw.com
EXTRACTION OIL: Plaintiffs in Royalty Case Lose Bid to Remand
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as C & M RESOURCES, LLC, and WINTER OIL, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EXTRACTION OIL & GAS, INC., f/k/a EXTRACTION OIL &
GAS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-cv-00037-NYW-MEH (D.
Col.), Judge Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
the case to the Denver District Court, and granted Defendant's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Plaintiffs C & M Resources, LLC and Winter Oil, LLC bring this
putative class action on behalf of one class and five sub-classes,
comprised generally of persons and entities who paid royalties
under oil and gas leases and from which Defendant Extraction Oil &
Gas, Inc. allegedly deducted unused capacity reservation charges or
take-or-pay fees.
This case is in its third iteration. It was originally filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver -- C & M
Resources I -- on February 22, 2017. Extraction filed a motion to
dismiss in the C & M Resources I case, arguing that the state court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on Plaintiffs' failure to
exhaust their administrative remedies before the Energy and Carbon
Management Commission. The C & M Resources I court granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that (1) "the proper
forum to resolve this dispute is an administrative proceeding
before COGCC"; (2) Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies; and (3) as a result, the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the case. C & M Resources I was,
as a result, dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs did not appeal that decision, and instead refiled the
case, again against Defendant and again in Denver District Court --
C & M Resources II -- on November 29, 2018. Extraction moved to
dismiss on the same exhaustion grounds, and the state court granted
that motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint for the third time in state court
on December 10, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in August 2023, and Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
for failure to state a claim. The state court denied most of
Extraction's motion to dismiss on October 26, 2023. Plaintiffs then
filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint, the operative
pleading in this case, on December 29, 2023. The Third Amended
Complaint asserts 15 claims under state law, including six separate
claims for breach of contract; six separate claims seeking
declaratory relief concerning various contractual obligations;
claims for a breach of the implied duty to operate prudently and
the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and a claim for
accounting.
On January 5, 2024, Extraction removed the case to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
Plaintiffs responded by filing their Motion to Remand on January
29, 2024. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they seek damages in an
amount greater than $5 million or that CAFA confers original
jurisdiction on the District Court. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that
the case should be remanded on procedural grounds, arguing: (1)
Defendant waived its right to remove the case by filing its motion
to dismiss in state court; and (2) the Notice of Removal was
untimely filed.
Defendant opposes remand, arguing that it timely removed the case
after it first discovered that the case was removable, and that its
participation in the state-court proceedings did not amount to a
waiver of the right to remove because at the time it litigated in
state court, it had no notice that the case was removable.
The Court notes plaintiffs' argument relies almost exclusively on
the Tenth Circuit's decision in Soto Enterprises, which recognized
a general rule that "a defendant waives removal 'by taking some
substantial offensive or defensive action in the state court action
indicating a willingness to litigate in that tribunal before filing
a notice of removal with the federal court.'" Plaintiffs argue that
Soto Enterprises's bright-line rule precludes Defendant from
removing this case from state court. Defendant disagrees, arguing
that Soto Enterprises does not govern here because at the time
Defendant participated in state court, it did not know that the
case was removable. It asserts that this case is instead governed
by Akin v. Ashland Chemical Co., which held that "a defendant who
actively invokes the jurisdiction of the state court and interposes
a defense in that forum is not barred from the right to removal in
the absence of adequate notice of the right to remove."
The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs that Soto Enterprises
forecloses Defendant's ability to remove this case to federal
court. Soto Enterprises does not address the situation in this
case, where the defendant was not on notice of the case's
removability at the time its dispositive motion was filed, the
Court finds. The Court is persuaded that Defendant did not waive
its right to remove the case by engaging in litigation in state
court before it discovered that the claimed damages exceeded $5
million, consistent with the common law principle that a party
cannot waive a right of which it is unaware.
The Court concludes that Defendant has carried its burden of
proving removability for a number of reasons. There is no dispute
that the original complaint in this case did not articulate an
amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, the Court says.
In addition, Defendant signed the Notice of Removal pursuant to
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1446(a). In doing so, Defendant certified that to the best of its
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances, its factual contention that
Extraction first estimated that the amount in controversy might
exceed the CAFA monetary threshold after discovery began on
December 1, 2023 and within 30 days of filing the Notice of
Removal, had evidentiary support, the Court states.
Extraction subsequently filed its Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on February 20, 2024. Therein, it argues that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs' failure to
exhaust their administrative remedies and that Plaintiffs are
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion from relitigating the
issue, which has been previously decided by two separate courts.
It argues that Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice as a sanction under Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,
965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992).
As for Plaintiffs' argument that Defendant waived the collateral
estoppel defense, the Court is unpersuaded.
Applying the elements of issue preclusion, the Court agrees with
Extraction that, unless an exception applies, the C & M Resources I
and C & M Resources II decisions preclude Plaintiffs from reraising
their exhaustion arguments, including arguments about the futility
of exhaustion and whether the Parties' dispute turns on contract
interpretation. Indeed, the issue presented in this case is
identical to the one finally decided in C & M Resources I and C & M
Resources II, and Plaintiffs did not appeal those decisions.
Although those courts "never reached the merits, dismissals for
lack of jurisdiction preclude future relitigation of th[e]
jurisdictional question." The Court does not find any
inconsistencies precluding collateral estoppel.
The Court thus agrees with Defendant that collateral estoppel
applies in this case. Plaintiffs are precluded from relitigating
the issue of administrative exhaustion, including futility of
exhaustion, for the third time here. And because Plaintiffs have
not exhausted their administrative remedies before the Commission,
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case and
dismissal is appropriate. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
is therefore granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 18,
2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ONBri
FARM BUREAU: Hollis Insurance Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOM HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. FARM BUREAU PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, D-101-CV-2024-01418, was removed from
the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on July 12,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00720 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices, in
which it overcharged Plaintiff for both uninsured motor vehicles
and underinsured motor vehicles coverage.
Headquartered in Des Moines, IA, Farm Bureau offers
property-casualty insurance products. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Meena H. Allen, Esq.
ALLEN LAW FIRM, LLC
6121 Indian School Road, NE, Suite 230
Albuquerque, NM 87110
Telephone: (505) 298-9400
E-mail: mallen@mallen-law.com
- and -
Michael Mumford, Esq.
Kevin P. Zimmerman, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
Columbus, OH 43215-4138
Telephone: (614) 228-154
FREIGHTSTAR EXPEDITED: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Improper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL FERNANDEZ, individually and for all others similarly
situated v. FREIGHTSTAR EXPEDITED LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06549 (N.D.
Ill., July 26, 2024) seeks to recover compensatory damages stemming
from FreightStar's illegal and improper compensation practices,
statutory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any
other relief that this Court deems proper in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the "Truth-in-Leasing" regulations.
Plaintiff Fernandez asserts that FreightStar has violated the IWPCA
by failing to reimburse him and its drivers generally for all
necessary expenditures and losses incurred within the scope of
their employment. He alleges that FreightStar has violated the FLSA
by failing to pay him at least the federal minimum wage per hour
while he participated in FreightStar's orientation program. He
further contends FreightStar has violated the TIL regulations by
taking lease payments and "chargebacks" from his earnings without
providing the disclosures required by the TIL regulations.
The Plaintiff performed commercial truck driving services for
FreightStar from January 3, 2024 to February 16, 2024.
FreightStar is in the business of providing commercial refrigerated
product transportation services for clients using trucks driven by
individual drivers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (3120 233-1560
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
FUTURITY FIRST: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Verderame Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONCETTA C. VERDERAME on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FUTURITY FIRST INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-01262 (D. Conn., July 29, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personal identifiable information of potentially several thousand
individuals and businesses, including, but not limited to, name,
address, date of birth, gender, signature, social security number,
federal/state identification numbers, financial account
information, telephone and/or fax number, and driver's license or
state identification number.
Founded in 2008, Futurity represents itself as a nationwide network
of insurance agents and advisors offering a range of financial
products, including life insurance and annuities, as well as
healthcare planning and retirement planning services, based in
Middletown, Connecticut.
Prior to and through November 24, 2023, Defendant stored the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible
environment on Defendant's network. On or before May 23, 2024,
Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on
or around November 24, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant
determined that, during the Data Breach, an unauthorized third
party gained access to several employee and independent agent email
accounts and subsequently accessed and/or acquired the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
GENESIS RESTORATION: Vasquez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO CASTANEDA VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. GENESIS RESTORATION SERVICES, INC.
and OMAR PINEDA, Case No. 1:24-cv-03367-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 29,
2024) alleges the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons one-and-one-half their regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, instead
willfully misclassifying them as independent contractors and paying
them a flat daily rate for all time worked regardless of the actual
hours they worked per day or per workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Laborer and Manager from on
or about August 31, 2021, until on or about April 24, 2024.
Genesis is a company that offers "carpet cleaning and restoration"
as well as "water, fire, and mold restoration" services. Defendant
Pineda owns Genesis and manages and controls its day-to-day
operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT LLP
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@radfordscott.com
tmonteiro@radfordscott.com
GOTHAM BUDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOTHAM BUDS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05772 (S.D.N.Y., July
30, 2024) is a civil action against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant’s
Website, https://www.gothambudsny.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Based on a 2020 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind. According to a 2016 report
published by the National Federation of the Blind, approximately
418,500 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant's Website, https://www.gothambudsny.com is not
equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers;
therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant’s
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired," as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200.
The Defendant, established on April 13, 2021, owns a brick & mortar
dispensary, and concomitant Website, https://www.gothambudsny.com
which offers consumers, "A community established to supply the
smoker's urge in a convenient and premium fashion.
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
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Faces Aneckstein Class Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ANECKSTEIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00548-DAO (D.
Utah, July 31, 2024) arises out of the recent data security
incident ("Data Breach") resulting from the Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices.
The Defendant manages millions of health care savings accounts and
third-party health care plans for individuals across the United
States, and, in so doing, maintains access to the sensitive
personal information of these individuals.
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 compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
Data Breach. In providing services, the Defendant collected and
maintained certain personally identifiable information and/or
protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class
Members. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
included Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable
information and medical and health insurance information, which is
protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
According to Defendant, "on March 25, 2024, HealthEquity [first]
became aware of a systems anomaly requiring extensive technical
investigation." But it was not until June 10, 2024 that Defendant
claims that it completed its investigation. As a result of the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately 4.3 million Class Members,
suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to
invasion of privacy, theft of their Private Information and lost or
diminished value of Private Information, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief including improvements
to Defendant’s data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant.
HeathEquity is in the business of providing services to individuals
as part of their healthcare experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Janove, Esq.
JANOVE PLLC
500 7th Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (646) 347-3940
E-mail: raphael@janove.law
HERC RENTALS: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR MANUEL RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
HERC RENTALS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CGC-24-611595, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 10, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-04160 to the proceeding.
The case asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: (1)
failure to provide meal periods; failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly wages
and overtime; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements and
maintain records; (5) failure to timely pay all final wages; (6)
failure to indemnify; (7) unfair competition; and (8) civil
penalties under Private Attorneys General Act.
Herc Rentals, Inc. is an equipment and tools rental company based
in Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletree.com
cameron.flynn@ogletree.com
HUNGRY POT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cao Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
DENGTAO CAO a/k/a Phillip Cao, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUNGRY POT DARTMOUTH INC., HUAXIN
CHEN, HONG AN ZHENG, YI PING ZHENG, SHUO CHEN, and LEO "DOE,"
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11797 (D. Mass., July 12, 2024) arises
from Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful
employment policies, patterns, and/or practices that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act,the Massachusetts Labor and Industries
Law, and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law.
Plaintiff Cao was employed by Defendants to work as a server at
Hungry Pot Dartmouth from April 17, 2024 through April 23, 2024.
Allegedly, the Defendants intentionally did not pay Plaintiff a
base wage because he was Chinese and because they believed him to
be undocumented. Additionally, the Defendants did not keep any
records of his working time, says the Plaintiff.
Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc. owns and operates the Pot Dartmouth's
Korean barbecue, hot pot, and all-you-can-eat restaurant, located
at 466 State Road, Dartmouth, MA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
HUNGRY PUPPY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Claude Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE HUNGRY PUPPY CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-08061
(D.N.J., July 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.thehungrypuppy.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 suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted
multiple times, most recently on March 15, 2024 to access the
Defendant's Website from her home in an effort to shop for the
Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied him full
and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase dog food (Instinct
Raw Bites Cage-Free Chicken Recipe Frozen Dog Food).
Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the dog food she wished to acquire
from the Website. 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 dog food (Instinct Raw Bites Cage-Free Chicken Recipe
Frozen Dog Food), if remedied, the suit claims.
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 is a comprehensive pet food and supplies store that
offers a wide range of high-quality products for various pets,
including dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, and small animals. [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
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
INHALE CANNABIS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INHALE CANNABIS CO INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05766
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Website,
www.inhalecannabisclub.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer. The Defendant's Website,
www.inhalecannabisclub.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is 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 Defendant's Websites will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a New York State corporation that owns and
maintains the Website where they proclaim, "Our dispensary in New
York is dedicated to you with an amazing product, dedicated to the
city and dedicated to the culture of cannabis."
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
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
IRISH COFFEE: Banegas Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
REINALDO BANEGAS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. IRISH COFFEE PUB INC., NIALL KELLY, STEPHEN
MAHOOD and LEO HARRINGTON, Case No. 2:24-cv-05355 (E.D.N.Y., July
31, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, statutory interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The complaint says that Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek but was not paid overtime at the rate of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay in violation of the
FLSA. The Plaintiff performed non-exempt work for the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a front of the house
busser from in or about 2007 to in or about June 2024. The
Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants including
bussing tables and serving food and beverages.
The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
JILDOR SHOES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cantwell Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JILDOR SHOES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05357 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.jildorshoes.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause
a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" as Plaintiff’s central visual acuity with
correction is less than or equal to 20/200.
Jildor Shoes is a retailer of footwear for women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
KEG SOUTH: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. KEG SOUTH OF KENDALL, INC. d/b/a KEG
SOUTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-22895-JB (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2024) alleges
that Defendant's commercial property and commercial restaurant and
bar business located within the commercial property to be rife with
Americans with Disabilities Act violations.
The Plaintiff contends that he encountered architectural barriers
at the commercial property and Commercial restaurant and bar
business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The action seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, et seq.
ADA.
The Plaintiff is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a
residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui
juris.[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
E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
KEN CIRKA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Gomberg Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ken Cirka DMD, PC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03374 (E.D. Pa.,
July 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to make its
digital properties, https://www.phillydentistry.com/, accessible to
legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, on April 15th, 2024, he
made an attempt to make an appointment for a dentistry check-up.
After reviewing the clinic's services, he decided to go for a
check-up. However, he encountered accessibility issues on the
website, struggling to navigate the site to find details or book an
appointment. These difficulties prevented him from making an
appointment and accessing the dental services he needed. Because
simple compliance with the WCAG 2.2 Guidelines would provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, says the suit.
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.
Ken Cirka offers cosmetic, restorative, and preventive care,
including tooth whitening, porcelain veneers, Invisalign, dental
implants, crowns, bridges, tooth-colored fillings, gum disease
treatment, and emergency dentistry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
KLUB CANIVIBE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Saunders Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KLUB CANIVIBE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05768 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 30, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Website, www.kckiosk.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
The Defendant owns and maintains a brick & mortar dispensary, and
concomitant Website, https://www.kckiosk.com which offers consumers
"A community established to supply the smoker's urge in a
convenient and premium fashion." Defendant's Website,
www.inhalecannabisclub.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Websites will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.[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
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Rojos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YESINIA URIBE ROJO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class v. LAKEVIEW SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS,
INC., ANTHONY D'GRACIA, and ERIC SCOTT, Case No. 1:24-cv-05729
(S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premiums, unpaid wages, including overtime, for all hours worked
due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and New York State Human Rights Law.
The Defendants operate a security and investigative firm which
provides services for businesses, individuals and law offices.
These services include, but are not limited to, uniformed guard
services, private investigative services and special event
security, as described on Defendants' website, available at
https://lakeviewus.com/about-us/.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") Rule 23, on behalf of all
non-exempt employees, including, but not limited to security
guards, patrol drivers, and site supervisors, among others,
employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years
before the filing of this Complaint or applicable period for State
wage laws.
All said persons, including Plaintiff, are referred to herein as
the "Class." The Class members are readily ascertainable. The
number and identity of the Class members are able to be determined
from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the
position held, and rates of pay for each Class member are also
determined from Defendants' records. For purposes of notice and
other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses
are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided by
means permissible under F.R.C.P. 23.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8TH Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
LATE STAGE: Faces Suit Over "No-Fee" Unregistered Securities Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMAND EVANGELISTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LATE STAGE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, PRIOR 2 IPO
INC., CAPITAL TRUTH HOLDINGS LLC, PRE IPO MARKETING INC., JL RIVERA
ENTERPRISES LTD., VALEO CAPITAL CORPORATION, VERO ENTERPRISE
HOLDINGS LLC, EARTH TO ENERGY, INC., AMERICAN BIOCARBON, LLC, GREEN
LIFE FARMS, INC., RAYMOND J. PIRRELLO, JR., MARCELLO FOLLANO, JOHN
NITTOLO, JOSHUA CILANO, ROBERT CASSINO, ANTHONY DITUCCI, JOSEPH
RIVERA, and JEAN HALLE, Case No. (, July 29, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants violates Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the Scheme Defendants orchestrated a common plan and
scheme whereby a network of unregistered sales agents fraudulently
offered and sold retail investors purportedly "no-fee" unregistered
securities through various investment funds consisting of equity
interests in private companies which may in the future become
public ("Pre-IPO shares").
The Offering Defendants repeatedly told investors that there were
no up front fees or commissions for their investments in Pre-IPO
shares. These were a false statements. In reality, the Scheme
Defendants would charge investors up to a 150% markup on any given
pre-IPO shares sold to investors and pocket the money or use the
money to pay their sales agents. The Scheme Defendants
intentionally misled investors so that they would invest in Pre-IPO
shares. The Scheme Defendants intentionally hid from investors
Pirrello’s involvement in the organization, because Pirrello is a
convicted fraudster who is legally prohibited from being involved
with the sale of securities, says the suit.
The Offering Defendants told investors that they were unaffiliated
with the private companies they were selling Pre-IPO shares in (the
"Pre-IPO companies"). These were false statements. Pirrello was the
founder, the "Public Relations Specialist," and a major shareholder
of Green Life Farms, the suit added.
Late Stage Asset Management is a private equity consulting
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Baylet, Esq.
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA
& CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
E-mail: jbaylet@hrsclaw.com
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
LEIDOS INC: Plaintiffs Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDUJAR MILLER AND RASOUL
NICHOLSON, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v.
LEIDOS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00931-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of and authorizing notice to be sent to:
"All individuals who worked for or on behalf of Leidos in the
United States who were paid straight time for overtime at any
time
during the past 3 years (the "Straight Time Workers")."
To facilitate Court-approved notice, the Plaintiffs request the
Court
(1) approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to the
Plaintiffs' Motion;
(2) approve the email and text message scripts attached to the
Plaintiffs' Motion;
(3) order Leidos to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each Straight Time Worker within 10 days;
(4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time
Workers
to join this case;
(5) authorize an identical reminder notice halfway through the
notice period; and
(6) allow the Notice and Consent forms, and identical reminders,
to be sent via mail, email, and text.
Leidos provides scientific, engineering, systems integration, and
technical services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=StMrog at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, 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
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
LIC SOUTHWEST: Court Narrows Claims in Calif. Teachers' Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SCOTT HOFFMAN, et al., v. LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-04068-PCP (N.D.
Calif.), Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted, in part, and
denied, in part, Life Insurance Company of the Southwest's motion
to dismiss.
Section 403(b) of the Federal Tax Code allows public school
teachers contribute earnings to tax-sheltered retirement accounts
that can be used to enter annuity contracts. In this putative class
action, 11 California public school teachers assert that LICS
charged them undisclosed fees for deferred indexed annuity plans in
violation of the California Education Code and Unfair Competition
Law.
The UCL authorizes courts to enjoin anyone who "engages, has
engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition." Plaintiffs
assert that LICS has violated the "unlawful" prong of the UCL by
charging fees for their annuity plans in violation of Sections
25101 and 25107 of the Education Code, and that this same conduct
also violates the "unfair" prong of the UCL. Plaintiffs' claim
under the unlawful prong is based on two classes of alleged
violations:
1. Plaintiffs assert that annuity plan parameters like cap,
participation, and spread rates are "fees," and that LICS violated
the Sections 25101 and 25107 of the Education Code by applying
these parameters to their plans without disclosing them.
2. Two plaintiffs assert that they paid rider fees that LICS
did not disclose on 403bCompare.com.
The Court concludes, however, that annuity plan parameters like
cap, participation, or spread rates are not expenses or fees that
are paid by participants. Because these parameters are not "fees"
within the meaning of the statue, plaintiffs argument that LICS has
violated Section 25107 by applying these parameters without
disclosing them under Section 25101 fails. And without an
underlying statutory violation, plaintiffs cannot state a claim
under the UCL's unlawful prong, the Court holds.
The Court points out the complaint does not clearly allege that
these rates -- which are terms of the contracts annuity customers
agree to -- are not disclosed at all, either in the actual contract
or elsewhere. Because the complaint does not clearly and plausibly
allege that these rates are entirely undisclosed and does not, in
the alternative, explain why the specific failure to disclose these
rates on the 403bCompare website even if they are disclosed
elsewhere violates the unfair prong of the UCL, plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead an unfair prong claim, the Court
states.
Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their dismissed claims under
the UCL's unfair prong. An amended complaint, if plaintiffs choose
to file one, must be filed by August 8, 2024.
Plaintiff Blisten claims that he paid a rider fee in connection
with the FIT Income Plus plan, which he claims was a plan that LICS
never registered on 403bCompare.com. According to Blisten's
allegations, LICS never registered the FIT Income Plus plan at all.
As a result, any rider fee associated with that plan is not "a fee
associated with a registered 403(b) product," and charging a fee
for that rider does not violate Section 25107. Blisten therefore
has not stated a claim under the UCL's unlawful prong based on the
FIT Income Plus rider fee, the Court finds. Blisten's UCL claim is
therefore dismissed. This dismissal is without leave to amend as
to the UCL's unlawful prong but with leave to amend as to the UCL's
unfair prong.
Plaintiff Krimbow claims that she paid for a "Guaranteed Lifetime
Income Rider" in conjunction with LICS's SecurePlus Platinum plan.
Unlike Blisten's plan, this plan was registered. Krimbow alleges
that the plan's 403bCompare.com listing stated that the rider fee
would range from 0.65% to 0.75% of the account balance, but that
she was actually charged a fee of 0.90% for the rider. And Krimbow
clearly alleges that she incurred a fee for this rider that was
higher than the one listed on the website. Unlike with the plan
parameters, LICS does not argue that this fee does not fall within
the statutory definition. Krimbow has thus adequately pleaded that
she was charged a fee associated with a registered 403(b) product
that was not disclosed in violation of Section 25107. This
suffices to state a claim under the UCL's unlawful prong.
LICS argues that Krimbow has failed to plead an injury because
Krimbow does not allege that she used the 403bCompare website or
that the higher rider fee was not listed in her contract.
According to the Court, this argument misreads the statute. Under
Section 25107, if a fee is not disclosed on 403bCompare.com, a
vendor may not charge it. If Krimbow paid a fee that LICS was not
entitled to charge, this is an economic injury that provides
standing to pursue her UCL claim whether or not the fee was
disclosed elsewhere, the Court says.
LICS's motion to dismiss Krimbow's claim under the UCL's unlawful
prong is therefore denied, the Court rules. And because a
statutory violation can also serve as the basis for an unfair prong
claim, LICS's motion to dismiss the unfair prong claim is also
denied.
Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice is granted, LICS's request
for judicial notice is granted in part.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ztayLF
LOS ANGELES, CA: Park Facilities Violate ADA, Griffin Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY GRIFFIN, OLIVIA ALMALEL, R.S., by and through her guardian ad
litem, Matthew Struski, and COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT
AND FREE ("CALIF"), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:24-cv-06312
(C.D. Cal., July 26, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
ensure that its parks and park facilities are constructed, altered,
and maintained so that they are readily accessible to and usable by
people with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the City has failed and refused to
ensure that its newly constructed and renovated public park
facilities are readily accessible to and usable by persons with
mobility disabilities. The park facilities owned, operated,
controlled and/or maintained by the City are characterized by
multiple, pervasive, and hazardous physical access barriers. The
physical access in City parks include inaccessible entrances and
exits, inaccessible restrooms, inaccessible public buildings,
inaccessible and/or hazardous paths of travel within City parks,
inaccessible athletic fields, inaccessible picnic areas,
inaccessible playgrounds, and inaccessible or nonexistent parking
for people with mobility disabilities, the suit says.
As a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, the Plaintiffs
have been injured. These injuries are ongoing, and Plaintiffs are
certain to face the imminent threat of further injuries including
the denial of full and equal access to the City's parks and park
facilities, struggling with access barriers, physical exhaustion
and injuries, as well as isolation, segregation, humiliation,
hardship, anxiety, indignity and embarrassment, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of similarly situated persons with mobility
disabilities to redress the systemic and pervasive discrimination
against them by the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the
Defendant for violating the ADA, Section 504 and California
Government Code section 11135 and their accompanying regulations,
as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs under applicable law.
Ms. Almalel is a resident of the Northridge area of Los Angeles who
is paraplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility.
Los Angeles is the principal city of a metropolitan area of 13.2
million people in California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark Johnson, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
Andrew P. Lee, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-9800
Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
E-mail: ldardarian@gdbhlegal.com
alee@gbdhlegal.com
- and -
Jinny Kim, Esq.
Amelia Evard, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, Third Floor
Berkeley, California 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
E-mail: jkim@dralegal.org
aevard@dralegal.org
- and -
Paula Pearlman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
PAULA PEARLMAN
9610 Beverlywood Street
Los Angeles, CA 90034-1825
Telephone: (310) 558-4808
E-mail: pauladpearlman@gmail.com
MAK PHARMA: Bermudez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO BERMUDEZ, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. MAK PHARMA USA, LLC, and all other
affiliated entities and/or joint employers, and SNEHAL ANTANA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07737 (D.N.J., July 12,
2024), seeks recovery against Defendants for Defendants' violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law, and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative
Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
Plaintiff Bermudez was employed by Defendants full time as a
non-exempt line production worker for approximately one year, from
in or about mid-April, 2023, through in or about mid-May, 2024. He
generally worked approximately 76 hours per week, and regularly in
excess of 40 hours per week. However, he was improperly compensated
for all hours worked at his hourly rate of pay, says the
Plaintiff.
Mak Pharma USA, LLC operates as a contract co-packer, offering
services in contract packaging, commercial packaging, product
launches, services, primarily filling, secondary filling, among
others. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
MDL 3096: Addison Data Breach Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHERRI ADDISON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CROUSE HEALTH HOSPITAL,
INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-CV-782 (AMN/CFH), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on July 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-04854-RPK-LGD to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged data breach that occurred
between March 27, 2023, and May 2, 2023.
The Addison case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3096, IN RE:
PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION.
Crouse Health Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Crouse Hospital, is a New York
not-for-profit corporation headquartered at 736 Irving Avenue,
Syracuse, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com
MENDOCINO FARMS: Batres Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
EVER BATRES, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General, Plaintiff v. MENDOCINO FARMS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
24STCV17042 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 10, 2024) accuses
the Defendant of failing to comply with California Labor Code
requirements due to erroneous, willful and intentional employment
practices and policies that include failing to pay for all hours
worked and failing to properly calculate and pay sick leave wages.
Plaintiff Batres worked for Defendant during the statutory period,
earning at or near minimum wage, until February 2024. Among other
things, he and his coworkers have been regularly underpaid wages as
indicated on wage statements, says the Plaintiff.
Mendocino Farms, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
owns and operates a chain of restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
Hilary Silvia, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
MRO CORPORATION: Hudson-Swoope Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The case WENDY HUDSON-SWOOPE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. MRO CORPORATION (dba MEDICAL
RECORDS ONLINE, INC.), THE CLEVELAND CLINIC and THE CLEVELAND
CLINIC FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. CV-24-998704, was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 12,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-01183 to the proceeding.
The case asserts claims for Defendants' alleged violations of
Section 3701.741 of the Ohio Revised Code relating to the fees
chargeable to patients for providing copies of medical records. It
specifically asserts claims for unjust enrichment, conversion,
fraud, agency, and conspiracy.
Headquartered in Pennsylvania, MRO Corporation provides healthcare
data management solutions to healthcare providers. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Zbiegien Jr., Esq.
Daniel H. Bryan, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, OH 44114-2302
Telephone: (216) 241-2838
Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com
dbryan@taftlaw.com
- and -
David Smith, Esq.
Theresa E. Loscalzo, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
Philadelphia, PA, 19102
Telephone: (215) 575-7062
Facsimile: (215) 754-4603
E-mail: dsmith@dilworthlaw.com
tloscalzo@dilworthlaw.com
MUNICIPAL PARKING: Smiley DPPA Suit Removed to N.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AUDREY SMILEY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2024-CA-1613,was removed from the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County,
Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida on July 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-00320-TKW-HTC.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act.
Municipal Parking Services, Inc. is a parking management, public
safety, and communications company. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
4221 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
E-mail: kmccoy@carltonfields.com
- and -
Brooke Patterson, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33136
Telephone: (305) 530-0050
Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
E-mail: bpatterson@carltonfields.com
NOVO LLC: Cruz-Bello and Bello Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN CRUZ-BELLO and MARTIN BELLO, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated to them, Plaintiffs, v. NOVO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03061-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2024),
seeks for damages and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were hourly employees employed as cooks at various
intervals over the past three years at Defendant's restaurant.
Allegedly, the Defendant capped the number of hours each week that
it would pay an overtime rate to Plaintiffs and its other kitchen
employees.
Novo LLC owns and operates the Novo Cucina, a restaurant operated
by Defendant and located at 5592 Chamblee Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody,
GA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. McCabe, Esq.
Graham White, Esq.
THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 250-3233
Facsimile: (404) 400-1724
E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com
NRP FOOD: Correa Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------
BLANCA CORREA, on behalf of herself, Plaintiff v. NRP FOOD
SOLUTIONS LLC and NITIN PENDHARKAR, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05220 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and
the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act.
In or around January 2023, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to
work as a delivery driver. She was employed by Defendants until on
or about March 2024, when her employment with Defendants was
terminated due to retaliation. Throughout her employment, the
Plaintiff was not compensated overtime premium for all hours she
worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. Among other things,
the Plaintiff did not receive accurate wages statements.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks all applicable remedies under the law,
including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, says the suit.
Located at 1588 Williamsbridge Rd, Bronx, NY, NRP Food Solutions
operates as a food/grocery store that also provides catering
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NYC MEDICAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-05261
(E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website "Luxtailor.com" to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled
customers through their website. The Plaintiff has made an attempt
to visit and use Luxtailor.com. He tried to learn more information
about the goods and services offered by the company on June 10,
2024, but was unable to do so independently because of the many
access barriers on the Defendant's website, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
NYC Medical Practice provides to the public a website known as
Goalsplasticsurgery.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of plastic surgery services and cosmetic non-surgical
treatments which Defendant offers in connection with their physical
location.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Glasel Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA GLASEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80910 (S.D. Fla.,
July 26, 2024) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has caused multiple text
messages to be transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 7547. The Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stop
contacting her on May 22, May 23, May 24, May 26, June 3 and June
5, 2024. All stop requests were acknowledged but ignored by the
Defendant, the suit claims.
In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since May 3, 2018.
Accordingly, the Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused the
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages,
inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and
violation of their statutory privacy rights.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Office Depot is an American office supply retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
PACIFIC GAS: Garcia Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC
GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC24615226, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 10, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-04150 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company provides natural gas and electric
services to residential and business customers in northern and
central California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Facsimile: (925)946-9809
E-mail: jkienitz@littler.com
- and -
Douglas L. Ropel, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 830-7200
Facsimile: (916) 561-0828
E-mail: dropel@littler.com
- and -
HARMAN S. DEOL,
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
E-mail: hdeol@littler.com
PECO FOODS: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Harrison Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HARRISON, ALLAN CARSON, ARTHUR HUGHES, CRYSTAL HARGRAVE,
and KRISTI FEYJES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. PECO FOODS, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-01028-LSC (N.D.
Ala., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable
information of at least 48,170 individuals, including, personal
information an employer keeps for their employees, such as name,
date of birth, federal/state identification numbers, social
security number, financial information and/or other information
such as phone number, address, and email address.
Prior to and through December 4, 2023, Defendant obtained the PII
of Plaintiffs and Class Members, including by collecting it
directly from Plaintiffs and Class Members.
On or before May 23, 2023, the Defendant learned of a data breach
on its network that occurred on or around December 4, 2023 (the
"Data Breach"). The Defendant determined that, during the Data
Breach, a ransomware gang accessed and/or acquired the PII of
Plaintiffs and Class Members. On information and belief, a
ransomware gang has claimed responsibility for the attack and has
threatened to release the PII to the public.
On or around July 26, 2024, Defendant began notifying Plaintiffs
and Class Members of the Data Breach.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant
admits that the unencrypted PII was accessed and/or acquired by an
unauthorized actor. The Defendant collected the PII of Plaintiffs
and Class Members and stored it, unencrypted, on Defendant's
internet-accessible network, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on this sophisticated
Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained,
to use this information for business purposes only, and to make
only authorized disclosures of this information.
Peco Foods is a poultry producer in the United States and a fully
integrated grower, processor and marketer. Their corporate offices
are located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Peco employs individuals at its
plants and corporate offices in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Tortorici, Esq.
SCHELLECI & TORTORICI, P.C.
100 Centerview Dr., Ste. 205
Birmingham, AL 35233
Telephone: (205) 978-4211
E-mail: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery. Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail leigh@ellzeylaw.com
POTBELLY SANDWICH: Jones and Norman Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IARJAMANNI JONES and JAMES RUSSELL NORMAN, behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
POTBELLY SANDWICH WORKS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company;
SOUND SANDWICH, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-12991-0 SEA, was
removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
July 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01044 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of Washington's
Equal Pay and Opportunities Act.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC operates
as a fast-casual restaurant chain that focuses on sandwiches and
milkshakes. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Catharine M. Morisset, Esq.
Ryan Jones, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-2308
Facsimile: (206) 682-7907
E-mail: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com
rrjones@fisherphillips.com
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Jean Mary DPPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD JEAN MARY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL PARKING
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-007630, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and
for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on July 10, 2024
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:24-cv-61213-XXXX to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act.
Professional Parking Management Corporation is a parking management
firm based in Fort Lauderdale, FL. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason Domark, Esq.
Hayley H. Ryan, Esq.
COZEN O’CONNOR
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 397-0801
Facsimile: (305) 704-5955
E-mail: jdomark@cozen.com
hryan@cozen.com
RELIABLE GUTTERS: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Yocsales Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO YOCSALES, Plaintiff v. RELIABLE GUTTERS AND PAINTING, INC.,
a California corporation; NEHORAYAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, a limited
liability company; AMIR NEHORAYAN, an individual; and DOES 1
THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STC17097 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles
Cty., July 10, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover
attorney's fees, costs, and civil penalties pursuant to the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff started working as an installer and driver for
Defendant Reliable Gutters beginning in or around 2022. His
employment ended in or around the end of May 2023. Plaintiff was
considered a full-time, non-exempt employee throughout his
employment. However, the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff
and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the legally
required minimum wage for each hour worked. In addition, the
Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiff with daily, legally
mandated 30-minute meal periods, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Los Angeles, CA, Reliable Gutters & Painting, Inc.
manufactures and vinstalls seamless rain gutter systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur Sezgin, Esq.
Alisa Khousadian, Esq.
SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP
500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-1330
Facsimile: (818) 696-1331
E-mail: alisa@sklaw.legal
RENTERS WAREHOUSE: Hansen & Arquette Sue for Security Deposit Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hansen and Meghan Arquette, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Renters Warehouse, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02670-KMM-DLM (D. Minn., July 10, 2024)
arises out of Defendant Renters Warehouse's egregious conduct and
business practices and violations of Minnesota's security deposit
statute, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act and common
law unjust enrichment.
Allegedly, the Defendant retained amounts from Plaintiffs'
security deposits that resulted from ordinary wear and tear.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs and other tenants were caused harm and
actual damage by Defendant's breaches of MPCFA by having monies
unlawfully withheld from their security deposits, says the suit.
Renters Warehouse, LLC is a residential real estate management
company headquartered in Minnetonka, MN. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan D. Peterson, Esq.
PETERSON LEGAL PLLC
6600 France Ave S, Suite 602
Edina, MN 55435
Telephone: (612) 367-6568
E-mail: ryan@peterson.legal
- and -
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
Carter B. Lyons, Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
carter@consumerjusticecenter.com
RITE AID: Fails to Protect Customers' & Employees' Info, Judka Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA JUDKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Case caption, Case No.
2:24-cv-03381 (E.D. Pa., July 26, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and approximately
2.2 million other individuals' personally identifiable
information.
Rite Aid "determined by June 17, 2024, that certain data associated
with the purchase or attempted purchase of specific retail products
was acquired by the unknown third party. This data included
purchaser name, address, date of birth and driver’s license
number or other form of government-issued ID presented at the time
of a purchase between June 6, 2017, and July 30, 2018."
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Further, the Plaintiff and Class Members will incur
out-of-pocket costs to purchase adequate credit monitoring and
identity theft protection and insurance services, credit freezes,
credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect
identity theft, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other Class
Members, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of confidence, and for declaratory and injunctive relief.
To remedy these violations of law, the Plaintiff and Class Members
seek actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, and injunctive
and declaratory relief (including significant improvements to Rite
Aid's data security protocols and employee training practices);
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
bringing this action; and all other remedies the Court deems just
and proper.
The Plaintiff provided PII to Rite Aid in connection with
transacting with Rite Aid. On July 15, 2024, Rite Aid sent a letter
indicating that her information was impacted by the Data Breach.
Rite Aid is a Philadelphia-based, Fortune 500 drugstore chain that
operates more than 1,700 retail pharmacy locations across 16
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
SCIOLLA LAW FIRM, LLC
Land Title Building, Suite 1910
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (267) 328-5245
Facsimile: (215) 972-1545
E-mail: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com
SANTONI NORTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Santoni North America, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-052731
(E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
"Soccerpost.com" to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons,
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use antonishoes.com.
He tried to learn more information about the goods and services
offered by the company and buy loafers on June 26, 2024, but was
unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers
on Defendant’s website. These access barriers have caused
Santonishoes.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently
usable by blind and visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access
barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to learn more
information about store locations and hours of operation, compare
prices and benefits and learn more information about the goods and
services in its physical location, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Authentic Sport Specialty's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Santoni provides to the public a website known as Santonishoes.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of Italian shoes
and accessories which Defendant offers in connection with their
physical location.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
SAVE MART: Seeks to Revise Class Certification Briefing Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BAKER, et al.,
v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS and SAVE MART SELECT RETIREE HEALTH
BENEFIT PLAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order revising the class
certification briefing schedule to accommodate its ruling on the
Joint Statement and to allow Save Mart to reasonably complete
Declarant depositions before filing its opposition to class
certification.
Save Mart cannot effectively dispute the Plaintiffs' allegations in
support of class certification, based on purportedly "uniform and
consistent" misrepresentations, without deposing the Declarants.
This manifest risk of prejudice warrants continuing the briefing
schedule.
Finally, unlike Save Mart, the Plaintiffs cannot show that slightly
revising the class certification briefing schedule will
meaningfully prejudice them.
The Plaintiffs already filed their Certification Motion and an
extension would not shorten the time Plaintiffs will have to file a
reply brief.
Good cause exists to revise the class certification briefing
schedule pending this Court’s resolution of the parties’ Joint
Statement regarding the Declarants’ depositions, and,
subsequently, to allow Save Mart time to take those depositions
before filing its opposition to Plaintiffs’ Certification
Motion.
On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs served Rule 26(a) disclosures
identifying 25 third-party individuals they believed possessed
discoverable information.
On July 1, 2023, Save Mart served its first set of written
interrogatories and document requests.
On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification.
Save Mart is an American grocery store operator founded and
headquartered in Modesto, California.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DSSnzL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher W. Keegan, Esq.
Shayne H. Henry, Esq.
Michael B. Slade, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 439-1400
Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
E-mail: chris.keegan@kirkland.com
shayne.henry@kirkland.com
mslade@kirkland.com
SEABOARD FOODS: Antitrust Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John Tunheim
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action
settlement between consumer and institutional Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs And Seaboard Foods LLC.
The Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
("CIIPPs") seek the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement
of their claims against Seaboard Foods.
1. The CIIPPs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement with Seaboard Foods is granted.
2. Unless otherwise set forth herein, defined terms in this
Order
shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the
settlement
agreement between CIIPPs and Seaboard Foods ("Settlement
Agreement").
3. The Court has jurisdiction over this action and each of the
parties to the Settlement Agreement.
4. On March 29, 2023, the Court granted class certification,
certified CIIPP classes, and appointed Larson · King, LLP
and
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca as Co-Lead Class Counsel.
5. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are hereby
preliminarily
approved, including the release contained therein, as being
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the certified classes as
defined in the Settlement Agreement (the “Certified
Classes”),
subject to further consideration at the Court’s Fairness
Hearing. T
6. The definitions of the Certified Classes in the Settlement
Agreement are the same as those certified in the Court's
March
29, 2023 Order, except for the parties’ agreed revision of
the
"Damages Class" to add Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gCGjik at no extra
charge.[CC]
SECOND NATURE: Best Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISABETH BEST, JENNA
BUCKLEW, RACHEL IRIAS, and CASSANDRA STEPHAN on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. SECOND NATURE BRANDS,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01799-JMC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying the Class;
(2) requiring the Defendants to produce a list of every class
member, including the last known address, telephone number,
and
email address for each individual (as well as a complete
list
of every individual and property covered by the master
insurance policy);
(3) approving the form and content of, and direct the
distribution
of the proposed notice; and
(4) appointing Klaproth Law PLLC as Class Counsel.
Second Nature is a creator of snacks and treats.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1YzeBM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brendan J. Klaproth, Esq.
Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
2300 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 100A
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 618-2344
E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
SELLARS ABSORBENT: Court Adjourns Case Deadlines
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE BOERSCHINGER, v.
SELLARS ABSORBENT MATERIALS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01365-WED (E.D.
Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Duffin entered an order granting the
motion to adjourn case deadlines pending preliminary settlement
approval.
The deadlines set forth in the court's Feb. 6, 2024, scheduling
order are adjourned.
The deadline for filing the plaintiff's motion for conditional
class
certification is adjourned.
The parties shall file their joint motion for preliminary
settlement approval and supporting documentation no later than
Sept. 4, 2024.
Sellars is a manufacturer of shop towels, disposable wipers,
sorbents and converter of towel & tissue.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GSjVs7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHADE STORE: Bid to Dismiss Fitzgerald Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order denying the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff's reasoning and the parties seem to
agree that this claim sounds in fraud. Dismissal is not warranted.
Given the facts and legal claims of this case, the Court finds that
Defendants' standing arguments are better suited for determination
at the class certification stage and will defer a ruling at this
time.
The Shade Store argues that Plaintiff Lee Fitzgerald's claims
should be dismissed for failing to adequately allege damages and
for other certain reasons, and that Plaintiff's nationwide class
allegations should be dismissed for lack of standing.
The Plaintiff has filed an opposition. The Court has determined
that it can rule without the need of oral argument. For the reasons
stated below, the Court DENIES The Shade Store's Motion.
On Feb. 27, 2022, Plaintiff Fitzgerald purchased a set of cellular
shades from Defendant's website. She made this purchase while
living in Seattle, Washington. This purchase occurred during an
advertised sale. On Feb. 18, 2022, the Defendant stated on its
website that a "20% OFF ALL ORDERS" sale was running through the
date of Ms. Fitzgerald's purchase until "3/2." Defendant
represented that the list price of the Product that Ms. Fitzgerald
purchased was $640.00 and that Ms. Fitzgerald was receiving a
discount of $128.00. Defendant confirmed this in an email it sent
to Ms. Fitzgerald after she made her purchase. Ms. Fitzgerald
includes screenshots of all of this in her Complaint.
The Plaintiff alleges that The Shade Store "creates an illusion"
that customers are receiving a limited-time discount "by
advertising fake limited-time sales, fake regular prices, and fake
discounts based on the fake regular prices."
Shade Store makes, sells, and markets blinds, shades, and other
window covering products through its website,
www.theshadestore.com.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sDSibd at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHEET METAL: Settlement in Campa Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN CAMPA, v. BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS PENSION PLAN OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA; BENESYS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01760-MMC (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order preliminarily
certifying settlement class, preliminarily approving settlement,
directing notice, and setting fairness hearing; directions to
parties re: corrections in notice to class:
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7famOf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Keenley, Esq.
Emily A. Bolt, Esq.
Brian H. Kim, Esq.
BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP
2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517
Berkeley CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 225-0696
Facsimile: (510) 225-1095
SLAM TRUCKING: Guerrier Sues to Recover Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------
Philippe Guerrier, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SLAM TRUCKING, LLC, MARIC TRANSPORTATION CORP and DENIS
SAVITSKIY, Individually, Case No. 6:24-cv-01402 (M.D. Fla., July
30, 2024), is brought to recover minimum wage for all hours worked
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
The Defendants failed to pay the applicable minimum wage for all
hours worked. Specifically, Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff
with his last two paychecks totaling approximately Six Thousand
Eight Hundred Dollars ($6,800.00). In addition to Defendants'
failure to release Plaintiff's escrow funds to him in the amount of
Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). the Plaintiff estimates he is
owed a total of Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($8,800.00).
Plaintiff has repeatedly requested his unpaid wages and escrow
money from Defendants and to date he has not been compensated. The
Plaintiff has retained the services of Florin Gray and is obligated
to pay his legal counsel a reasonable fee for their services, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a full-time Truck
Driver.
Slam Trucking, is a Florida corporation authorized and doing
business in this Judicial District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Troy Longman II, Esq.
FLORIN | GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Phone (727) 220-4000
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
Email: wflorin@floringray.com
tlongman@floringray.com
SMG BFPL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bravo Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
MARIA BRAVO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMG BFPL INC (D/B/A PLAZA M SPA), SMG DUMBO
INC. (D/B/A PLAZA M SPA), MIN SONG, and STEPHANY KOO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05294 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2024) arises from
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a nail technician at
Plaza M Spa from approximately November 2019 until on or about
January 12, 2024. Throughout her employment with Defendants, the
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However,
he was not properly compensated for her overtime hours, says the
Plaintiff.
SMG BFPL, Inc. owns, operates, or controls spas located in New York
City and Brooklyn, NY, under the name "Plaza M Spa". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
SNOWFLAKE INC: Bobbitt Files Suit in D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Joshua Bobbitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Advance
Stores Company, Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-00071-JTJ (D. Mont.,
July 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Whipple Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS WHIPPLE, on behalf
of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program,
himself, and all others Similarly Situated, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT
LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04583-SAL (D.S.C.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for leave to
file the attached sur-reply addressing Plaintiff's unfounded
accusations of wrongful conduct, disingenuous claims of
typographical errors, new proposed class period beginning Sept. 11,
2017, and new arguments and materials in support of this newly
requested class period.
Southeastern submits this motion for leave to file a sur-reply in
response to the new arguments and to correct several
misrepresentations and material omissions in plaintiff's reply in
support of motion to certify class.
The Plaintiff conveniently omits several communications in an
attempt to disparage Defense Counsel and suggest there was some
agreement in place to expand the class period beyond what is
proposed in the Complaint and beyond what is supported by any facts
or allegations.
Southeastern Freight is a privately owned American less than
truckload (LTL) trucking company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G5wDY4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andreas N. Satterfield, Jr., Esq.
Rene E. Thorne, Esq.
Phillip C. Thompson, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
15 South Main Street, Suite 700
Greenville, SC 29601
Telephone: (864) 232-7000
E-mail: Andreas.Satterfield@jacksonlewis.com
Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com
Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Mills Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY MILLS, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated consumers, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00063-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a three-week
extension of the deadline to make expert disclosures from Aug. 1,
2024, to Aug. 22, 2024, with Defendant's deadline for expert
disclosures moved from Sept. 3, 2024, to Sept. 20, 2024, and the
rebuttal disclosure deadline moved from Sept. 18, 2024, to Sept.
27, 2024.
The Plaintiff also asks that the Court extend the deadline for him
to move for class certification from Aug. 9, 2024, to Sept. 30,
2024.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant these extensions and
set new deadlines for expert disclosures and the motion for class
certification.
The requested extensions will not affect the discovery deadline or
any other deadlines in the case.
Specialized Loan Servicing operates as a financial company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JOGfcI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Matthew Rosendahl, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
matt@kellyguzzo.com
SPEEDWAY LLC: Fails to Pay Cashiers' OT Wages Under FLSA & IMWL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEE JOHNSON, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) v. SPEEDWAY, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-06537 (N.D. Ill., July 26,
2024) seeks to recover all overtime wages owed to Sales Associate
Cashiers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
The lawsuit says that when SAC's work the "graveyard shift" they
are provided a shift premium which is added to their regular hourly
rate. However, this increased hourly rate is not factored into the
overtime premium calculated for SAC's when they work over 40 hours
in a workweek. The Defendant has intentionally and willfully failed
to compensate these SAC's proper overtime wages in one or more
workweeks during the past 3 years.
For example, when a SAC is ordinarily earning $15.00 per hour as
their regular hourly rate, the Defendant compensates the SAC $16.00
per hour for any hours worked during the "graveyard shift."
However, if the SAC works a "graveyard shift" in a workweek where
they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant only pays
the SAC $22.50 per hour for overtime hours without including the
$1.00 differential pay for hours worked during the "graveyard"
shift. The Defendant systematically and uniformly applies this pay
policy to all SAC's employed at any Speedway location its owns
and/or operates in the State of Illinois, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a SAC at its Summit,
Illinois, location from October 2023 through May 24, 2024.
The Defendant operates gas stations throughout the State of
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Patrick Solberg, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com
STAT COURIER: Submission of Expert Reports Extended to Nov. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN JEMISON, v. STAT
COURIER, INC. d/b/a ATM AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT &
DESIGN, AARON TOMCZAK, BRUCE TOMCZAK, and ARON PUPI, individually,
jointly and severally, Case No. 2:22-cv-01322-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting in part and
denying in part.
The Parties' Joint Rule 6(b) motion to extend deadlines:
1. The deadline for the parties to complete the ADR process is
extended to Oct. 3, 2024.
2. The deadline for the parties to complete the State Law
Putative
Class Certification phase of discovery is extended by 140
days
to Dec. 31, 2024.
3. The deadline for the parties' expert reports is extended by
90 days to Nov. 21, 2024.
4. The deadline for the depositions of class certification
experts
is extended by 90 days to Nov. 21, 2024.
5. The discovery deadline for Plaintiff's individual wrongful
termination claims is extended 90 days until Nov. 21, 2024.
6. The post-discovery status conference previously scheduled for
Aug. 26, 2024, is rescheduled to Jan. 6, 2024, at 1:30 PM.
The
parties are to refer to Docket No. 46 for dial-in
information.
STAT Courier offers a full range of courier services and
specializes in same-day courier deliveries.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PEXRum at no extra
charge.[CC]
STATE EMPLOYEES: Green Sues Over Non-compliance of Discharge Orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE RENA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00396-M (E.D.N.C., July 10, 2024) seeks
to enforce the Bankruptcy Court's discharge orders entered in favor
of the Plaintiff.
On October 14, 2019, Plaintiff Green filed a voluntary petition for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief and a proposed Chapter 13 plan in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Greenville Division. However, the Defendant has willfully
chosen not to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's orders and
numerous state remedial consumer protection statutes. Moreover,
Plaintiff has been damaged and now seeks monetary, declaratory, and
injunctive relief based on the Defendant's willful choice not to
comply with the Bankruptcy Court's orders. The Plaintiff seeks
damages for the same conduct under North Carolina state law.
State Employees Credit Union is an state-chartered credit union
headquartered in Raleigh, NC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik A. Martin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. ORCUTT
1738 Hillandale Road, Suite D
Durham, NC 27705
Telephone: (919) 286-1695
E-mail: emartin@lojto.com
- and -
Brent S. Snyder, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
STREAMLABS LLC: Leventhal Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZARA LEVENTHAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STREAMLABS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on Aug. 29, 2024, for entry of an
order:
(1) conditionally certifying the class for settlement and
appointing class counsel;
(2) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of this
litigation (the "Settlement");
(3) directing notice of the proposed Settlement to the Class
defined in the Settlement Agreement annexed as Exhibit A to
the
Declaration of Philip M. Black in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the
"Black
Decl."), submitted herewith; and
(4) setting a schedule for settlement proceedings, including
final
approval of the proposed Settlement.
After two years of litigation, the Parties have reached an
agreement to settle this Action on a class-wide basis. Pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will create a
$4.4 million common Settlement Fund to reimburse Class Members who
were allegedly deceived into enrolling in Defendant's "Streamlabs
Pro" automatic renewal subscription.
Settlement Class Members who submit a Valid Claim will receive a
payment for their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund, based
on the number of monthly payments they made to Streamlabs during
the period March 3, 2018, through May 17, 2022.
In sum, this straightforward Settlement enables those harmed by
Defendant’s allegedly unfair and deceptive business practices to
receive a meaningful recovery—up to a full refund.
If approved, the Settlement would offer monetary relief to the
following proposed Settlement Class: All Persons in the United
States who, during the period March 3, 2018, through May 17, 2022,
were enrolled in a Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal subscription
after adding a GIF or effect to their donation, and were then
billed a monthly fee for the subscription (after their first charge
for their initial GIF or effect).
Streamlabs is a software company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c0eJ71 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
- and -
Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
SUNRISE RESTAURANTS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Fellers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fellers v. Sunrise
Restaurants LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01225-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a
standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EnARrD at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUNRISE SENIOR: Class Settlement in Heredia Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUDREY HEREDIA, et al., v.
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01974-JLS-JDE
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order
conditionally granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement.
The Plaintiffs must submit a revised notice packet within ten (10)
days of this Order.
The Court sets a final fairness hearing for Nov. 8, 2024.
The Court finds this amended distribution methodology to be
reasonable, and to compensate Class Members fairly and adequately
in accordance with their proportional harm. This weighs in favor of
settlement approval
The lawsuit arises from Sunrise’s admissions contracts for its
assisted living facilities in California; Plaintiffs allege that
those contracts falsely represent the care services that residents
will receive and conceal the fact that facility staffing is
insufficient to address aggregate resident needs.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for elder financial abuse in violation
of California's Welfare and Institutions Code, as well as
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA")
and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
Some portions of Plaintiffs' Motion asks the Court to
"preliminarily certify" this Class, only for settlement purposes.
But because the Court has already certified a Class, there is no
need to recertify a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only.
Instead, the court amends its certification order to grant
certification to the following Class:
"All persons who resided at one of the Sunrise California
Communities at any time during the Class Period who contracted
with and paid money to Sunrise pursuant to a residency
agreement,
and whose claims are not subject to arbitration because: (1)
neither the Resident nor Resident's Responsible Party (as
defined
in the residency agreement) agreed to or accepted an
arbitration
provision in writing; or (2) if arbitration was initially
accepted, the Resident or Resident’s Responsible Party
provided
written notice of withdrawal within the 30-day period
prescribed
in the residency agreement."
Excluded from the Class are (i) Sunrise and any Sunrise
officers,
director, or employee; (ii) any Class Member (or their legal
successors) who submits a valid and timely Request for
Exclusion;
and (iii) the judge to whom this Action is assigned and
any members of such Judge's immediate family.
Sunrise removed the action to federal court on Jan. 29, 2018,
following late service of the Complaint. The action was then
transferred to the Central District of California and this Court on
Oct. 31, 2018.
Sunrise Senior provides older adults personalized care and
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JzLrK at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAMAYO PRODUCE: Cruz-Yau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tamayo Produce, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Bibiana Cruz-Yau, on behalf of
similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees v. Tamayo
Produce, Inc., Gloria R. Tamayo, Case No. 24STCV18867 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
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:
Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
MOORADIAN LAW, APC
24007 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 210
Calabasas, CA 91302-1432
Phone: 818-487-1998
Fax: 888-783-1030
Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
TAMKO BUILDING: Court OK's Melnick Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH
MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, AND SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO
BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-BGS (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Julie Robinson entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs cannot meet the typicality and adequacy requirements
under Rule 23(a), and the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). In
addition, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because the Plaintiffs are
effectively seeking monetary damages rather than injunctive or
declaratory relief. Finally, the Court denies the Plaintiffs'
request for an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) because the
Plaintiffs fail to adequately address the requirements and do not
demonstrate that an issue class would advance judicial economy.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Rule
23(b)(3):
"All individuals and entities that purchased and had installed
on
homes, residences, buildings or other structures physically
located in Connecticut, Ohio and Illinois TAMKO Heritage
shingles;
or that own homes, residences, buildings or other structures
physically located in Connecticut, Ohio and Illinois, on which
TAMKO Heritage shingles are or were installed.
The Class period is limited to Heritage shingles that were
purchased between Jan. 1, 2000 and November 30, 2004 (the
"Class
Period").
Excluded from the Class are (i) TAMKO and its affiliates,
subsidiaries, employees, and current and former officers,
directors, agents, and representatives; and (ii) members of
this
Court and its staff."
The Plaintiffs also seeks to certify the following 23(b)(2) class:
"All individuals and entities that own homes, residences,
buildings or other structures physically located in
Connecticut,
Ohio or Illinois on which TAMKO Heritage shingles purchased
between January 1, 2000 and November 20, 2004 are currently
installed. Excluded from the class are (i) TAMKO and its
affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, and current and former
officers, directors, agents, and representatives; and (ii)
members
of this Court and its staff.
The Plaintiffs -- a married couple, an individual, and a
corporation -- assert numerous claims against the Defendant
based
on allegations that Defendant's roofing shingles were defective
and failed prior to their expected or warrantied service life.
The Defendant manufactures asphalt roofing shingles.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Io9CAJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Exhibit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nguyen-Wilhite v.
Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to
file Exhibits 2, 5, 8 and 10 to the Declaration of John Soumilas
associated with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, as well
as portions of the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion.
The Plaintiff's counsel has met and conferred with Defendant’s
counsel on the matter, including providing in advance the list of
materials marked as confidential by Defendant that Plaintiff
intends to file in connection with the Motion for Class
Certification.
The Defendant has agreed to withdraw some confidentiality
designations, but indicated that the documents and information
covered by this motion should be filed under seal. Specifically,
Defendant indicated that the documents identified as Exhibit 2
(DEF0000208), Exhibit 5 (DEF0000019-20), Exhibit 8 (DEF0000070-72),
and Exhibit 10 (DEF0000164-173) should be filed under seal.
The Plaintiff makes this motion in compliance with Judge Rochon's
Individual Practices, Sec. 4.B.iii.(b) and paragraph 13 of the
protective order Because Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support
of the Motion quotes or otherwise reveals the contents of Exhibits
1, 5, 8, and 10, the Plaintiff also moves to seal the portions of
the Memorandum of Law that do so.
Pending the Court's ruling on this motion, the Plaintiff will file
redacted versions of the documents, and will provide unredacted
versions to the Court for review. Should the Court find that any of
the material referenced herein be publicly filed, Plaintiff will
promptly refile unredacted versions of same.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z0lMFH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUONG THU NGUYEN-WILHITE,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, certifying this action as a class action.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OvblE2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Kevin C. Mallon, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
kmallon@consumerlawfirm.com
TAQUERIA SAINT MARKS: Faces Apolinar Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANACLETO APOLINAR, on behalf of himself and all Other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAQUERIA SAINT MARKS PLACE INC.,
PHILLIP BARRAZA and ANDREA BARRAZA, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05304 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2024), arises out of Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from in or about
October 2022 through in or about February 2024. Throughout his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants failed to pay
him overtime for hours worked after 40 hours per week at the rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, says the
Plaintiff.
Taqueria Saint Marks Place Inc. is a domestic corporation that
operates a restaurant located at 79 St. Mark's Place, New York, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
TAYLOR CHIP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Forrest Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND FORREST, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. TAYLOR CHIP LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-05305 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
"cnbc.com," to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons,
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services it provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website. The Plaintiff browsed and intended
to make an online purchase of the Choose Your Own Cookies and The
Most Chocolatey on Taylorchip.com. However, unless the Defendant
remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and
Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate,
browse, use, and complete a transaction on Taylorchip.com. Because
Defendant's website, Taylorchip.com, is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Taylor
Chip's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the suit.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Defendant owns and operates Taylor Chip Stores, which are a
place of public accommodation.
Taylor Chip Stores provide to the public important and enjoyable
goods and services including a wide range of cookies, cakes, and
beverages, amongst the many products which are offered for sale at
the Stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Filing Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC and KINETICA
ENERGY EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order to continue the submission
date on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification from its
current setting of Aug. 7, 2024 until Aug. 21, 2024.
The Parties seek this brief continuance of the submission date on
the Plaintiff's Motion to allow the Parties to prepare and finalize
a proposed joint scheduling order on class certification for
submission to the Court.
The Parties have met and conferred to discuss the proposed
scheduling order and are working on preparing a joint submission to
the Court. Should the Parties fail to promptly reach agreement on a
proposed joint scheduling order, the Parties will alternatively
request a status conference with the Court to discuss the same.
Tennessee Gas provides gas transportation and storage services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pzlVee at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Swanson, Esq.
Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
H.S. Bartlett III, Esq.
Lance C. McCardle, Esq.
E. Blair Schilling, Esq.
Julie S. Meaders, Esq.
Isabel A. Englehart, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
sherman@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
tbartlett@fishmanhaygood.com
lmccardle@fishmanhaygood.com
bschilling@fishmanhaygood.com
jmeaders@fishmanhaygood.com
ienglehart@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Gladstone N. Jones, III, Esq.
Michael P. Arata, Esq.
Kevin E. Huddell, Esq.
John T. Arnold, Esq.
JONES SWANSON HUDDELL, L.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2500
Facsimile: (504) 523-2508
E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com
marata@jonesswanson.com
khuddell@jonesswanson.com
jarnold@jonesswanson.com
- and -
S. Jacob Braud, Esq.
BALLAY, BRAUD & COLON, PLC
81 l 4 Highway 23, Suite 101
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Telephone: (504) 394-9841
Facsimile: (504) 394-9945
E-mail: Jacob@NolaAttomeys.com
- and -
A.M. "Tony" Clayton, Esq.
Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
D'Ann R. Penner
CLAYTON, FRUGÉ, WARD & HENDRY
3741 La. Highway 1 South
Port Allen, LA 70767
Telephone: (225)344-7000
Facsimile: (225) 383-7631
E-mail: dpenner@claytonfrugelaw.com)
- and -
T. Taylor Townsend, Esq.
T. TAYLOR TOWNSEND, LLC
320 Saint Denis Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (318) 238-3612
Facsimile: (318) 238-6103
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard D. McConnell, Jr., Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
400 Convention Street, Suite 700
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 387-0999
E-mail: richard.mcconnell@keanmiller.com
- and -
Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
Claire E. Juneau, Esq.
Tyler Moore Kostal, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Gelpi, Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
909 Poydras Street, Suite 3600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 585-3050
E-mail: mike.phillips@keanmiller.com
claire.juneau@keanmiller.com
tyler.kostal@keanmiller.com
jeff.gelpi@keanmiller.com
- and -
Morgan J. Wells, Jr., Esq.
Evan J. Godofsky, Esq.
LARZERLERE PICOU WELLS SIMPSON
LONERO, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 500
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 834-6500
Facsimile: (504) 834-6565
E-mail: mwells@lpwsl.com
egodofsky@lpwsl.com
TERAWULF INC: Christman Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA CHRISTMAN, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. TERAWULF INC. and BEOWULF E&D (NY) INC., Case
No. 6:24-cv-06473 (W.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) seeks to recover
untimely wage compensation, injunctive relief, declaratory relief
and other damages for Plaintiff and similar hourly workers
including but not limited to: electricians, techs, operations and
maintenance workers, ("Manual Workers") who work or have worked as
Manual Workers for Defendants in New York State.
Plaintiff Joshua Christman worked as a Data Center Operator at
Defendants' Lake Mariner location in Barker, New York. Throughout
his employment, the Plaintiff and all other Manual Workers at Lake
Mariner spent more than 25% of their time performing duties that
were physical in nature and were therefore "manual workers" under
the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants own and operate a bit coin mining operation in New
York State -- Lake Mariner located in Barker, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cordello, Esq.
CORDELLO LAW PLLC
200 Anderson Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: (585) 967-7707
E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com
TERRACON CONSULTANTS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terracon Consultants,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Erik Rodriguez Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., TSVC Inc., Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008820 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
July 26, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Terracon -- https://www.terracon.com/ -- is a 100 percent
employee-owned consulting engineering firm providing quality
services to clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
Email: edwin@calljustice.com
TETHER LTD: Plaintiffs Can File Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset
Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-09236-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motions for:
(i) leave to file a second amended complaint, and
(ii) leave to file redacted versions of certain motion papers and
the Proposed Second Amended Complaint ("PSAC").
The Plaintiffs shall file the redacted versions of these materials
on or before July 8, 2024.
The Plaintiffs shall further file their Second Amended Complaint on
or before July 12, 2024, and may employ the same redacting
conventions that the Court has authorized for the PSAC.
Thereafter, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and to
submit proposed next steps, including a proposed deadline for the
filing of the Defendants' answer, a proposed schedule for the
remaining dispositive motions in this action, and the parties'
contemplated schedule for expert discovery.
The parties shall do so in a submission, not to exceed ten pages,
on or before July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
docket entries 479 and 539.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to file this Opinion and
Order under seal, viewable only to the parties and the Court.
Finally, the parties are ordered to submit, under seal, a joint
letter proposing redactions to this opinion on or before July 19,
2024.
Accordingly, having reviewed the disputed redactions to the PSAC,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ approach properly redacts the
Anonymous Trader's identifying information, while still ensuring
that the operative allegations of the PSAC are presented in open
court, and understandable to the public. It will therefore grant
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a redacted PSAC
The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, they each
purchased cryptocommodities at prices that had been artificially
inflated by Defendants' market manipulation, causing the Plaintiffs
to suffer economic losses and actual damages. Only one of the named
Plaintiffs, Pinchas Goldshtein, is alleged to have purchased
cryptocommodities futures, having done so between January 16, 2018,
and June 3, 2020.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants moved vast
quantities of debased USDT onto the market via an anonymous,
non-party trader (the "Anonymous Trader"), and in doing so,
artificially drove price increases in certain cryptocommodities.
Tether Limited is owned by the British Virgin Islands–based
company iFinex Inc., which also owns the Bitfinex cryptocurrency
exchange.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fDSEzh at no extra
charge.[CC]
THUY DIEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THUY DIEP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05353 (E.D.N.Y., July
31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.littlemoony.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase baby
clothing set (Casita Collection: Laura 2-piece Lounge Set Lavender
Florals). The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he
was looking for a clothing set for his child. Using keywords "Buy
Baby Clothes New York City" he wanted to find a clothing set made
from high-quality natural materials.
Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale
and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features
which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation
bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the
ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[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
TIKTOK INC: Griffith Suit Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order permitting them to file documents under
seal.
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2, the Plaintiffs submit this
application to the Court for an order sealing the materials
described below that are filed in connection with Plaintiffs' Reply
Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motion for Class
Certification.
The Plaintiffs seek to file completely under seal Exhibits 38-39
and 41-43 to the Declaration of Y. Gloria Park in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, as they are documents that
Defendants have designated CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY.
The Plaintiffs also seek to file partially under seal the following
documents, insofar as they contain references to material contained
in the sealed exhibit and other material that Defendants have
designated CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY:
Document or Portion Party Claiming Basis for Sealing
of Document Sought Confidentiality
to Be Sealed
Plaintiffs' Reply Defendants Refers to Material
Memorandum in Further Designated
CONFIDENTIAL
Support of Their Motion or ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY
for Class Certification by Defendants
pursuant
to the Protective
Order
Expert Reply Report of Defendants Refers to Material
Zubair Shafiq, Ph.D. in Designated ATTORNEYS'
Support of Plaintiffs' EYES ONLY by
Defendants
Motion for Class pursuant to the
Certification, dated Protective Order
July 26, 2024
Declaration of Russell Defendants Refers to Material
W. Mangum III, Ph.D. Designated
CONFIDENTIAL
in Support of Plaintiffs' or ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY
Reply in Support Motion by Defendants
pursuant
for Class Certification, to the Protective
Order
dated July 26, 2024
TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for
creating and sharing short mobile videos.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yqsN4r at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
Marc E. Masters, Esq.
Christopher J. Lee, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW,
LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM,
LLP
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com
mmasters@birdmarella.com
clee@birdmarella.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com
kwolke@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
Steven Sklaver, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Y. Gloria Park, Esq.
John W. McCauley, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
gpark@susmangodfrey.com
jmccauley@susmangodfrey.com
TOOL COMPONENTS: Borrego Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tool Components,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Borrego, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tool Components, Inc.,
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV18863 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2024).
Tool Components, Inc. doing business as TCI Precision Metals --
https://tciprecision.com/ -- has been providing precision metal
machining and parts to businesses for decades.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
149 Sheldon Street
El Segundo, California 90245
Phone: (424) 290-3095
Fax: (866) 264-7880
Email: carlos@protectionlawgroup.com
TOUS USA: Faces Lafont Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA LAFONT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TOUS USA, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01373 (M.D.
Fla., July 26, 2024) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its goods and services, in part, by sending unsolicited
text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
The Defendant has allegedly caused multiple text messages to be
transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
2629. The Plaintiff first asked the Defendant to stop contacting
her on Jan. 19, 2024 but the Defendant continued to send her text
messages on January 29, January 30, February 19, March 19, 2024 and
April 15, 2024. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since
March 20, 2024, the suit says.
Accordingly, the Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused the
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages,
inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and
violation of their statutory privacy rights. Further, the
Defendant's text message spam caused the Plaintiff and the Class
members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion. The Defendant's text messages also
occupied storage space on Plaintiff’s and the Class members'
telephones.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of the
Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies.
Tous is a jewelry store in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
TRIPLE CROWN: Ankem Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
AMULYA ANKEM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. TRIPLE CROWN PIZZA, INC., and THOMAS S.
REYNOLDS, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00405-CRS (W.D. Ky.,
July 12, 2024), arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January
2019 to May 2023 as a delivery driver at Defendants' store located
in Prospect, KY. Allegedly, the Defendants use a flawed method to
determine reimbursement rates. The method provides such an
unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or
all workweeks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime hours owed to herself and similarly
situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's
stores.
Triple Crown Pizza, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's
franchise stores in Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson S. Beridon, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL PLLC
600 Vine Street, Suite 2720
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com
UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Hearing in Malone Set for August 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua
Wolson entered an order that the Parties shall appear for a hearing
as to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification at 10:00 a.m. on
Aug. 13, 2024, in Courtroom 12B of the United States Courthouse at
601 Market Street, Philadelphia.
While the Parties shall be prepared to discuss all of the issues
raised in the briefing, I plan to focus my questions on the Motor
Carriers Act exemption and the arbitration agreements. BY THE
COURT:
United Parcel delivers packages and documents.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8Dq8z at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Court Narrows Claims in Wynn Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY WYNN, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-06044-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss with
leave
to amend in part; and
-- granting in part and denying in part motion to strike class
allegations with leave to amend.
1. Defendant's motion for judicial notice is denied as to
Exhibits
7–11, which correspond to collective bargaining
agreements.
Defendant's motion is granted as to the other exhibits (1–6
and
12–15).
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim One is granted with leave
to
amend. Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's class
allegations for Claim One is denied as moot.
3. Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Two is granted in part
and
denied in part with leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to
strike Plaintiff's class allegations for Claim Two is granted
with leave to amend.
4. Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Three is granted without
leave to amend. Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's
class
allegations for Claim Three is denied as moot. Any amended
complaint shall be filed no later than 30 days from the entry
of
this order. The Plaintiff may only amend consistent with this
order. No additional claims or parties may be added without
leave of the Court.
Defendant does not dispute, and the Court agrees, that the CBAs are
not at issue because they were not in effect during Plaintiff’s
employment. Thus, the court denies Defendant's request for judicial
notice as to Exhibits 7–11, and grants Defendant's request for
judicial notice as to Exhibits 1–6 and 12–15.
The Plaintiff's claims stem from her brief employment with UPS. The
Plaintiff alleges she "worked for Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee at all times during the applicable statutory
period from approximately Nov. 4, 2020, through approximately March
28, 2021."
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pqGc7v at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEVELOPMENT LTD, and WBFS
CORP d/b/a LOS CHINGONES MEXICAN GRILL, Case No. 1:24-cv-22913
(S.D. Fla. July 31, 2024) is a class action alleging that
Defendant's commercial property and commercial restaurant and bar
business located within the commercial property to be rife with
Americans with Disabilities Act violations.
The Plaintiff contends that he encountered architectural barriers
at the commercial property and Commercial restaurant and bar
business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The action seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, et seq.
ADA.
The Plaintiff is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a
residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui
juris.[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
E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition in LNP by Sept. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P. on his own behalf
and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P. and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, and
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nachmanoff entered an order
granting the consent motion for an extension of time and proposed
briefing schedule and consolidated hearing date.
a. The Defendants shall file any opposition to Sept. 17,
2024
the Motion for Class Certification by:
b. the Plaintiffs shall file any reply on or Oct. 8, 2024
before:
c. The hearing on the Class Certification Nov. 15,
2024
Motion shall be held on and noticed for:
The United States Social Security Administration is an independent
agency of the U.S. federal government that administers Social
Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement,
disability and survivor benefits.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aCZkAC at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA: Sangster Seeks Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW SANGSTER, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH DAKOTA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00043-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) conditionally certifying the FLSA Collective defined as:
"All persons who are, have been, or will be employed by the
Defendant as Flight Instructors and other individuals with
similar job titles in Grand Forks, North Dakota at any time
during the last three years through the entry of judgment in
this case";
(2) directing the Defendant to identify all putative FLSA
Collective members who worked for the Defendant during the
last
three years and continuing through the final judgment in
this
matter;
(3) directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff a
computer-
readable Excel data file containing the names, addresses,
dates
of employment, job title(s), e-mail addresses, and telephone
numbers for each such current or former FLSA Collective
member
within ten (10) days after the Court's Order; and
(4) directing the issuance by mail, e-mail, and text message of
the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent Form, attached
as
Exhibit 9 to the contemporaneously filed Memorandum in
Support
of this Motion, to each such FLSA Collective member, along
with
a reminder notice about 15 days prior to the close of the
60-
day opt-in period.
In this case, Plaintiff easily meets this lenient first step,
notice standard. No discovery has occurred as of the date of this
Motion; seven Flight Instructors have already opted into this case.
The the Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify a narrow FLSA
Collective which consists of employees who performed one job,
Flight Instructor, at one location, UND Grand Forks flight school.
The Plaintiff supports his Motion with ample evidence including
eight declarations which far surpasses the first step, lenient
standard. Thus, this Court should conditionally certify this case
and immediately order notice issue.
UND allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay its Flight
Instructors for all hours worked. Instead, UND paid Flight
Instructors only for "student contact time" worked – time which
UND could bill to its flight students.
The University of North Dakota is a public research university in
Grand Forks, North Dakota.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jgBYl2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 766-5585
Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
www.rmlegalgroup.com
UNO RESTAURANT: Tassoni Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uno Restaurant
Holdings Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Frank Tassoni,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uno
Restaurant Holdings Corporation, UR of Attleboro, LLC, Case No.
2473CV00528 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., July 26, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
Uno Restaurant Holdings Corporation operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, retails appetizers, soups
and side salads, pasta, chicken, steak, seafood, thin crust pizza,
deep dish pizza, burgers, sandwiches, salads, desserts, beer and
wine, cocktails, and party platters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch St.
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: (508) 872-1261
US CITIZENSHIP: Class Settlement in Perez Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bianey GARCIA PEREZ, Maria
MARTINEZ CASTRO, J.M.Z., Alexander MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves as individuals and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Ur JADDOU,
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; EXECUTIVE
OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; Mary CHENG, Acting Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Case No. 2:22-cv-00806-JHC
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order certifying
the following class and subclasses, and appointing the following as
class counsel:
Class:
"All noncitizens in the United States who have filed or will
file
with USCIS or EOIR a complete Asylum Application and who would
be
eligible foremployment authorization under 8 C.F.R.
274a.12(c)(8)
but for the fact that their Asylum EAD Clock was stopped or not
started prior to 180 days after the date the noncitizen filed a
complete Asylum Application."
Remand Subclass:
"Class members whose Asylum EAD Clocks were or will be stopped
following a decision by an Immigration Judge and whose Asylum
EAD
Clocks are not or will not be started or restarted following an
appeal in which either the BIA or a federal court of appeals
remands their case for further adjudication of their asylum
and/or
withholding of removal claims."
"Unaccompanied Children Subclass:
"Class members in removal proceedings who are unaccompanied
children ("UCs") pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 279(g) and whose
Asylum
EAD Clocks are not started or will be stopped while waiting for
USCIS to adjudicate the filed Asylum Application."
Change of Venue Subclass:
"Class Members in removal proceedings whose removal proceedings
have been or will be transferred to a different Immigration
Court
through a granted change of venue motion, and for whom EOIR has
stopped or will stop the Asylum EAD Clock based solely on the
change of venue."
Class Counsel:
Matt Adams Leila, Esq.
Kang Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project 615 2nd Ave Ste 400
Seattle, WA 98104
- and -
Trina Realmuto, Esq.
Mary Kenney Kristin, Esq.
Macleod-Ball National Immigration Litigation Alliance
10 Griggs Terrace
Brookline, MA 02446
U.S. Citizenship is an agency of the United States Department of
Homeland Security that administers the country's naturalization and
immigration system.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GSNDDw at no extra
charge.[CC]
VAQUERO ENERGY: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vaquero Energy, Inc.
The case is styled as Armando Lopez, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vaquero Energy, Inc., Case No. BCV-24-102533
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 29, 2024).
The case type is stated "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Vaquero Energy Partners -- http://www.vaqueroenergy.com/-- are a
family-owned business that has been providing high-quality oil and
gas services to our clients for over 20 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
Andrew Sandoval, Esq.
Aram Boyadjian, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
aboyadjian@wilshirelawfirm.com
jbils@wilshirelawfirm.com
VERENCA INVESTMENTS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. VERENCA INVESTMENTS INTERNATIONAL
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-22882 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2024) is an
action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses,
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit asserts that 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 in it.
The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and
businesses located within the commercial property, and encountered
multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability
to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. The barriers to access
have allegedly posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and
discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. He
plans to return to the Commercial Property within two (2) months of
the filing of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the
goods and services offered at the place of public accommodation and
check if it has been remediated of the ADA violations he
encountered.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
The Defendant owns and operates a commercial property at 426 SW 8th
Street, Miami, Florida and conducts a substantial amount of
business in that place of public accommodation in Miami Dade
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
VISION OF HOPE: Calvache Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
JENNIE CALVACHE, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff V. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC. AND FAITH
CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:24-cv-00053 (N.D.
Ind., July 10, 2024) arises out of Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Calvache began working for Defendants as an "intern" in
approximately July 2021. The work furnished by "interns" directly
replaced the work of paid employees. The Plaintiff and those
similarly situated were required to work schedules of between 53
and 62 hours per week. However, the Defendants maintained a policy,
pattern, practice, or plan by which Calvache and those similarly
situated were not paid at least one-and-one-half times their
regular hourly rates for hours in excess of 40 in single workweeks,
says the suit.
Based in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, Hope Ministries, Inc. is an
Indiana non-profit corporation that operates a residential
treatment center for women. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Ramsland, Esq.
RAMSLAND LAW LLC
880 Monon Green Blvd, Suite 101.32
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone: (765) 267-1240
E-mail: jason@rams.land
VOODOO ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Guthrie & North Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER GUTHRIE and SHANE NORTH, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VOODOO
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; and KYLE GREEMON, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
4:24-cv-2585 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2024) seeks for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Guthrie and North were employed by Defendants as
salaried pump supervisors. They regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendants. However,
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other salaried pump
supervisors 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for hours worked
over 40 each week. Instead, the Plaintiffs were misclassified by
Defendants as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
were paid a salary.
Defendant VooDoo Energy Services, LLC is a for-profit, domestic
limited liability company that provides specialty pumping and fluid
hauling services for completion and production activities
throughout the Haynesville Shale, Eagle Ford Shale, Permian Basin
and Mid-Continent. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bhaila Sues Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
RIZWAN BHAILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., TIMOTHY C.
WENTWORTH, MANMOHAN MAHAJAN, and RICK GA, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05907 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2024) seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
Plaintiff Bhaila brings this federal securities class action on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Walgreens securities between October 12, 2023 to June 26, 2024,
inclusive. Throughout this period, Defendants allegedly provided
investors with overwhelmingly positive statements that caused
Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Walgreens' securities
at artificially inflated prices. However, the Defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of
Walgreens' pharmacy division; notably, that it was not truly
equipped to handle the ongoing challenges in its industry and that
Walgreens would require significant restructuring to create a
sustainable model, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Deerfield, IL, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a
global company that delivers retail and pharmacy, and healthcare
services across the United States, Europe, and Latin America. The
company's common stock traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the
symbol "WBA." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Telephone: (630) 333-0333
E-mail: peter@l-a.law
patrick@l-a.law
- and -
Terrence Buehler, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
417 North Marion Street
Oak Park, IL 60302
Telephone: (312) 371-4385
E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
WALT DISNEY: Fact Discovery in Thompson Due Jan. 20, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott Thompson, et al. v.
The Walt Disney Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-09441-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part as
set
forth in this Order.
2. Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses
and/or parties shall be lodged/filed no later than Oct. 21,
2024, failing which it shall be deemed that party's waiver of
any such amendments in this action. All "Doe" defendants are
to
be identified and named on or before Oct. 21, 2024, on which
date all remaining "Doe" defendants will be dismissed, unless
otherwise ordered by the court upon a showing of good cause.
3. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 20,
2025.
4. All expert discovery shall be completed by April 7, 2025. The
parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures
no
later than Feb. 3, 2025. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures
shall be served no later than March 5, 2025.
5. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before
a
private mediator no later than Jan. 20, 2025.
6. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later
than
May 7, 2025, and noticed for hearing regularly under the
Local
Rules.
7. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment,
trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial
filings after the resolution of the motion for class
certification.
Walt Disney is an American multinational mass media and
entertainment conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s1WPUZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
WASHLAND LLC: Gervacio Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAURILIA GERVACIO DE LOS ANGELES, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. WASHLAND LLC (D/B/A WASHLAND), JOSEPH
WALTER GIAIMO, and PATRICIA LOUISE RICKETTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-05749
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that she worked.
Plaintiff Gervacio employed as a laundry service clerk at the
Defendants' laundromat.
The Defendants own, operate, or control laundry service, located at
794 9th Avenue, New York City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
WEST MARINE: Fails to Pay Accumulated Paid Time Off, Herzstein Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Herzstein, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. West Marine Products, Inc., a
Florida Corporation Registered in California and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 5:24-cv-04547 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2024) alleges that
the Defendant failed to pay the employees that had accumulated paid
time off on their books for the paid time off they had earned up to
Jan. 1, 2021.
On Jan. 1, 2021, the Defendant changed to an unlimited paid time
off plan. However, the Defendant failed to compensate the employees
for the paid time off they had accumulated up until January 1, 2021
when they switched over to the unlimited paid time off plan.
Instead the Defendant subtracted the paid time their employees had
accumulated and earned when they took time off after they switched
over to an unlimited paid time off policy on Jan. 1, 2021. When Mr.
Herzstien started at the Defendant, he accumulated paid time off at
approximately six hours every two weeks. The Defendant allowed all
employees to accumulate paid time off on a bi weekly basis, says
the suit.
This is a Class Action on behalf of non-exempt employees paid on an
hourly basis plus bonuses and commissions employed by the Defendant
throughout California.
The Plaintiff, individually and as representative plaintiff on
behalf of persons similarly situated, seeks damages in the form of
lost wages, and reimbursement of business-related expenses. The
Plaintiff also seeks waiting time and paystub penalties, expenses,
interest and liquidated damages, restitution of wages for himself
and other similarly situated employees of the Defendant.
Mr. Herzstein was employed by the Defendant from February 2015
until his resignation on Dec. 22, 2023.
West Marine retails recreational and commercial boating supplies
and apparels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Dal Bon, Esq.
WISDOM LAW GROUP APC
1675 The Alameda No. 207
San Jose, CA 95126
Telephone: (408) 915-3700
E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.net
YARDI SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Placeholder Bid for Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA LAFLEUR and
MICHAEL GROSE SR., Ohio residents, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, v. YARDI
SYSTEMS Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01262-PAB
(N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their "placeholder" motion for class certification to
protect against any potential attempt by the Defendant to moot
their claims through the tendering of individual relief.
In other words, Plaintiffs file this motion to prevent a "pick-off"
of their claims. The Plaintiffs also submit their accompanying
brief in support.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court allow this "placeholder"
motion for class certification to remain pending to protect against
any alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court’s
decision in Campbell-Ewald.
The proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(2),
(b)(3), and (g). The Plaintiffs request that following discovery
and further briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint
Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs'
attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiffs will file its memorandum
of law in support of its Motion after Rule 23 discovery has been
completed. The parties need to meet and confer and propose a
discovery schedule with this Court and Plaintiffs respectfully
request a status conference with the Court as soon as practicable
to set a discovery schedule on the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion.
In sum, Plaintiffs seek to maintain this placeholder motion for the
same back-up protection the plaintiff enjoyed in Wilson. Plaintiffs
ask the Court to stay briefing pending completion of discovery
The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:
"All current and former Ohio residents who are not subscribers
to
Yardi's PropertyShark platform and whose name, voice,
signature,
photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, and/or
identity is incorporated in property reports or owner search
results used to market individual reports or paid subscriptions
for the platform."
Yardi Systems offers management software and client support
services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PVnjuA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are 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
ZELLA HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ZELLA HEALTH LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05792
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) alleges that Zella failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff’s
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://zellahealth.com,
including all portions thereof or accessed, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant operates the Zella online interactive Website and
retail store across the United States. This online interactive
Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation
because it is a sales establishment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
*********
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 ***